Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 04 2018 Code Enforcement, Fire Station 1 Parking Lot, Park Master Plan RFP Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 4, 2018 AGENDA #: A, B, C AND D PREPARED BY: FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER PRESENTED BY: VARIOUS AGENDA ITEM: A.2017 YEAR END CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT; B. STATUS REPORT ON FIRE STATION 1 DRIVE/PARKING LOT REPLACEMENT; C. STATUS REPORT ON REVISED PARK MASTER PLAN RFP AND; D. EMERGING ISSUES. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the city council with information about the above topics to facilitate the work session discussion. TOPICS: A) 2017 YEAR END CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT Annually the city council receives a report from staff regarding our code enforcement experience last year. In previous years, this report has been included as a presentation in the regular city council meeting agenda. This year we thought we would incorporate it into the work session to facilitate discussion should the city council desire. For preperation purposes the city council may wish to review the agenda report and PowerPoint Presentation that Dale Stefenisko has prepared as agenda item 5J. During the course of Dale’s presentation or thereafter, the city council may wish to entertain the following questions: 1. The single largest category of complaints is tall grass (170). Current city code allows grass up to 12 inches in height. Recognizing that any reduction would increase the number of complaints initially, should a lower standard be considered? 2. Property maintenance is the second largest category of complaints (128). These are some of the most difficult areas to correct as property owners who do not maintain their property tend to be habitual and correct often occurs after one or more court visits. Should the staff examine the existing code on this topic to improve enforcability if possible. 3. A fairly small number of complaints (47) are for repeat violators. The ordinance presumes that repeat violators be treated the same as first time violators. Would the city council consider more aggressive treatment or fees levied against them in an effort to further reduce that number by discouraging recitavism. 2 4. As the annual report shows, only $4,380 in fees due to code enforcement actions. Our personnel costs (wages,contributions and benefits) exclusive of vehicle, office, court/legal costs and supplies for 2017 was about $115,000. Is this an area the city council would support the establishment of a fee system since every year the vast majority of residents are paying the cost for the few (about 600) who choose not to act in accordance with our code guidelines. 5. Are there any other code enforcement areas areas the city council would like to discuss? B) FIRE STATION #1 BITUMINOUS STATUS REPORT Fire Station #1 was constructed in 1995 which was 23 years ago. The bituminous surface acts as a drive aisle for our fire trucks which represent some of the heaviest equipment on the road. In excess of 800 times each year one or more fire trucks enters and exits the site. The remaining area is divided between public and firefighter ingress, egress and parking. When the original bituminous was installed, it was not done to city street standards. The bituminous and the concrete curbs have deflected badly especially in the drive aisle areas. Therefore the Capital Improvement Program contains $365,791 for complete replacement. Bids will be solicited in the next week. Because of the extent of the damage and the fact that we anticipate installation to a 7 ton standard in the parking areas and a 10 ton standard in the drive aisles, the cost is more likely to be $425,000. It is our intent to utilize funds in the facility management fund which remain available because the costs of other improvements, most notably the SCBA’s was less than budgeted. An additional option would be to utilize the funds in the 2018 budget for carpet replacement at Fire Station 1 and push out the carpet replacement to a future year. The staff would like to respond to any questions the city council may have on this subject. C) PARKS MASTER PLAN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL(RFP) As the city council is aware, the staff prepared an RFP for the Parks Master Plan. Two proposals were received which were dramatically different both in content and in price. The city council directed that the staff meet with the two proposers to identify what may have happened. After some discussion the staff realized that the RFP could be refined and re- distributed. 3 We have reviewed and made the following changes to the RFP: 1. We have defined the steps in the study and the order in which they should be taken. 2. For each study step the proposer is to identify which employees and how many hours are to be devoted to that step. 3. The RFP explicitly states that the city reserves the right to include or exclude steps as it sees fit. 4. An all proposer meeting is scheduled so that the staff can share its vision of the project and to allow the vendors to ask any questions they may have. 5. A list of stakeholders is included to reduce the likelihood that the proposal price will vary significantly due to differing assumptions of who and how many they will need to contact. 6. Deliverables were added, most notably the calculation of new park dedication fees as the last step in the study. 7. The RFP specifically indicated that, taken together the deliverables will consistute the Park and Trail Chapter of the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and that no modifications should be necessary by the staff. We debated including an expected dollar amount for proposals but dropped the idea because we believe that the revised RFP together with the meeting will bring consistency to vendor understanding of the RFP and therefore the costs thereof. This work should get underway for at least three reasons. Various groups like those interested in Pickleball have been put on hold pending the results of this study. It is also important that the citizen engagement portion of this project be underway sometime during the summer so we can capture the input of the maximum number of stakeholders. Finally while we have requested an extension for submission of our 2040 Comprehensive plan until 12/31/2019, the anticipated completion date for this study is only six months before that deadline. We have e-mailed the revised RFP to four vendors requesting that they confirm receipt. We hope that all four will submit proposals. We would be glad to respond to any questions the city council may have. D) EMERGING ISSUES I am not aware of any issues that council members may want to raise but this would be the time.