Loading...
112408 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SOUTHSHORE CENTER MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Bailey Wellens B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 10, 2008 (Att. -Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 (Att.- Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Property and Liability Insurance Renewal (Att. -Finance Director's memorandum) C. Awarding the 2008 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) D. Awarding the 2009 Storm Pipe Replacement Project (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) E. Certificate of Achievement Award (Att. -Finance Director's memorandum) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation by Chief Judge James T. Swenson B. Presentation by Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) representative (Att. LMA Reports) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -NOVEMBER 24, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS A. Report on the November l 8, 2008 Park Commission Meeting by Commissioner Jeremy Norman B. RFP for Consulting Park Planning Services (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) C. Approve Changes to the Park Priority Policy (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. C.U.P. For Telecom Facilities (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum; Resolution) Applicant: Telecom Transport Management, Inc. Location: SE Area Water Tower - 5500 Old Market Road B. C.U.P. For Telecom Facilities (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum; Resolution) Applicant: Telecom Transport Management, Inc. Location: Minnewashta Water Tower - 26352 Smithtown Road C. Preliminary Plat -Brookwood (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum; Resolution) Applicant: Synergy Land Co. (Brent Hislop) Location: Appx. 6 ac. between Strawberry Ln and Cathcart Dr 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Hennepin County Levy Discussion B. Authorize Sale of Tax-Forfeited Land to Adjoining Landowners (Att. -Administrator's and Plamling Director's memoranda; Draft Resolution) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Illicit Discharge Ordinance Discussion 2"d Draft (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. City Hall Construction Update 2. Ron Johnson Easement Update 3. Water Tower Report 4. Comprehensive Plan Schedule B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, November 24, 2008 5:00 P.M. -Executive Session (Dinner will be provided for Council) 6:00 P.M. -Council Work Session Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: The City's property and liability insurance is provided through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), and it's time to renew the insurance coverages. Overall, the premiums total approximately $106,000, compared to the $121,000 budgeted. The Council also needs to decide whether to waive the statutory limits on claims, and the Council has chosen consistently to follow recommendations not to waive these limits. Staff recommends approval of the property and liability insurance renewal with the LMCIT and not to waive statutory limits on claims. Agenda Item #3C: Staff received one quote for the Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Later Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting project. Eight firms were sent invitations to quote. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution that accepts the quote for the project and awards the contract to Infratech not to exceed $50,000. Agenda Item #3D: Staff received two quotes for the storm pipe replacement project. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution that accepts the quote for the project and awards the contract to E. J. Mayers, Incorporated not to exceed $20,000 Agenda Item #3E: The City of Shorewood has just received notification that it once again has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Only 282 cities with populations under 10,000 received the award for 2007. There are about 32,070 municipalities nationwide with populations under 10,000, so less than 1 % (.88%) qualified to receive the prestigious award; Shorewood was in this group. Agenda Item #SA: Hennepin County Chief Judge James T. Swenson will be present this evening to introduce himself and the Hennepin County Court system. Agenda Item #SB: Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) Representative will provide an update on the milfoil issue. .~ r-~A PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of November 24, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Item #7A: Park Commissioner Jeremy Norman will report on the November 18, 2008 Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #7B: The Park Commission recommends approval of the Request for Proposals for Consulting Services to provide insight and analysis of the Shorewood park system. Agenda Item #7C: The Park Commission reviewed options for the Tennis Court reservation issue and recommends approval of amendments to the Park Priority Policy to address for- profit groups reserving court time. Agenda Item #8A: TTM's request for a conditional use permit to place a microwave dish on the top of the SE Area Water Tower was continued, at the applicant's request, from the 27 October Council meeting. They have reduced the number of antennae to one and requested a reduction in the City's current tower space lease rate. After researching the matter, staff has recommended that the City maintain its current lease rate $1500 per month. This is not acceptable to TTM and they will attempt to make the case for a reduced rate at Monday night's meeting. A draft resolution and Tower Space L ease Agreement are included in your packet. It should be noted that staff's research included a look at what other cities do relative to leasing ground space. While a couple of cities (with rather complex rate schedules) impose a small fee for the ground equipment space, most include it in with the tower rent. Staff recommends that our current rate schedule be limited to tower space, especially since the enclosure area is already established. Agenda Item #8B: TTM, Inc. has requested a conditional use permit to locate four microwave dish antennae on the stem of the Minnewashta Water Tower. With the exception of the number and location of antennae, this request is similar to the SE Area request, except TTM is not requesting reduction in the lease rate. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. A draft resolution and tower lease agreement is included in your packet. Agenda Item #8C: Brent Hislop has requested approval of a preliminary plat to divide a 5+ acre parcel that lies between Cathcart Drive and Strawberry Lane into two lots. This is quite similar to the Petron case that was approved last month, except that in this case a new building site is being created. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to staff recommendations. Staff should be directed to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next Council meeting. Agenda Item #9A: This is a discussion item regarding the proposed Hennepin County HRA Levy. Information on this topic was emailed earlier to Council. Agenda Item #9B: This item was discussed at the November 10 Council meeting; Staff has provided an update regarding the a small (3700 square feet) parcel of land located on the west side of Howard's Point Road has been listed as tax-forfeited. Staff recommends that the property be auctioned to adjoining property owners, since both adjoining lots are substandard and would be improved by the addition of the subject parcel. A resolution to that effect is included in your packet for your consideration. Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of November 24, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item #10A: One ordinance is proposed for discussion under this item. This ordinance would amend Chapter 905 of the City Code and is an addition to the Stormwater Utility code to include an illicit discharge restriction. The ordinance is required under the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Staff recommends discussion and direction on the proposed ordinance for adoption in December 2008. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2008 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTHSHORE CENTER 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Also present: Councilmember Elect Zerby Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Bailey seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. ENTERPRISE BUDGET DISCUSSION Director Burton stated Council had been provided with the next draft of the 2009 budgets for the City's Enterprise Funds. The budgets have been revised to include the changes requested by Council during its October 13, 2008, work-session. Burton reviewed the changes that were made to the Water Budget. The debt service transfer from the Water Operating Fund to the Water Debt Service Fund was reduced from $350,000 to $260,000. The 2008 capital budget was revised upward to reflect an additional $108,000 required for the SE Water Tower rehabilitation Project, as per the bid. She noted in the next budget revision the cost for that project will again be increased to $457,000 from $378,000 because of engineering costs. She stated Water Operations salaries were reduced approximately $15,000 to reflect the change in Utility Maintenance personnel time; fewer hours will be spent reading water meters and more time will be dedicated to checking Storm water structures. Burton distributed some excerpts from a North Central Utility Rate Survey. She stated for the water rates in the Minneapolis / St. Paul Metro Area she explained the City's water rate was on the higher end. She also distributed a graphical comparison of the existing rate structure, a 1•ate structure proposed by Councilmember Wellens, and third rate structure. She explained Wellens' proposed structure is programmed to reward water conservation and it would adjust minimum rates. The City's current rate for consumption up to 22,500 gallons per quarter is $71.88 (or $23.96 for 7,500 gallons per month). Wellens proposed minimum rate (Option A) would be $25.83 per month or $77.50 per quarter. The third minimum rate (Option B) would be $22.50 per month or $67.50 per quarter. She stated rather than adjusting the rates at this time she recommended the City wait until it can conduct a comprehensive rate study with 5 - 10 projections starting in April 2009 and then implement a rate change. As part of that #Za CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 2 of 7 study, proposed CIP expenditures and operating expenditures would be reviewed in great detail.. Some of the study work could be done by staff and. there are firms that do utility rate studies. Councilmember Woodruff stated based on the water rate chart distributed it appears that many of the cities on the chart have a much lower base rate than the City. He understood Councilmember Wellens' proposal would reduce the base rate and increase the incremental consumption rates. It appears Wellens' proposal would be very close to revenue neutral. Woodruff suggested the base rate be lowered the beginning of 2009 and the variable rates be adjusted upward. He nominated Councilmember Wellens to write an article for publication in the Shore Report explaining the rationale for rate changes. Councilmember Turgeon asked for clarification of which proposed rate structure would be implemented; Option A or Option B. Councilmember Bailey questioned what information indicated a rate change would be revenue neutral. He did not draw that conclusion from the three rate-comparison charts. Director Burton stated on an average most of the residents consume about 30,000 gallons of water per quarter, noting there were very high water consumers during the summer months. Councilmember Woodruff retracted his recommendation to implement a rate change effective January 1S` because a thorough consumption analysis was desirable. Mayor Lizee suggested the study be done before the rates are changed. She would prefer a comparison of cities comparable to the City. The survey, compares cities of very different population sizes. Councilmember Turgeon stated the comparison should not be based on population size alone as many cities have city-wide water and the City does not. Director [~tirton stated it would be beneficial to use actual consumption records, preferably after all the radio-read meters have been installed, in a thorough study and gather approximately one year's worth of data. Administrator Hack stated the key to doing a meaningful study is to use accurate consumption data. He commented that on the rate survey t~~~o of the cities purchase water from Minneapolis and three of the cities are part of the St. Paul Regional Water Service. The survey is a good tool but it does not indicate what the City's rate should bc. Director Brown stated the survey points out that there is a need for a rate study. Councilmember Woodruff stated-the rate survey provided interesting information, but it wasn't really relative to what the City's rates should be. There was consensus to leave the water rates as they are and conduct a comprehensive rate study with a forecast period of 5 - 10 years in the spring of 2009. Councilmember Elect Zerby questioned if the City was fined if it drained the aquifer by a certain amount. Director Brown explained the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates the well appropriate permit. The City was traditionally fined for pumping more water than allowed by the permit. Zerby questioned if that shouldn't be factored into the study; maybe residents should share some of that financial burden. Brown stated based on work done by Engineer Landini the DNR has adjusted the City's permitted volume upward for the next ten years, and hopefully the City will no longer exceed its permitted amount. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 3 of 7 Councilmember Bailey stated he understood Director Burton to state the rate study would be done for all utilities. He then stated Councilmember Weliens had identified that the City overcharges residents who consume a small amount of water. He did not recommend that continue until a comprehensive study was completed. The study of all utility rates could take a number of months. He thought it would be relatively easy to develop a spread sheet to analyze vohime users and rate change scenarios that would keep water revenues revenue neutral. He understood that the comprehensive study would also address long-term capital needs for maintaining and repairing the infrastructure. He wanted to see a consumption analysis progress more rapidly so rate changes can be implemented sooner to benefit minimal consumers. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would like to implement the low consumer water rate changes effective January 1, 2009. Director Burton explained the rate change would apply to the first quarterly billing in 2009 (March 30`x'); therefore, even if the interim rate change was not presented to Council until January 2009 it could still be in effect for the first billing. Director Burton recapped that a comprehensive rate study will be done for all utilities in the spring of 2009 and a consumption analysis will be done for an interim rate change and presented to Council for consideration sometime in January 2009. The comprehensive study will consider what the long-term capital needs are for the infrastructures. Director Burton stated based on a question in an email from Councilmember Woodruff she stated Water Operations Charges for Service revenues could be ~lecreasecj to $660,000 from $707,000 in the next revision. Woodruff stated based on the run-rate today the revenues would be significantly less than $707,000; he would be comfortable reducing .the $707,000 amount. Burton stated after adjusting the water operations budget to reflect the most increase in cost for the'SE Area Water Tower rehabilitation and the current cost for the Amesbury Well Controls Replacement Projects, the 2009 year-end cash balance should be approximately $2.57 million. Director Brown explained when Xhe costs '.were reviewed for the SE Area Water Tower Rehabilitation Project Staff was focused on the increase in construction costs. There were also some internal costs that were incurred; Public Works had to construct a gravel pad next to the water tower next to t}~e equipment. There were also engineering costs incurred during construction. When all costs were looked at collectively the cost of;the ~ro_je.ct increased again by $79,000. He also explained the $55,000 budgeted cost for the Amesbury Wells Controls Replacement Project is an old number (5 - 6 years old). Council awarded the design and build for that project at $130,000 and that will be adjusted in the next revision. He noted even with those increases the Water Operations Fund will have a healthy balance. There was consensus to reduce the Water Operations Charges for Services revenues to $670,000. Director Burton noted this is the last time Council would review the 2009 Enterprise Budgets before the December 1, 2008, Truth-In-Taxation public hearing with subsequent adoption at the December 8, 2008, Council meeting. Director Burton recapped that the Amesbury Well Controls Replacement Project cost will be increased to approximately $145,000 and the SE Area Water Tower Rehabilitation Project cost will be increased to $457,000. Director Brown stated KLM engineering costs are included in the SE Area Water Tower costs; KLM helps with the design and inspection. Councilmember Turgeon expressed concern that the SE Area Water Tower Project cost started at approximately $250,000 and now the cost is up to $457,000. Director Brown questioned what Turgeon would have had him change. Councilmember Bailey stated the change in cost was very substantial, and if CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 4 of 7 project estimates were to increase that substantially he wasn't sure of what value the budget projections had. Director Brown stated is relatively easy to accurately estimate a water main installation. Because there is so little experience with estimating a water tower rehabilitation project and because that's a complex activity, it is difficult to estimate the cost. He noted that most project estimates have been reasonable. He explained each contractor looks at a water tower site differently; therefore, it is difficult to use a standard water tower bidding sheet. During the design process it was determined that part of the water tower structure did not comply with OSHA requirements. That would not have been known until the design process was started. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Brown stated if the project had been let 1 - 2 months earlier, there may have been a slight reduction in cost. Councilmember Woodruff suggested for future projects Staff conduct a thorough assessment of costs to date part way through the project and project what the total project cost will be. He then stated for the SE Area Water Tower Project Council was provided with a $ ] 08,000 increase and now has been informed of another increase. He wanted to hear all of the bad news at the same tire. Director Brown stated there was a sense of urgency to complete. the project this year. Had a more thorough study of the tower been done, which would have taken more rime, there may have been a better estimate, Staff would have preferred to have had that additional time: In the future, he will advise Council when Staff needs more time to conduct the study and prepare the estimate even though Council does not always like to hear that information. There was Council consensus that it would prefer to hear that information than have less than quality estimates. There was ensuing discussion about real and perceived delays in the project and what the impact they and the sense of urgency to complete the .project had on the cost estimate. Councilmember Woodruff stated he ~--vanted Staff to project realistic cost projections and identify potential risks. Director Burton stated no changes were recommended to the Sanitary Sewer budget at the last work session. She noted there was discussion about the Sanitary Sewer cash reserves. The reserves are typically used for infrastructure replacement, capital improvements, emergency damages, I & I mitigation, and working capital. Staff suggests designating $2.5 million of the available $4 million fimd balance for these purposes. The remaining fund balance (approximately $].5 million) would then be available for other uses, such as internal loans to other funds for specific purposes like the Lake Mary Outlet Project. She noted the Sanitary Sewer Fund pro forma does not include the $300,000 loan for the Lake Mary Outlet Project. If that were included the estimated 2009 Sanitary Sewer year-end fund balance would be reduced to approximately $4.1 million. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had suggested Council consider reducing the sanitary sewer rates and increasing the storm water rates such that it would be revenue neutral to residents. The Sanitary Sewer Fund reserves would go done and the Storm water Fund reserves would be increased. Director Burton explained each Enterprise Fund must stand on its own. The 2009 comprehensive rate study will help to determine what the appropriate utility rates should be. The current Sanitary Sewer rates appear to be appropriate because the year-end cash balance is relatively consistent. She noted MCES increases the City's rate annually and the City has no control over that increase. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 5 of 7 Councilmember Woodruff stated he did not have an issue with waiting to change the sanitary sewer rates until the rate study was done. He thought the Sanitary Sewer Fund balance was well in excess of what is needed. If residents were charged less than the current sanitary sewer rate the reserves would be reduced and another utility could have a rate increase to help build those reserves. Councilmember Bailey commented that all residents pay sanitary sewer and storm water utility costs. Director Burton noted the City's sanitary sewer rate is in the top third on the North Central Utility Rate Survey when compared to metro cities and it is on the low side when compared to non-metro cities. Councilmember Turgeon stated when the storm water rate was increased to $ I S from $5 a few years ago residents reacted to that increase. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Director Burton explained some cities have a volume rate for sanitary sewer but a city has to have city-wide water to do that. The sanitary rate is based on the water consumption rate. In response to a question from Councilmember Elect Zerby, Director Burton explained the gallons of flow amount in the budget was for the period July 1 to June 30 each year. That information is provided by the Metropolitan Council. I & I is also included in the flog-v and that fluctuates based on rainfall and snowfall during that period. Director Brown stated Staff has prepared a request for proposal (RFP) for services to assess the City's I & L Director Burton stated no changes were recomrr}ended to the Recycling budget at the last work session. Councilmember Woodruff stated it appears the tonnage of recycling collected is trending downward. He suggested the City promote recycling to try and increase participation. Councilmember Elect Zerby stated Eden Prairie has implemented a program called Recycle Bank where residents get points based on volume collected from them. Councilmember Turgeon stated the costs were higher to do that, and she suggested as part of the spring clean-up program the City consider offering ashred-it program. Mayor Lizee stated the City should consider different programs to increase participation. Approximately 39 percent of the City particip~ltes in therecycling program. The tonnage collected has decreased 24 percent. There could be a number oP Cactors that caused that reduction including people getting less printed materials Director Burton reviewed the changes that were made to the Storm Water Management Budget. The 2008 planned capital outlay of $100,000 was cancelled in order to increase fund balance for 2009 projects. A $300,000 internal loan from the Sewer Fund to the Storm water Fund is contemplated in this budget draft to help fund the 2009 Lake Mary Outlet Project (a cost of $457,000) and the Harding Lane Drainage Project ($97,000). A corresponding debt service component ($65,000) is included for 2009. Salaries were increased to reflect the change in Utility Maintenance personnel time: more time will be dedicated to checking Storm water structures. No rate changes are contemplated for the Storm Water Fund in this budget draft. Director Brown noted the estimates for the Harding Lake Project are very high level; there has been no design work done for that project. He stated that traditional 30 percent of a roadway project cost is related to storm sewer, and that is what this estimate is based on. He also noted a feasibility study has bee done for the Lake Mary Outlet Project, although it is somewhat dated. Burton stated Staff has discussed different options for funding the Lake Mary Outlet Project including special taxing districts and internal loans from the Sewer Fund and/or from the Liquor Fund. This project is a major, one time capital expense. At the last work session Staff noted some Council reluctance to CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 6 of 7 using special taxing district(s) as a financing tool; perhaps believing it might be contentious. Staff researched the process required to establish a special taxing district. Included in the meeting pack is an excerpt from the Minnesota Statutes describing requirements to establish a taxing district. The ordinance to establish a district must be adopted by atwo-thirds vote; a public hearing must be held after publishing for two successive weeks; and when adopted, the ordinance must be filed with the county auditor and county recorder. Before a contract for a project is awarded, the publications and public hearing process must be repeated. The process must be repeated for each project. Director Brown stated there are 40-42 homes that are tributary to the Lake Mary drainage area and approximately 6 homes are in danger of flooding. Councilmember Wellens expressed concern about having the entire City pay for something that is of benefit a few homes. He questioned when the City should no longer consider those types of projects. Councilmember Turgeon noted there are a few upcoming projects that are like that. Mayor Lizee stated these projects have not come to the attention of the City because of one homeowner. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if it is worth paying approximately $100,0(~a per affected home to mitigate a problem regardless of where the fitnding comes from. Wellens stated the homeowner should have known about potential storm water issue when they bought the property. Councilmember Bailey questioned if Council would agree to the project if the cost was $1 million or~2 million, Director Brown stated the City could let the property flood and let the homeowner deal with it. The City could take some interim steps to mitigate the problem (i.c., pump that drainage area). The City could also acquire the properties. With regard to the Lake Mary Outlet, ~ 6 years ago efforts were made to try and retain water there; the silt on the bottom has gotten s~~ think water doesn't flow out easily now. Performing the project would set a precedent. There is the same issue in the Boulder Bridge area. He noted the City has pumped the outlet three times so far. Councilmember Turgeon suggested Counerl be provided with history on the Lake Mary area, noting Lake Mary is not a lake. Councilmember Woodruff stated the task at hand is agreeing to a budget, not authorizing a project. He suggested the history for a project be discussed before a decision is made to move forward with that project. He is comfortable ~-vith budgeting for a loan as a funding option at this point; whether or not the loan is actually taken is another discussion. There was consensus to include the $300,000 loan in the budget. Director Burton stated the City's storm water rates are on the high side based on the North Central Utility Rate Survey. She noted she had called some neighboring cities regarding their rates and she distributed her findings to Council. Burton stated the Liquor Fund balance was approximately $924,000 at September month-end. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Burton stated she could create a pro forma for the Liquor Fund. Burton noted the 2009 General Fund budget will be discussed at the November 24, 2008, Council work session. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 7 of 7 3. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of November 10, 2008, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2008 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTHSHORE CENTER 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None Mayor Lizee stated that the voter turnout in Shorewood ~~~as 90 percent, better than the national average. There were 4,959 people who voted in the City and 58~ of those voters registered on Election Day. There were five precincts and 69 election judges. On behalf of the Council she thanked Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn for her efforts in coordinating election activities and training the election judges, noting the tremendous amount of time it took to do so. She also thanked all of the election judges. Lizee noted that the ballots were secured at the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. B. Review Agenda Councilmember Woodruff requested an update on the Safe Route to School grant be added to the agenda under Item 7, Parks. He also asked that ]tern 9.F, Forming an Investment Committee, be added to the agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 27, 2008 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of October 27, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2008 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of October 27, 2008, as amended in Item 9.C, Page 12, Paragraph 1, Sentence 5, change "training for his direct reports" to "training for Heck's direct reports". Motion passed 5/0. C. Canvassing Board Meeting Minutes, November 5, 2008 #ZB SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 2 of 15 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Canvassing Board Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. D. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, November 5, 2008 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. She noted under verified claims check #47485 for an amount of $13,232.60 for the City of Excelsior was added; the check was for water connection usages. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Approval of Pay Request #2 for City Hall project in the amount of $122,663 C. Authorize Expenditure of Funds Speed Advisory Trailer_ (This item was moved to Item 10.B under Engineering/Public W-orks.) Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS With regard to Councihnember Woodruff s request to receive an update on the Safe Route to School (SRTS) grant, Mayor Lizee stated at the October 27, 2008, Council meeting Staff discussed the possibility of the City applying for a SRTS grant for the purchase a radar speed sign (a non-infrastructure project) that would be placed in the Minnewashta Elementary School zone. Staff and Council also discussed there was an infrastructure component to the grant, and that the Park Commission lead discussed the possibility of pursuing that component to use toward constructing a trail from Country Club Road to Eureka Road along Smithtown Road. She noted that the Sun Sailor incorrectly printed an article which implied that Council had decided to pursue constructing a trail and she wanted to clarify that is not the case at this time. She noted Council did direct Staff to prepare a grant application for the non- infrastructure portion of the SRTS grant. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 3 of 15 Councilmember Woodruff suggested Staff schedule a joint City Council and Park Commission meeting to provide the Councilmembers and Commissioners an overview of the 2000 evaluation done on constructing a trail on Smithtown Road. Mayor Lizee suggested the meeting be scheduled for the beginning of 2009, to which Woodruff agreed. 8. PLANNING Commissioner Gniffke stated there had not been a Planning Meeting since the last regular Council meeting. The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 4, 2008, was cancelled because it was Election Day. The next meeting is scheduled for November 18, 2008. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. MetroCities Legislative Policies ~a. Administrator Heck stated the MetroCities /League of Minnesota Cities' regional meeting is scheduled for November 20, 2008. He explained as part of that meeting member cities will have the opportunity to vote on the adoption of various MetroCities policy statements or to request amendments to the policies. He noted each city has one vote independent of size. He stated he will attend the Metropolitan Managers meeting which will be held prior to the MetroCities meetin~~; and he stated elected officials can attend that meeting. He commented that Councilmember Woodruff had served on the Revenue and Taxation Committee and the Transportation and General Government Committee. Councilmember Woodruff clarified he was not on the Transportation Committee. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, authorizing Administrator Heck to serve as the City's voting delegate at the MetroCities /League oI' 1Viinnesota Cities regional meeting and to vote to adopt the Metro/Cities policies. Motion passed 5/0. B. Approval of Certification of Delinquent Utility Charges Director Burton explained the City Code provides for annual certification of delinquent utility bills against the properties serviced. `1'he City's authority for certification of unpaid charges comes from Minnesota Statute 444.075. This resolution authorizing the certification is considered and passed annually. Each property owner is given an opportunity to file a written objection to this proposed certification of delinquent accounts, and they can request a hearing in front of the Council to explain why the account has not been paid. She noted the City has received a written objection, which was included in the meeting packet, and a request for a hearing from Ron Johnson, 5335 Shady Hills Circle. She stated she did not think Mr. Johnson was in attendance this evening. Councilmember Turgeon stated it was her understanding Mr. Johnson had requested copies of his past utility bills and she questioned if Staff complied with that request. Director Burton explained Mr. Johnson was requesting information dating as far back as 1994, and the City has information dating four to five years back on its financial system. Administrator Heck explained as part of the data privacy act people can come and look at public information on site. If there is a request to assemble data and copy data, then the City is authorized under State Statute to charge for the cost to do so. Staff has yet to prepare an estimate of what it would cost to provide Mr. Johnson with copies of the data he has requested. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 4 of 15 Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 08-078, "A Resolution Directing Delinquent Sewer Charges, Storm Water Utility Charges, Water Charges, Recycling Charges, and Dry Hydrant Charges, be Placed on the 2009 Property Tax Rolls." Motion passed 5/0. C. Authorize Sale of Tax-Forfeited Land to Adjoining Landowners Administrator Heck stated the Hennepin County Taxpayer Services forwarded to the City a notice of tax forfeiture for a parcel of land located on the west side of Howard's Point Road, between the lots located at 5440 and 5460 Howard's Point Road. The property was previously owned by the owners of the 5525 Howard's Point Road property, and when those owners sold that property they retained ownership of the subject property. He explained the property contains approximately 3687 square feet of area. The City has three options for disposing of tax forfeited property: 1) the City can keep the property for a legitimate purpose (e.g. right-of--way, conservation or recreation open space, etc.); 2) the City can approve the parcel for public auction; or 3) the City can approve the property for,~uction to adjacent property owners (both of the abutting properties are nonconforming). Staff recommends the parcel be approved for auction to adjoining owners. The size of the property makes it unusable for a public purpose, and it makes no sense for someone other than an abutting property (i.c., the property to the south) to own it. He noted that because the property has frontage on a lake the Department of Natural Resources would get first chance to acquire the property. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, administrator Neck stated in Pine County the minimum auction price is the value of the property. nltorney Keane explained the minimum auction price would be the delinquent value (i.e., the accrued unpaid faxes, assessments and penalties). Councilmember Woodruff stated the=properry has no value to the City other than recovering taxes owed the City. The minimum price should be what the City is owed. He thought it would be better to receive income from a taxable piece of pmpcrty, Councilmember Bailey stated he did not want to subsidize the purchase of property at a fire sale price. If the City were trying to purchase property it would have to pay the going rate for the property. If the adjacent property owners wanted to purchase the property they should have to pay the market rate. It was noted that the property is currently owned by Hennepin County, not the City. Councilmember Woodruff suggested Staff be directed to find out what the market value of the property is and what the delinquent value of the property is. At its next meeting Council could then make an informed decision of what the minimum auction price should be. Mayor Lizee stated because the property is not buildable it would be difficult to determine a fair market price. Administrator Heck stated it was his recollection the property has an assessed value of $50,000. He explained because it is the County's auction the City cannot assign a minimum price. The purchaser of the property would have to pay the accrued unpaid taxes, assessments and penalties and the City would receive a portion of those taxes. Councilmember Bailey stated that the City does have and does maintain fire access lanes which the public can use to access the Lake Minnetonka, noting access could not be done in a motorized vehicle. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 5 of 15 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, adopting "A Resolution Concerning a Certain Tax-Forfeited Parcel Lying Within the City and Approving it for Sale to an Abutting Owner." Councilmember Turgeon stated the City has experienced problem with owners of properties abutting existing fire lanes encroaching on the fire lane. Councilmember Bailey suggested the minimum auction price be equivalent to the market price if possible, and if abutting property owners don't want to pay that price than the City should acquire the property for public use. Attorney Keane stated if Council is unsure if the property could be put to public use, it could decide to take ownership of the property now and. if, at a later date, it decides it is surplus property the City could sell it for a price it thought appropriate consistent with State law. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the City would have to pay the delinquent taxes if it took ownership. Attorney Keane stated he would research that. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the Council needed more information before it made a decision. The seconder of the motion withdrew his second. Motion failed for lack of a second. Bailey moved, Wellens seconded, continuing this item to the November 24, 2008, City Council regular meeting and directing Staff to explore options for establishing a price for the tax forfeited parcel, researching what the delinquent taxes, assessments and penalties are and whether or not the City would be responsible to pay those items if it acquired the property. Motion passed 5/0. D. Staff Recognition A~t~ards Administrator Heck stated at its October 27, 2008, meeting Council approved holding an employee and volunteer appreciation event on December 5, 2008, and it directed Staff to revise the years-of-service award proposal. He reviewed two revised award options proposed by the staff committee. Years of Service Certificate Option A Award 5 $ 50 gift card 10 Yes $100 gift card 15 Yes $100 gift card 20 Yes $200 gift card 25 Yes 30 Yes $200 gift cat•d 35 Yes 40 Yes $200 gift card Option B Award $ 25 gift card $ 50 gift card $ 75 gift card $100 gift card $125 gift card $150 gift card $1.75 gift card $200 gift card Heck stated he recommends Council adopt the Option B award proposal. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 6 of 15 Councilmember Turgeon suggested the award certificate be added for five years of service. Councilmember Woodruff agreed. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, adopting the Option Byears-of-service award schedule and authorizing appropriate funds to provide the awards in 2008 and including the necessary funds for the awards in the 2009 General Fund Budget. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizee thanked the committee for its efforts. E. City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) Administrator Heck stated it is his understanding that as part of the County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club Road Intersection Improvement Project the overhead utilities were relocated underground. As part of the process the City adopted a resolution to charge back its portion of the cost for undergrounding to the residents tinder what is called a City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CFRS). The rates were based on rates provided by Xcel Energy. The rate started at $1.25 for regular residential use and was increased for different uses, and the CFRS would be collected for a period of 22.11 months. Recently Xcel Energy notified the City that the $1.25 mate does not conform to the Tariff filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The Tariff does not allow for a CFRS over $1.00 for residential customers for a collection period of less than 36 months. Therefore, the schedule has been revised such that all related surcharges were lowered and the collection period was extended to 28.10 months. He noted the draft resolution is the same as the one passed in July with the exception of the schedule change. He stated collection of the CFRS has not yet started. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if the City is still collecting a surcharge for work done on Smithtown Road. Director Brown stated lie thought that surcharge had reached maturity. He noted the City has received payment from Hennepin County for its share of the undergrounding cost. Turgeon then questioned if the project was fully completed. Brown stated Staff has had numerous conversations with various Hennepin County representatives regarding the City's desire to have the project closed. He explained Attorney Keane has prepared an action plan for the City to pursue to have the project closed should Administrator Heck not be able to convince the County to close the project. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-079, "A Resolution Authorizing a Monthly Surchat•;c to Xcel Energy Ratepayers in Shorewood for the Placement of its Facilities Underground for the County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club Road Intersection Improvement Project." Motion passed 5/0. F. Selection of City Attorney Administrator Heck stated per Council's direction Staff prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) for legal services. The City sent out eleven proposals and received proposals from seven firms. During a November 5, 2008, City Council special meeting Council interviewed four firms recommended by Staff. The firms were LaVander Gillen and Miller, Malkerson Gilliland and Martin, Kennedy and Graven, and Campbell and Knutson. The majority of the Council recommended the appointment of Kennedy and Graven to provide legal services to the City effective January 1, 2009, with Mary Tietjen serving as the City Attorney. Mayor Lizee stated the city attorney serves at the pleasure of the Council. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 7 of 15 Lizee then stated Tim Keane, the current City Attorney, has a long history with the City. She thanked him for his efforts and talents. She stated Keane has worked for various councils, City staff and a growing population in Shorewood. His achievements are many. She has gt•eat appreciation for the relationships he has built with staff and councils, and for his dedication. to the open process. The City works closely and in partnership with its sister Southlake cities, and Keane's work with the joint powers agreements in public safety and in building the Southshore Center brought shared vision and goals to fruition. Keane can be credited with bringing the phosphorous-free-fertilizer ban initiated in Shorewood to the State stage, along with building stronger partnerships with agencies such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Metropolitan Council. She wished Keane good luck with his fi-ture endeavors. She stated she enjoyed the opportunity to work with Keane. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, appointing Kennedy and Graven as the firm to provide legal services to Shorewood as described in the proposal and addendums, with Mary Tietjen serving as the City Attorney and that the appointment is effective January 1, 2009. Motion passed 5/0. G. Southshore Center Lease Administrator Heck stated 12 years ago the cities of Deephaven, E~cclsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay entered into a Cooperative Agreement for the creation and operation of the Southshore Center. The cities also entered into a lease agreement «~ith the Friends of the Southshore Center to maintain and provide programs at the Center. A number of months ago the cities formed a commmittee to evaluate the operation of the Southshore Center and to identify a way to continue the operation of the Center and programs offered at the Center without continued financial support by the five member cities. Each city had one of its elected officials on the committee. The committee worked with the Friends to amend the member cities' lease with the Friends; a cop}~ of the draft amended lease was included in the meeting packet. The amended lease clarifies responsibilities for insurance, maintenance and capital repairs and improvements. In smmnary, the I~riendswould maintain the facility and be responsible for programs offered with the help of itsnew partnea~ Minnesota Community Education (MCE); the member cities would not be responsible for an}~ financial support for those efforts. The member cities would be responsible for the viability of the facility and grounds. The cotmnittee also worked on an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement, and that amendment will be considered at a future Council meeting. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted more clarification of responsibilities identified in the lease agreement. It is not clear to him ~vlio is responsible for what with regard to the facility. The additional clarification should help the member cities better understand what their financial obligations will be. The draft lease does separate day-to-day operation and maintenance of the facility and programming services from long-term care and maintenance of the facility and grounds. Councilmember Turgeon stated she also thought there needed to be more clarity in the lease agreement. She expressed concern about approving an amendment to the lease prior to approving an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement. The Cooperative Agreement will specify what percent of the funding for a Capital account for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility each member city is responsible for. She explained MCE needs to have the amended lease approved in order to start planning for assisting with program services. She recommended the name of the Friends and the facility be made accurate in the amended lease. Mayor Lizee stated this is the third amendment to the lease. She explained item 6 in the third amendment addresses repairs, maintenance and alterations; item 7 specifies the Friends will provide a $15,000 one- SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 8 of 15 time contribution for initial funding of a capital account for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility. Councilmember Turgeon stated the responsibility for replacement of items in the facility needs to be clarified so the cities can budget accordingly. She also thought it is important for cities to know the cost for property and casualty insurance for the premises. She commented the City has provided snow plowing services for the Southshore Center parking lot and some modest maintenance services at no cost, and she questioned if that will continue in the future. She questioned if the facility was up to code, and if it wasn't what group is responsible for bringing it up to code. Mayor Lizee stated she assumed in order for someone to get a certificate of occupancy an inspection would have to be done to ensure the facility is up to code. Mayor Lizee stated the Friends and MCE need to have the lease amendment approved by year-end in order to have the Friends work with MCE in 2009 to provide program services. She suggested Council clearly identify its requirements. Councilmember Turgeon stated if leer concerns about lack of clarity are addressed she could support approving the amendment. She commented the Friends have had sufficient time to address this issue, and the draft amendment was a good start. Councilmember Bailey requested a requirement be added to the amendment to require the tenant to provide the member cities with financial reports (e.g., a year-end operating report and some type of pro forma for the upcoming year). Councilmember Turgeon commented that the Cooperative Agreement includes a requirement for financial reporting. ,Mayor I,iiee stated the Friends provide financial reports annually, and anything more than that would be micromanaging and that was something the cities said they did not want to do. Councilmember Wellens stated the lease amendment changes responsibilities significantly. He asked Administrator Heck to comment on that. I-leek csplain~d in the original lease agreement the Friends were responsible for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility. The amendment places that responsibility with the cities because the cities jointly own the facility. The cities only obligation to the Center would be to establish a fund for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility and grounds. What the size of the fund should be has not been determined. The City's $23,000 contribution in 2007 was for program services and operating costs in 2008. Attorney Keane stated he served as the City Attorney in 1996 when the Cooperative Agreement was entered into and the member cities deliberately avoided addressing the issue of establishing capital reserves for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility. He then stated he thought it was appropriate for this issue to be addressed now as some of the major mechanical equipment in the facility has probably reached its half-life. Councilmember Wellens questioned why the Friends have to be involved if MCE will be responsible for program services. Mayor Lizee explained that the Friends will continue to provide some program services at the Center. Councilmember Wellens expressed concern about the requirement in the original lease where the cities would be responsible to pay for liabilty insurance if the tenant did not with the hope the tenant would reimburse the cities. Mayor Lizee explained that has always been in the lease and it has not been a problem, and there is a legal requirement to have insurance addressed in the lease. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 9 of 15 Councilmember Wellens questioned if the cities would share in any MCE profits. Mayor Lizee stated in the past the Friends have re-invested profits from programs provided or funds acquired through fund raising efforts back into the Center. Councilmember Turgeon stated the Friends paid for operational costs, and the Friends do not receive any money from fee-paid programs sponsored by for-profit organizations and held at the Center. In response to a comment from Administrator Heck, Turgeon stated in the past organizations did not pay for use of space at the Center. Councilmember Woodruff stated during his tenure on the Council the Friends have struggled financial, and he did not know to what degree because he has not reviewed any financial statements of the Friends. He stated the original lease states the member cities are willing to lease the community facility for the cost of $1.00 per year. Per the third amendment the cities would also be responsible for long-term care and maintenance of the facility. What the tenant does with the facility, provided it is within the terms of the lease, is up to the tenant. He did not think the member cities should share in any profits made by the tenant, and based on the last few years there have not been any profits. He stated it was prudent for the cities to understand the financial obligation they would be committi~,g to and who would be responsible for what. Clarity was lacking in the lease amendment. Administrator Heck recapped what he heard. The committee needs to add more clarity to the amendment regarding the responsibilities of the tenant and the member cities with regard to repairs and maintenance, and to eventually identify what the projected costs will be for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility and the rate for establishing capital reserves. Councilmember Bailey stated he still wanted the Friends to provide profit and loss financial information and financial projections for 2009. The cities need to be assured the tenant (the Friends) was financially able to meet its financial obligations. Councilmember Woodruff stated he agreed with Bailed, and normally when a tenant enters into a lease arrangement they have to provide financial information. Woodruff then stated the Friends did provide a pro-forma prior to the City agreeing to the $2 x,000 contribution. He stated if need be the lease could be for a period of one year to al low time for fiud~e~ refinements to the lease amendment. Administrator Heck stated he would bring the request for more clarity back to the committee and he would ask Tom Anderson, President of the Friends, to prepare apro-forma. He then stated MCE needs to have some long-term assurance (n~di~e than one year) that the facility will be available for them to provide program services as it prepares its program catalogue well in advance. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Mayor Lizee explained the Friends Board was scheduled to meeting on November 3`d and she assumed they discussed and approved the lease amendment. There was consensus to continue this item to the November 24, 2008, Council meeting. H. Forming an Investment Committee Councilmember Woodruff stated Director Burton had recently prepared and distributed the first quarterly investment report for the City's investments in accordance with the City's investment policy which was revised in 2008. He is not sure the investment policy is appropriate in these troubling financial times. He suggested an investment committee be formed and the committee could meet shortly after the quarterly report was available to discuss the financial environment and the City's current investments. He SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 10 of 15 suggested the committee be comprised of two Councilmembers, the Finance Director and the City Administrator. He also suggested after meeting two quarterly meetings the committee could then meet semi-annually. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, approving the formation of an investment committee comprised of two Councilmembers, the Finance Director and the City Administrator to meet quarterly at first and to report back to Council after the meetings. Mayor Lizee stated she had no issue with establishing a committee. She would prefer it be considered after Administrator Heck and Director Burton have had adequate time to provide input about it. She suggested the creation of this committee be discussed in early 2009. Councilmember Bailey stated it was not unusual to have staff manage the investments with some fiduciary to review investment results in a less public setting. That would be sound oversight. Councilmember Woodruff stated the benefit of discussing the report soon was the information is relatively new and there is an opportunity to modify the investment strategy based on the financial market. He recommended the review occur this month. Councilmember Turgeon stated she assumed during the first Pew meetings the committee would establish what its objectives were. She could support establishing the com~rrittee soon. Administrator Heck clarified before the committee can be established the investment policy must be amended. The current policy delegates responsibility for managing the investments to the Finance Director and the City Administrator with no mention of an oversight committee. Councilmember Bailey clarified, he did not thinl: the committee would have anything to do with managing the investments; it would have oversight responsibilities only. Administrator Heck stated the policy still would have to be amended to reference oversight responsibilities. Heck questioned if Council thought there was a problem with the City's investment situation. Councilmember Bailey stated he did not know, but the formation of the committee has nothing to do with concern over how the investments are currently managed. Director Burton stated she would be comfortable with establishing an oversight committee that met on a quarterly basis. If there was a desire to have the committee have input into managing the investments on a day-to-day basis could prove to be problematic from a timing perspective. She stated many counties and some cities had formed investment committees, and they typically disbanded the committees because of the desire for day-to-day involvement. If the investment policy were to be amended she suggested it also be amended to reflect the current $250,000 FDIC maximum coverage. Without objection from the seconder, the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, directing Staff to draft an amendment to the City's investment policy which authorizes the formation of a formal oversight investment committee comprised of two Councilmembers, the Finance Director and the City Administrator. Councilmember Wellens expressed concern that the Cities' elected officials could be specifying what the City should invest in. He questioned who the Council would hold responsible for a bad investment SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 11 of 15 strategy. He thought it would cloud accountability and responsibility. Councilmember Bailey stated the investment committee would not provide any direction in terms of even broad investment policies let alone investments; that is a Council responsibility. The committee meetings would provide the opportunity to have a more detailed discussion about investment performance and report back to the Council on general observations. Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Private use of Public Draintile for 5635 Fairway Drive Engineer Landini stated at its June 25, 2008, meeting Council granted the residents of 5635 Fairway Drive permission to install a sump pump discharge in a public easement located at 5655 Fairway Drive. The property owners did not install that discharge and are now requesting the authority to connect the sump pump discharge to the draintile in Fairway Drive; Staff recommended this option in 2007 to the property owner. Landini reviewed factors to consider for the request. 1. The goal of Country Club Meadows development was to direct runoff and sump pump discharge to the south. 2. The City has asked the resident not to direct the sump pump discharge to the north due to a drainage complaint. 3. Discharging the sump pump pipe to the draintile benefits the residents of 5645 Fairway Drive, the City, and 5655 fairway Drive. 4. Mr. Putnam and lkls. Gallagher have requested this use. Landini stated Staff recommends approval of a resolution authorizing a license agreement with Chris Putnam and Eva Gallagher. Landini noted Mr. Putnam was present this evening. Chris Putnam, 5635 Fairway Dri~~e, stated he no issue with the concept proposed but he asked for clarification on the license agreement. Engineer Landini explained the license agreement is a requirement of the City Ordinance, and he had not had the opportunity the previous week to mail Mr. Putnam the packet for his request but he did email it to him that morning. Mr. Putnam stated he had not reviewed the license agreement. Mr. Putnam stated there were no conditions stipulated when he was given permission to install a sump pump discharge in a public easement at 5655 Fairway Drive in 2007. He expressed concerns tl~e license agreement could specify conditions he had not had time to evaluate. In response to a question from Councihnember Woodruff, Engineer Landini stated Council was being asked to consider a request that was different than the one it granted in 2007 for the applicant. Director Brown stated a number of drainage issues were addressed as part of the plat of Fairway Drive. There was concern about water running to the north. A drainage easement was created across the rear of all of the properties in that area. The request in 2007 was to cross the drainage easement in order to reach the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 12 of 15 holding area. The City's standards now incorporate the need to incorporate draintile behind curbs to address sump pump discharges. Councilmember Woodruff stated this request is the same as one Council granted for a properly owner on Strawberry Lane in 2007. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-080, "A Resolution Authorizing Mayor or City Administrator to Execute a License to Allow Draintile Connection in Fairway Drive Right-of--Way for Chris Putnam and Eva Gallagher." Mr. Putnam stated the resolution adopted in 2007 was straight forward; it did not include the same legal conditions as are included in this license agreement. Condition 2 states "tlie landowner agrees to hold the City harmless from any claim of damage against the City arising out of the draintile connection." He assumed it was not Council's intent to hold the City harmless for its negligent performance. He would appreciate the opportunity to connect to the drain the system, and~,he thought that solution would be beneficial to him, the City and to the adjacent landowner. He hoped- the license agreement could be negotiated separately to allow the agreement to be modified to clarify that the City's intent with regard to holding the City harmless. In response to a comment by Councilmember Woodruff. Engineer Landinistated the license is the same as the one included as part of the resolution approved for the Stra~~~bcrry Lane property. Councilmember Woodruff stated he understood condition 2 to say the City would not be responsible for any damage resulting from a backup into the landowner's sump pump system from the draintile system. Attorney Keane concurred. Mr. Putnam assumed condition 2 did not cover a situation where the City did maintenance in the vicinity of the connection and the City disrupts the connection because of its negligence and the disruption results in a claim by a third party. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the City had to perform maintenance requiring the connection be disrupted, the .landowner would be responsible for reestablishing the connection. Mr. Putnam stated the language in the resolution was broad and he wanted to clarify the intent. Attorney Keane stated the language in the license agreement was broad because the City did not want to create any new liabilities for itself by granting Mr. Putnam use of its draintile. Mr. Putnam stated the resolution would benefit the City, himself and his neighbor. He interpreted the license to state the City wanted to transfer any and all risk, including risk caused by the City's negligence, to him. He wanted to insure the intent is not to absolve the City from damage cause by its negligence. Attorney Keane asked Mr. Putnam to provide an example for his concern. Mr. Putnam stated for example if the City disconnected the contention as part of maintenance and reestablished the connection negligently resulting in flooding of the area and someone then falls due to the presence of water. Engineer Landini stated Mr. Putnam still can still execute the option approved in 2007 to discharge his sump pump in the public easement. Mr. Putnam stated after reviewing the license agreement he is comfortable with it. He was just seeking clarification of the agreement and expressing his discomfort with how strict the conditions were SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 13 of 15 compared to his agreement with the City in 2007. The solution to connect to the draintile is a much simpler solution. Administrator Heck stated he understood Mr. Putnam's concern to be what he would be held liable for. He explained if the City had to disconnect the connection to the draintile, Mr. Putnam would have to reestablish that connection. Therefore, if there is a problem with the connection resulting in the sump pump backing up that would be Mr. Putnam's problem. Attorney Keane stated he does not recommend the Council negotiate license agreements. Mr. Putnam can ask for additional clarification if he so chooses. Mr. Putnam stated he was comfortable with the explanations he heard this evening. Motion passed 5l0. B. Authorize Expenditure of Funds Speed Advisory Trailer This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Bailey's request. Councilmember Bailey requested clarification on the intended use of the speed awareness display. He questioned how locations for use are selected and how often is it used. Director Brown stated the display will begi-1 to be used as soon as the snow melts. He explained that over one year ago the City transferred transport and setup responsibilities to the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) because of the time commitment to do that work. The transfer of responsibilities occurred after the expansion of the SLMPD Community Service Officer (CSO) program went into effect. All requests for the display are dire6ted to SLMPD Community Service Supervisor Hohertz. Hohertz schedules the use and tacks the usage. The existing nonfunctioning display could be used for up to three consecutive days i f the days were sumly, while the proposed unit should be able to be kept at a location for up to a week because it will have a better power supply. He noted the display is not kept at a location over aweekend to protect it from vandalism. Councilmember Bailey asked what process was in place for residents to request the display be setup at a particular location. For example, is it published in the Shore Report? Director Brown stated it can be published in the newsletter. He explained typically there are more requests for the display than can be accommodated because of time. If the City receives a complaint about speed he primarily directs residents toward the display. Bailey recommended something be published in the newsletter. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if the display is rotated through different locations in the City, and also if it was randomly placed at a location. Director Brown stated because requests exceed the available time there are/will be residents who will be disappointed because their request was not fulfilled. Director Brown stated the 2008 Equipment Replacement Fund within the CIP has $20,000 allocated for the replacement of the display. The low quote for a new display is $9,609, excluding tax, from Kustom Signals, Inc. Administrator Heck stated he has spoken with Excelsior City Manager Luger and Tonka Bay Administrator Loftus about sharing the cost and the use of the display. He explained the newer displays SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 14 of 15 track more data than in the past. Councilmember Bailey questioned if the City would have to pay 50 percent of the cost and only be able to use it one-fourth of the time. Mayor Lizee stated shared use can be discussed at a future date. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, authorizing the expenditure of funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund for the Speed Awareness Display from Kustom Signals for an amount not to exceed $9,609 plus sales tax. Councilmember Woodruff stated that although sharing the use of the display sounds like it would be a nice idea, based on Director Brown's comments it appears the City can keep the display in use all by itself. If that is the case maybe the other cities should consider buying one together. He did not want the use of the display by other cities to reduce the City's ability to fulfill requests it receives. Motion passed 5/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. City Hall Construction Update Administrator Heck provided an update on the City Hall renovation. The roof trusses were going up, walls were up and most of the decorative material on the clisting front of the building was installed. Windows should be arriving within the next 2 - 3 weeks. There was meeting regarding hardware needs on November 7`'' and those needs were identified. The process of pumping water out of the north end of the facility was continuing to ready that area for the ebncrete floor installation. He noted Bill Wolters was doing an excellent job as a task nl~ister iol~ the project. Other Staff Reports Director Brown stated the lettering on the SE Area Water Tower is in the process of being put on. Weather permitting, the painting and coating tasks should be should be completed in the next few days. The clean-up process can then be started. He noted it will take approximately three weeks for the coating system on the interior of the tower to cure. Before the tower is filled with water tests will be run to insure everything is cured. B. Mayor & City Council Councilmember Turgeon asked Administrator Heck if he was going to be part of the SLMPD contract negotiating team. Heck stated that will be discussed at the SLMPD Coordinating meeting scheduled for November 18°i. Turgeon asked if the request will be made to the Committee, to which Heck and Mayor Lizee responded the topic would be discussed. Councilmember Wellens stated he received an email earlier in the day from Staff which contained a virus, and he questioned how the costs for repairing his computer should be handled. Director Burton stated the City has a number of virus protection tools installed on its network, and she was both surprised and dismayed that this had occurred. Burton stated the City's computer consultant will look into the matter. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 Page 15 of 15 Councilmember Bailey stated he appreciated Director Burton preparing a revenue and expenditure report. He explained Council and Staff had discussed calendarizing the report for the upcoming year. That type of reporting will provide the ability for Council to be more proactive in managing variations against budget. For example, the City receives tax payments semi-annually and prior to receipt of those payments the expense and revenue report shows revenues behind budget. Burton stated she assumed Councilmember Elect Zerby would likely want to have some input on the format of the report, just like the current Councilmembers had. Councilmember Woodruff suggested that type of reporting be started and the report format can be refined at a later date. Mayor Lizee stated SLMPD Officer Jim Williams was promoted to the position of patrol sergeant effective November 4`~'; he assumed the position vacated by Sgt. Mark Erickson who retired in August after 30 years of service. There is a community open house scheduled from 7:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. on November 13'x' at the Freshwater Institute regarding the County Road l9 trail feasibility study. A second meeting on the topic will be held from 5:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. on December 3"~ with the location yet to be identified. She reminded people that from 10:00 A.M. -Noon on~November 15r~' the Excelsior Fire Department, the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department and the South Tonka League of Women Voters are hosting an Emergency Preparedness Seminar for residents at the Public Safety Facility in Shorewood. 12. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 10, 2008, at 9:03 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 11/24/2008 Council Meeting {: Prepared by: , - ~ Date: Michelle T. Nguyen,~`Sr. accounting Clerk~~ ~` ~ ,. Reviewed by: ~ ~' ' °~ ° . Date: ~/ a Bonnie Burton, Fi ance Director ` Approved by: Date: ~i Br' H , C' Administrator PAYROLL APPROVALS For 11/24/2008 Council Meeting ,1 ~'. r } ~ ~ ,/ . a Prepared by: ~ _ Date: ~'Q~` Michelle T. Nguyen, Sr.~~Accounting Clerk ~~ ~ r ~ ~ Reviewed by: ~ t ~ ~` ~``~'~~ Date: ~ ~ B' Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Approved by: ~%~ Date: ~ + /~2z~ Gf3 B ' c ,City Administrator SHOR~WOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ° SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers it (~~ S~ FROM: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer ?/j' RE: Annual Property & Liability Insurance Renewal CC: Brian W. Heck, City Administrator Background The City's Property and Liability Insurance package renews each November. The City's municipal insurance coverage is through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). This municipal package includes general property, municipal liability, worker's compensation, bond, and umbrella insurance coverages. Premium Summary The proposed premiums for the property and liability portion of the package decreased slightly this year from $71,439 for 2008 to $70,096 for 2009. Worker's Compensation increased somewhat from $34,132 for 2008 to $34,608 for 2009. The total package renewal premium for next year is approximately $106,200. The 2008 budget programmed $121,000 for insurance. There have been fewer claims this year and with continued good efforts at loss control, the City's Experience Loss Mod decreased from .91 last year to .86 currently, which resulted in a slight decrease in premium. A summary of the City's coverage is attached for your review. Liability Coverage Limits This motion is considered by the City Council each year. Minnesota State Statutes set tort liability limits for governmental units at $400,000 per claim/$1,200,000 total claims per occurrence. The City carries tort liability at statutory limits and has excess liability coverage of $1,000,000. ®~ ~®~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER „~ Insurance Renewal -Page 2 The City's insurer allows cities the option of waiving this limit, thereby allowing payment of a larger claim. By waiving the statutory linut, the city opens itself to larger claims and higher insurance costs. In prior years, staff has recommended, and the City Council has elected, to not waive the statutory limits. It is again the staff's recommendation that the Council approve a motion that does not waive the statutory tort liability limits for the 2008/2009 insurance renewal. Recommended Action The City Council is requested to accept the property and liability insurance renewal and elect to not waive the statutory limits as described above. L~~~~Jl= ~F MIld~dE~CtT~ ~HTiE~ 111N~~ TRl1~T L,i'ABlL.1TY ~C~V~F't,~-GE -- YI/~-ti(HeF~ ~C'1~i~fl CitiES pbtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cfties Insurance Trust must decide whether pr no# to waive the statutpry kprk liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision to waive pr not to waive the statutory limits has the foifowing effects: o If the city does not waive the stat~rtary toff limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no more than $40,000. pn any claim to which the statutory tart limits apply, The total which all claimants would ba able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited ko $'1,20p,~~0, These statutory tart limits would apply regardless of whether ar not the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage. n tf the city waives the statutooryy t4/t limits and does not pUtchase exc$ss liability coverage, a single claimant Could potentially recover up tp $1,200,00. an a single occurrence, The total which ail Claimants would be able to recover far a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $7,20C),Otil~,, regardless pf the numk~er of claimants. 0 1f the city kvaives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess U$bility Coverage, a single claimant could po#antially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which a1i ' claimants would be able to recover far a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited tra the amount of Coverage purchased, regardless of ttte number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decislan. This decision must be made by the city council. Clues purchasing coveragge must complete and return this #arm to LMCIT baafore the $ffe~ctlve data of the coverage, i=or further information, contact LMC1T. You may also wish to discuss these.issues with your city attorney. accepts liability caveraga limits at ~ from the League of Minnesota pities Insurance Trust {LMG1T}. Check one: The city [?t]~S Nt~T'~,~IVi= the monetary limits on municipal tart IiabiGty established by lNlinnespta Statutes 466A4. ^ The city Yil~41VES the monetary limits an tart liability established by Minnesota Statutes 46£.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of city Council meeting Signature Position Return thlS completed farm to Ll~l~'IT, 145 Unn~rsltyAve, t~, 5t. P~UI, MN 551113 X044 q -_.; +r., ~~. ~~„ . ... ,,ii>>'.. .. (AGUE aF ~INI~1ESt~TA ~ITIE.S November 7, 2008 Kefi Jarcho Agetlcy 9052 Lyndale Avenue South Bloomington, MAi 55420 C~NhIECTING & INNOVATII~I~ SINGE 1413 ~~,,. ~ e Ike: pity of Shorcwo Effective Data; 11/01 /011 r~~~vAL p1vlliulvl suMM~Y AN3~ Talixn>~>~ ~ Praparty 517,531. •'• Mabilc Pmpcrky 4,612. ~• Municipal Liability 29:220. •:p Automobile Liability 3,425, 6:• ~IIvSIUIM 500,000 all covered autos including unregistered 240. +:• Basic P,ct~namic Loss $anefits (PIP) a41 cc~ve~d $utas including unrogistered Included. +.+ Automobile Physical Damage ~ 2,803. •:~ L.ri1nC Included. °i• $c~tld NDt ~iOVGIOd. -;« lquipment Breakdown 1,413. Excess Liability Limit; 1,000,004 ~;$~~~ Qpen Muting Law Limit: I00% 353• No Fautt Sewar BaalGUp 2,484• Garage Keepers Legal Liability (GKLL) 129. T(1'f'AI.r 570,U96. TORT Ll<.m~'I' ~aoo,oaa. ~s~,zoaoaa• ;• Deductible; 5500. RTMARI~S: DU NC1T PAY UNTIL, Y4U R~C>+ IVY ~TV'Q~~~,.+"l Subject to a signed and datad Vtraivar Blrt~ti4n Form. Renewal CovC3~~gC iS bound ug to fib days gendin~ issuance of renewal based on LM~IT forms and practices in effect on renewal date. Sin ely, . iJndarwriter )z LMC1722 (11199}(Rev, 1 ilQ7} LEAGUE OF M4NNESC)'CA CITIES Ia5Ufi11VERSITYAVEWE3T v„~xE;c~st}2ai~izoa euc~(d51}281-129& l (~ S U R.A N C E TRUST 5T. PAUL MN 35103-2044 TOLL FELEE; (804) 92517 z~ wES~ w~.LMC-OKG •u rni~i. neener.~w~ty ~•cc1oN A'YiUC AlST1/1N FNI P! IW CP CITY OF SHUI~'WOOD 5775 COUNTitY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 5531 SUMMARY OF COVERAGES N+(3VEMBER 2008 AMOUNT CUVERAGES PiILC~XUM League of Minr-esotu Cities Package Policy #CMC26632 11/1/08 to 11/1/0' $ 6,981,751.00 Blanket on Building & Personal Property Per AttacNted Schedule - $500.40 Deduc#able 6,981,751.00 Boiler Coverage 703,92$.00 Mobile Equipnneut -~ Scheduled ~- Over S~S,000. X95,467.00 Mobile Equfiament ~ Unscheduled - i.Tnder $2~5,4oQ. $500.04 Deductible 1,444,000.00 Commexcfal General Liability - $500.00 Deductible 1,404,004.00 Public Officials Liability - $Z,540A4 Deductible 1.,044,000.00 Business Auta Liability Basic PIP 1,044,400.00 U~nin,sured & Underinsured Motorists S500A0 Deductible -Comprehensive -Per 5chetlt~le $544.00 Deductible -~ Collision -Per Schedule 15,044.04 Garagekeepers Coverage - S500A0 Leductible Sewer Back Up Coverage League of 1Vlinnesota Citfes MEL5353 11/1/08 to 11/1/09 1,000,000.04 Umbrella Liability League of Minnesota Cities ~OML3$~.0 11/1108 to 11/1109 Open Meeting Law Defense Cost 50,004.00 De~en~se Cost Per Lawsuit Per OfBciai 50,000A0 A,gree~ment Terrn Aggregate Per Of~i vial $5s,~7~.44 $ 2,484A0 $ 7,886.00 $ 353,04 Page ~2~ United Fire & Casualty Bond 5105$9$2 1111/08to 11/IlU9 100,000.00 Puiaiac Employees Bond 1oo,oa0.o0 Depasit~prs Forgery ~ 969.00 I.re2lgtte of Minnesota Cities Pol1Cy #0200027625 ~1/~JU$ta 11!1/09 "NVar~.an~en~'s Compensation ~ Employer's Liability 1,000,000.00 Bodily Injury -Each ~Decurrenee 1,0~~,000.00 ~adily Ynjury by Disease _ Agreeffient Limit Based opt Pnyr~lis Per At#aehed 5~4,60~.00 Auto Owners Insurance Company Policy #906~~6-0$506295-Q7 11/1108to 11!1109 EDP Folicy 7b,i?9.OQ Cannput+er Equipanent Per Schedule $500.00 Dedue.Hble $ 53Z.Q0 c77r or S:fJREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ®SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer ,- DATE: November 19, 2008 RE: A Resolution Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract to Successful Low Quoter Attachment 1 is the Quote Tabulation for the 2008 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Stricture hnspection, Lateral Inspection and Intenial Chemical Grouting Project which were opened and tabulated on November 19, 2008. In 2008 we propose to televise 4,576 linear feet of sanitary sewer main, inspect. 27 strictures and 30 service laterals. Attaclnnent 2 demonstrates the locations of work. The specifications were sent to eight firms, inviting them to quote the project. The low quoter and the only quoter is InfraTech in the amount of $14,530.80. Alternate quote items to repair issues were requested to negotiate a change order at a later date. Infratech's quote included $650 per pipe grouting and $850 per struchire grouting. The quantity of repairs will be identified during the televising portion of the project. This project will be funded by the Sewer Enterprise Budget which budgeted $50,000. Recommendation Staff recommends the contract for the 2008 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Lateral Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting. be awarded to Infratech not to exceed $50,000. A resolution is attached for your consideration. t`' ss i ~._~ ~®a0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER City of Shorewood Quote Tabulation Sanitary Jet Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection Project City Project No. 08-16 Quotes Opened: November 19 2008, 10:00 A.M. City of Shorewood Engineer: James Landini No Quoter Quote 1 Infratech $14,530.80 2 Midwest Trenchless Technologies 3 Lametti & Sons 4 Michels Pi e Service 5 H drovac Inc. 6 Veit 7 Goliath H dro Vac Inc. 8 Visu sewer 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Attachment #1 3 a 3 o ~ ~ s v O d' 17 O o "~ ~ 3rn~NM ~ ' w W x ~, ! o O ~ ° o a o~ Zaw - w a -- f w z' d vi ~ ¢ ~ ~ U ~ (J ~ O ~ w ,,c N °c~ ~ a~ ' ° N ; Q 5 U ~ io w ` ~~ ~`{; ~8 ~. ~ ~~ ~ w a ~m~n = II ~ ~~ 3LL T O ~ ~') Q ~ w w ~ w = ~ O j N ¢ ~ ~ m w o'er o o O . a te 3 N T n° U7 0~ ~ o iv ~ w N a ~ ~ i ~E x x N~ W 4'up -_ - w z d N F ~ ~ i U Z z~ 5 ~ Z ~ ~ d mON - - ~0 ¢ Q ,CI ~ ~ a a~ °oo - J N w ~ l .. ~~E c. i O O Z H U W O oON c w ,~ z z ~ a y ~- w ZK~r W d U U U ~ Q ~ f Z o~0~~ z ~ C~>c _ Q N Z-=~T 3 vi !- ~- r ~~ rr~~ ~ z ~ jYZ! ~ ~~~ \~ a ~ (n ~ .~ . 4 _ ~ I , S $ a 1 ~ a I~'^ ~a o°~~~q _ ~ d - = w V o o ~ ~ > za~oa W a `~~ ¢ ~ -~ ~~ ¢ ~~ = o o d o a ~ i ~ ^^ H O ~ W W (~ 1~ /o ~~ ~~~1~_e } ~ ~-)~ iI ~. ~ LnnJ n.t~„~~ ~ J =s~ i~{c ~~ ..gyn... ~~ ~ ~ c z ~ w a odQ w ao~~~ ~ c=iwZ ~ Q d E m ~ U Z O ~ ~, =~ ~~~/~ Z w Q IJ V~ ~~~ c ~ ~ ~ W '- in ~ ~' ~ ~ ~a w ~ y ~~ ,\ ~ ~ J W e }~ ~ ~~ ~~ v / I Z lfl ~ ~~ ~u V , J G ` z ~ ~.~ ~ z ~~ 0 o ~„ ~ = z ~ z U ~ ~ Q W ~ H N Z Q U ~ O U J Attachment #2 -. --- o - - - - - - - ~ie^` ,","i «s~. °'" w ~~ "° e10S3NNIW 'OOOM3a0H5 '- ~: s mmnM) ~- '%„ .,.. ~..I,;~., V3ad ~3~Ina3S 9 'S~l ( dtlW H3aV ~ ~ ` ~~~ _ ,,,,,~ _' ~ - u `JNISI~3131 ONb `JNINV3l~ t~sl "~: N-'' nl N ~....,,., «,s" ~ ono«:. ,,.~°.."m,s°.=»,~M,.~~.~- a3M35 AaV11NVS 8002 - ary_" N N r _ _ w o w i ~ U w z > O "~ j z 0~ z w ~ J F- 01 W ~ ~~ __ ~ Q Q O U U_ O N _ ~ ° - ~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ w O c a s ~ a rc .E - W J UJ Q O to cn m ~ o'" o s _ - E J ~ iaQ ~I ,y W ~ ? ~ . z m; W N I N Z ~ s ~ i a, 0 - - ~'',. I ~ ~ ~ i I ~ ~ i i I ~ ~~ ~ j F I i z II ~~~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~--, \\ ~ '' ~~, , ,i ~ ~\ ( c ~ ~ ~ \~ ~ I aboa t ~~~o I i I '~ NMOlH11WS ! ~ ~ ~ ~p I ~ ~ 1 O ~ ~ N I rn ObOa ~ i ~ N r T 301S000M .~' ~ .- ` o / y--~.~~-~'_.. _ ... I . W ~ o ~ ~J ~ o I m ~ i O~ m N ~N ~ ' I a m. ~~~~ ~~ N \©1~ ~ ~ ~ '^ o m ~~- 28125 i~ N ' N ~ m :..I N\ 1 n p K ° m I~ N '] N N~ y N I m ~ N m // ~ 4 ~ ~ Q G N ~ rn ~ fOy~~f ~ IOOm \\~ N '(\/O/ I ©4 , 1 N~ 10 a N ~ m ~~~ I m O ~ // ) W n N ~~ N 1.. D N ~ rv ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~~ / N ~ N N ~ J ~J 9t NW ~ \~... 3 ~ / C -~ r' I rv ~ i 'n O N I ~/ i.. E N 1 \.1J i (n V J ! J I -~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 2008 SANITARY SEWER JET VACUUM CLEANING, MAIN LINE TELEVISING, STRUCTURE INSPECTION, LATERAL INSPECTION AND INTERNAL CHEMICAL GROUTING PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for local improvements designated as 2008 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Lateral Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting Project, City Project No. 08-16, quotes were received and opened on November 19, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Infratech is the lowest quoter in compliance with the specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract not to exceed $50,000 with Infratech, in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project Nos. 08-16 according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of November, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator FROM: James Landu7i, City Engineer - DATE: November 20, 2008 RE: A Resolution Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract to Successful Low Quoter Staff received two quotes to replace the storm pipe at 24295 Wood Dr. The pipe has nested away and is need of replacement. In 2009 we propose to replace 210 feet of stone pipe. The stornl pipe will travel from Wood Dr. to DNR waters #900w. The low quoter is E. J. Mayers, hncorporated in the amount of $15,900.00. The other quote was from Red Pederson Utilities, lilc. for $20,400.00. Both quotes involved underground type installation of the replacement pipe instead of the open cut method to minimize surface disturbance. The proximity to the dwelling and two foot plus diameter trees also justifies the underground installation method. This project will be funded by the Storm Enterprise Budget which budgeted $50,000 for contractual repairs in 2009. Recommendation Staff recommends the contract for the 2009 Storm pipe replacement project be awarded to E. J. Mayers, Incorporated not to exceed $20,000. A resolution is attached for your consideration. .. ~®p0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 2009 STORM PIPE REPLACEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for local improvements designated as 2009 Storm Pipe Replacement Project, City Project No. 08-14, quotes were received and opened on October 29, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that E. J. Mayers, Incorporated is the lowest quoter in compliance with the specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract not to exceed $20,000 with E. J. Mayers, Incorporated, in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project Nos. 08-14 according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of November, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk ~- I _ _.._ _, C~~1 TAC VILLAGE OF 5HOREWOOD i ~. ~,... ~. . ; ' ~ GENEI7AL NOTES: .... s~.,,r: _ 20'rod~Yb~on Poring or oJl inrersm:lrone, ~ ~~ f . searf/ d! xhdpl ex~ frngJ / cea en~aJJ r / K .. C/vtr /a//cy Or;ve ~.r Holt-d. fF f ;~' p.-:rr,:yoy;oarirq ~l;a//te,nhr-d ra e+7ye ofek o ~ oh Pr:Par•ry Jane xvJYgrc .-.e dr: re ~: y ~ c.~ . Curb -.aking aJw.J Ge PJaeed ro m±{.~•'m. rv~//r >:s: " . baai(cw+-dor /oyn tt a//dsfurGe'C,~+d-^- - - .. ., - - - ~r ..r.. ki I s ~ - ~ ,ate.-/y _ +-~-: - ~~ %nofe 1`-~' . - _ ~ end 'vc,+vyF','g~ ~ ' r' -. ~i .. _ ~ ~ .Pad. i. .~' ryo .-c.,~r .. i ~~F~ , E og ,. .- .,. ~ f ~~. f~'Y ~, Y ,... J 1 - 4 f~s s Fps ~ \; ~~ I .. . ~~'' - A / xC, FE5 ` / _ / r G -J cH ~I~PJYIFJS'CMP f ~~Iv-. 7 r. ~~ . , `~` ~ ;J .. ~U .. _... ~ .l~ ' f ~, C.Ub 1v/ley Dn're ~ S/c C+e`0 k 5/a:r.J 2"P/ao/•mix a~ B rv-~rlvoas Bw-%O.e -Sar. .'95! _°xco.~efe ro 6'dea/h~sa/wge /. f~/ ce , ex.i9rino grwa/ av /aee.ddd CJoms 5 grave/ M dying ro ,o ~. grade. TYPICAL STREET SECTIJN ND SCA1_E _. f• P 0 N D c~ .. ~: r r '.': ~" ~~ ' 1;1 'w /• ,ikr • ~. ~. y! ` 'F~^ii ~`{L. 81TU.M INOUS CURB ROGATION. STREET I CURB LOC. 9Efi BTAT EIJO STA L F . NGrod d- w C/u6 F61/ey L7n /y~ 4 G 4• B th _0_+PO 5~/ff~ 6+50 6+7CJ 530_ G+S•2~330 Ythodb.~ . < 2" L ~ R S,BG 0+20 J3•OD ^/9 X00 620 :166 _..: C"lob yC/JlY Orivc 2~ n7 O,PO /. 35~2~990 'ree ra_/ 2'_ +th ~ O+e"0 3F90 '0+2740 ruJ de <x 2" M ros g ' k 1 - SHORLWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ° SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ° cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM Date: November 20, 2008 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Brian Heck, City Administrator ~ ;~°~`.-- From: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer Re: Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting The City of Shorewood has just received notification that it once again has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscalyear ending December 31, 2007. This is the 16ri' consecutive year that the City has received the award from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA). The Certificate of Achievement Award is a notable achievement in that it is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and reporting. Its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. For the 2007 fiscal year,. only 282 cities with populations under 10,000 received the award. There are about 32,070 municipalities nationwide with populations under 10,000, so less than 1 % (.88%) qualified to receive the prestigious award and Shorewood was in this group. The award plaque will be shipped to the-City in approximately eight weeks. ®~ ~~~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Shorewood 1Vl~nnesota For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2007 A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Govermnent Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to govermnent units and public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. `~P~ G,E DPFi~~, ~ ~ _ .. Q~` .~ Oi TNE~••,5,n~ W ~UHITED SiATfS~y ANO N `~4~~ '° President 2~ CAfU'ORdTlU4 `~ ~p~~~~ HLr~~ti tNigRLO / j` ~~y~~~~' j~~ ~~ Executive Director r~l ~y~ •ry V V CAS O V4 V ~ ~ ~ ~1 4~ ~ ~ ~ r••~ ~ ~ i~ O ~ ~ .~ `~ 4) 0.1 Y 4 W W W (AO 1~ w rH V H d 0 ~-i ~ O ~ .~ [ 1M~1 O U N i^-1 0 ~ ~+-i ~ O . ,-, w ~ ct N o V ~ U r ~ ,` N ? ? ~ . ~ ~ v "' C c, ~ U O bfj ti G ~ C ? ' U ~ ~ C^ ~ '~ o `ti m '' ~ ~ ~ ~ O ti ~ r ti ~ ~ ~ h ~ G S C3 C S ~ Q " ~ G S O ~ j ~ > by v ,~ ~ °~ C V ~ ~ y - = -~ ~ ~ rv ~ Op .~ y `~ `J C~ p `1 ~ ~ ~ ? e' a ~ ~ ~ ~0~ ~ ~ e' ~ ~ O ti U O ~ U O O O C Q ~ > _ ~ G U ~ ~ ~ 2 o X Er ~ v `? ~ W s~~~~ssac~~~~ y ~ 4 i \ ~ ~p t1 ~ v i"'~_'' ~ °~ t~ ~ ~~~,Ljy`~, .....~"` ~h O O N c~ N N O z Q Government Finance Officers Association 203 N. LaSalle Street -Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone (312) 977-9700 Fax (312) 977-4806 November 13, 2008 Bom~ie Burton Finance Director/Treasurer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood MN55331-8926 Dear Ms, Burton: ~~ ~ ' 1\~ We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in gove~-~Imental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Each entity submitting a report to the Certificate of Achievement review process is provided with a "Summary of Grading" form and a confidential list of comments and suggestions for possible imps°ovements in its financial reporting techniques. Your list has been enclosed. You are strongly encouraged to implement the i°ecommended improvements into the next report and submit it to the program. If it is unclear what must be done to implement a comment or if there appears to be a discrepancy between the comment and the information in the CAFR, please contact the Technical Sei°vices Center (312) 977-9700 and ask to speak with a Certificate of Achievement Program in-house reviewer. Certificate of Achievement program policy requires drat written responses to the comments and suggestions for improvement accompany the next fiscal year's submission. Your written responses should provide detail about how you choose to address each item that is contained within this report. These responses will be provided to those Special Review Committee members participating in the review. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement (AFRA) is also presented to the individual(s) or department designated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the Certificate. As the designated individual we have enclosed your AFRA. Your Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped to you under separate cover in about eight weeks. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. A sample news release has been enclosed. We suggest that you provide copies of it to local newspapers, radio stations and television stations. In addition, enclosed is the Certificate Program 'Results" for reports with fiscal years ended during 2006 representing the most recent statistics available. A current holder of a Certificate of Achievement may include a reproduction of the award in its immediately subsequent CAFR. A camera ready copy of your Certificate is enclosed for that purpose. If you reproduce your Certificate in your Next report, please refer to the enclosed instructions: A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. To continue to participate in the Certificate of Achievement Program it will be necessary for you to submit your next CAFR to our review process. In order to expedite your submission we have enclosed a Certificate of Achievement Program application form to facilitate a timely submission of your next report. This fol°m should be completed and sent (postmarked) with three copies of your report, three copies of your application, three copies of your written responses to the program's comments and suggestions for improvement fi-om the prior year, and any other pertinent material with the appropriate fee by June 30, 2009. Your continued interest in and support of the Certificate of Achievement Program is most appreciated. If we may be of any further assistance, please contact Delores Smith (dsmith@gfoa.org or (312) 578-5454). Sincerely, Government Finance Officers Association v Stephen J. Gauthier, Director Technical Services Center SJG/ds tt,~ ~S~c~C~[ATl~at~ 3 Bay Project Assessment -November 200$ The LAKF MINNETONKt1 ASSOC1AT1oN administered the first years' treatments according to the Three Bay Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP). We have now received the final technical reports and are looking forward to follow up treatments in 2009. Here we provide our assessment of the project results and represent our members' interests in moving forward. The following are taken from the Lake Vegetation Management Plan, which framed the 3 Bay project: Problems to be Addressed: Eurasian watennilfoil is the most problematic plant in the three bays because it interferes with most recreational activities, creates a shoreland cleanup and maintenance chore and probably diminishes ecological health. Other invasive species, particularly curlyleaf pondweed, should be controlled as well. • Native submersed plants also interfere with recreational use and riparian access in some areas; but it is recognized that some kind. of rooted submersed plants will always be present, so control of native plants should be balanced with their protection. Water lilies are sometimes problematic, although there is an appreciation that water lilies provide valuable habitat. Goals: Goal A. Eurasian watermilfoil and other invasive plants, such as curlyleaf pondweed, will be controlled throughout the respective bays in a manner that is safe and effective to reduce interference with recreational activities, reduce Lakeshore cleanup and improve ecological health. Goal B. Native submersed plants should be protected, except in localized areas vrhere they pose a nuisance (see Goal C) although control will be allowed in localized areas where native plants inhibit access to open water or prohibit recreation (see Goal C). Goal C. Provide limited individual nuisance or access control when bay-wide selective control applications are performed. Goal D. This plan will be considered as a framework for possible expansion in the future to other bays in Lake Minnetonka. Specific, measureable objectives are also included in the LVMP, but are not listed here. ~~Sc~r~~fie'CEt3t~ 3 Bay Project Assessment -November 2008 Actions to Achieve the Goals: The LVMT' 'I"echnical Committee reviewed all feasible management techniques and concluded the use of selective herbicides was the-only feasible means of achieving the stated goals and objectives. Action A-1. Selective herbicides will be used in the three bays to control EWM and CLP. Other actions, not listed here. lE~esults The treatments occurred in May following a long winter (and a cool spring). We have now learned the there was significant dilution of the herbicide and therefore there was not adequate exposure/contact time for the products to be full effective. We had expected, based on similar experience elsewhere, that Eurasian watennilfoil would have been controlled to a level of less than 20% of the previous years' levels and that curlyleaf pondweed would also be preemptively controlled. Because of the dilution issue, the level and extent of control was not fully what had been expected; although some control was achieved. Comments for Lakeshore owners on the respective bays indicated a range of success. With respect to the problems to be addressed, here are our observations and conclusions: Milfoil Control Milfoil was controlled to some extent. For the most part, milfoil did not form mats in the bays, except for Caymans. The level of control compared to untreated areas of the lake appeared to be significant; although objective measures for comparison are not available. There are two aspects relating to level ofcontrol -the frequency of occurrence and the density= or nuisance levels of milfoil growth. The frequency of occurrence measures how frequent (based on a sampling grid) milfoil is found. in each bay=, independent of milfoil density. The Army Corps of Engineers provided objective measures of milfoIl frequency (percentages based on June /September sampling): Caymans GrTvs Phel s 2007 58 / 60 86 / 86 65 / 67 2008 62 / 72 50 / 54 60 / 60 >~.c<. ~. ,~ IFS E ! p~ 3 Bay Project Assessment -November 200$ The LVMP objective called for a reduction in milfoil frequency to less than 20% following the first year of treatment. Grays Bay achieved a significant reduction, but the other two bays did not. None of the bays achieved the 20% objective. The density and nuisance levels of milfoil were clearly reduced. The LVMP did not provide for an objective measure of milfoil density; however, there were some clear indicators that milfoil density and nuisance levels were educed. Matting milfoIl did not occur in 2008, except for some areas of matted milfoil noted on Carmans Bay. This is a significant observation as these bays were chosen because they were the most problematic bays with respect to milfoIl matting and nuisances on Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore residents have reported the ability to use the bays for active surface uses, such as tubing, in ways that had not been possible in the past. Grays and Phelps Bays have had substantial matted areas in past years, but in 2008 no matting was observed. Indeed, even though not technically eliminated, many bay residents reported their bays to be `milfoil-free.' Shoreland Cleanup ' The LAkE l~IINNETONKA ASSOCIATION has historically received the most contacts and complaints about shoreland clean up nuisances relating to milfoil. The LVMP provided for a stakeholder survey as the method to measure this objective. Except for the northwest shore of Carmans Bay, we received no complaints or observations of milfoil accumulation requiring cleanup in 2008. In fact, we have received several comments noting the pleasant lack of milfoil accumulation and the attendant clean up requirement. We attribute this result to a combination of reduced milfoil density in the bays and the lack of harvesting which generates milfoil fragments. Curlyleaf pondweed Curlyleaf pondweed is another exotic plant that can become problematic. The LVMP was designed to preemptively control cuhyleaf pondweed, as it has sometimes become problematic in other lakes following milfoil control. Curlyleaf pondweed was not too abundant before this year's treatment and became less abundant following the treatment (note mainly the June frequencies because this plant dies back on its own in late summer). It is not clear at this time whether the reduction in Curlyleaf pondweed is due to the treatment or to some other factor Carmans Gress Phel s 2007 28/4 20/3 36/5 2008 4/0 5/0 1/7 %. ~.:s ~aSSO~lra1`i 3 Bay Project Assessment -November 200$ Native Plants In addition to controlling milfoil, the LVMP was designed to protect native plants because they are good for a healthy lake. The objective in the LVMP called for the average number of native plants (per sampling point) to be maintained (and perhaps increase) at pre-treatment levels. The results are posted below (average # per sampling point, June /September) Caimans Gress Phel s 2007 1.8/1.7 2.9/2.9 2.5/2.7 2008 1.3/23 2.4/2.7 2.2/2.7 Because the number of native plants in a lake or a bay normally fluctuates, these results indicate no significant changes to native plant abundance. The LVMP is designed as a five-year plan, so conclusions regarding whether this objective has been met are premature at this time. Water Lilies Because water lilies are a particularly important element of the lake ecosystem, the LVMP specifically protected these plants. There was no evidence that water lilies had been harmed in the three bays. Water Clarity The LVMP identified a concern that we should be aware of other ecosystem changes following the treatments and identified water clarity as an appropriate surrogate to evaluate this. Water clarity was measured throughout. the summer of 2008 and compared to companion bays where not treatments had occurred. On the basis of the results, there u=as no impact to water clarity noted. Overall Comment LAKE MI~~ETOty~1 ASSOCIATION members are to be commended for their support of this project -without their support, this project would not have been possible. The results from 2008, while disappointing on some levels, were encouraging on other levels. Based on the feedback we have heard as well as the technical results, there is clearly support for, indeed demand for, moving forward with the five-year plan. We view the results on two critical levels -technical and public perception -both of which must be satisfied for the overall success of the project. 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ 3 Bay Project Assessment -November 2008 The technical objectives, specified in the LVMP and overseen by the project's Technical Committee, were met in part. The main objective of controlling milfoil was not accomplished in 2008. However, the objective of controlling milfoil to a level of 20% frequency ought to be viewed in context. The frequency of milfoil in the Three Bays ranged from 50 to 72% (see above); however this does not take into account that the abundance and nuisance aspects of the milfoil growths were clearly reduced. In other words, while milfoil persisted in the Three Bays at unacceptable levels, the treatments did accomplish significant control. The public perception objectives were more consistently accomplished. As mentioned above, an overall reduction of milfoil did occur and this was noticeable by lake users. The Three Bays were substantially clear of matting milfoil and Lakeshore cleanup chores were practically non-existent. The results varied by bay -Grays Bay was the best overall and Caimans Bay was the poorest overall. The results in Phelps Bay were greatly improved with the follow up treatment of several areas in July. What Next ? LAKE MINNF.TONKA ASSOCIATION intends to continue with the treatments in 2009. The Technical Committee and other project partners are framed modifications for the 2009 treatments based on what we learned in 2008. The likely considerations for 2009 include: • Focusing on milfoil control in 2009, then curlyleaf pondweed control later, if needed. • Later spring treatments. • The use of granular products. • A guarantee for a minimum level of control. • Seeking proposals from applicators /manufacturers. • Variable treatments for different conditions (coves, shallow/deep water, lily pads, etc.). • Treat near/around docks. Additional details will be communicated to the Three Bay representatives and to our members as they develop in the upcoming months. We thank you for your support. Please contact the LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION for more information. ?, f Draft Report on Herbicide Residues Following Apri12008 Treatments of Three Bays on Lake Minnetonka Michael D. Netherland US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Gainesville, FL 32653 Background: In Apri12008, large areas of Carmans Bay, Phelps Bay, and Grays Bay on Lake Minnetonka were treated with a combination of the registered aquatic herbicides endothall and triclopyr. Treatment plans called for endothall and triclopyr to be applied at target concentrations of 1 mg a.i./L and 0.25 mg a.e./L respectively. For perspective, the maximum label rate of endothall is 5.0 mg a.i./L and triclopyr is 2.5 mg a.e./acre. In conjunction with these treatments, US Anny ERDC personnel collected water samples and conducted analyses to determine residuals for the two active ingredients. Sampling protocols were designed to determine initial dilution and dispersion patterns in order to link efficacy to herbicide residues. Treatments: Carnaans Bay -Approximately 95 acres (avg. 6.4 feet deep) were treated on April 13, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. The shorelines closer to the main body of the lake were treated with endothall at 1 mg/L and triclopyr at 0.5 mg/L (Fig 1). The entire treatment represented 48% of the littoral area or 23% of the 403-acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that prevailing winds averaged between 10 and 15 mph on the day of treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. PJzelps Bay - Approximately 150 acres (average 5.9 feet deep) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treahnent represented 55% of the littoral area or 40% of the 373-acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were < 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days post-treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. G~°ays Bay - Approximately 160 acres (average 5.7 feet) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 91% of the 175-acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were between 4 to 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days following the application. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay is located near the outlet of Lake Minnetonka, and water flow rates were measured at approximately 150 CFS (or 300 acre feet per day}. This issue was discussed in a pretreatment conference call and it was decided that while the rate of outflow was not optimal from a treatment efficacy standpoint, the closed nature of the bay would insure that exposures would be dictated by outflow versus dispersion from the treatment zone. Water Sampling: Water samples were collected by US Army ERDC personnel prior to the treatment and at 1 (15-18 hour), 2, 3, and 4 days post-treatment on all three bays. Cannans was further sampled at 5, 8, and 15 days, and Phelps and Grays were sampled at 7 and 14 days post- treatment. Sample sites for each bay were selected both within and outside of the application zones. This allowed for determination of herbicide residence within the plots as well as dispersion of residues from the treated areas. Maps showing the treated areas and water sample sites are included in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Figure 1. Carnans Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. y~^'~F~ f ~. i. y r' '~ji ptr,. F . i.T ~.' . ,~"~'~ '' ~~t' P ~~ f ~ f.~ ~;,!~r1, -?' a ,c .' ".Yc'.y.a.. !'t~"i~ 3'°".7_x= ~~' ; • `~-~fc~~> :~.y Figure 2. Phelps Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. Figure 3. Grays Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. ~~ ~' wig ~~" }. ~ ~ . Based on prior experience with liquid herbicide applications, the majority of water samples were collected atmid-depth. Within each bay sites were also designated for vertical sampling at 3 depths (25, 50, and 75% of the average depth). Vertical water column sampling is conducted to insure that herbicides spread from top to bottom in the water colwnn. Following collection, water samples were acidified and shipped to the University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Endothall analyses were conducted via immunoassay. For triclopyr analyses, water samples were shipped to the SePRO Corporation for analysis via immunoassay and HPLC. Results are analyzed and reported as the endothall acid and triclopyr acid. This is an important distinction, as the recommended treatment rates of 1.0 mg/L endothall represent the active ingredient concentrations of the endothall salt. The maximwn recoverable endothall acid would be 0.71 mg/L, (710 ppb) based on the 1.0 mg/L treatment. The maximum recoverable residue of the triclopyr would be 0.25 mg/L. The y-axis of the residue graphs in Figures 4, 5, and 6 reflect the maxilnuin detectable residues for both endothall and triclopyr based on the target application rates to the treatment plots. Results: Pretreatment sampling indicated residues of both endothall and triclopyr were not detectable. Following herbicide application, data indicate there was a rapid dilution within and dispersion of residues from Carnans Bay (Figure 4). While the target endothall concentration was 710 ppb in the treatment plots following application, residues collected at ~15 hrpast-treatment were typically reduced by 80 to 90%. Moreover, residues were essentially equivalent both within and outside the treated areas, suggesting rapid dispersion from the treated area. A similar pattern of dilution and dispersion was also noticed for triclopyr residues (Figure 4). Based on the cold water temperatures (12 C) at the time of application, it is highly unlikely that microbial degradation played a role in the loss of endothall from any of the treatment sites during the initial 15-hour period. The residues detected in Phelps Bay showed better retention through ~15 hr post- treatment when compared to Carmans Bay; however these initial concentrations were still less than 50% of the target rate (Figure 5). The pattern of residue dissipation from the individual sites was not co~~sistent. Despite the above-mentioned concerns with outflow from Grays Bay, this treatment provided the most consistent pattern. of initial residue detection and degradation over time (Figure b). Treatment of a large fraction of this Bay still only resulted in detection of initial residues less than half of the predicted concentration. Nonetheless, in contrast to Carmans and Phelps, residue dissipation was much slower resulting in several days of exposure to herbicide concentrations that could provide herbicidal impacts. Vertical water column sampling in all three bays (Carmans sites 2 and 4, Phelps sites 1 and 2, and Grays site 3) indicated that herbicides were distributed evenly through the water colwnn. This is indicative of isothermal conditions at the time of treatment and it may explain the rapid mixing of residues from the treatment sites to the deeper water areas within the bays. Discussion: The detection of much lower than expected residues at 15 hr post application in the treatment plots of a113 bays indicates an initial rapid dilution of herbicides within the bays. It is very likely the water from the treated areas rapidly mixed with untreated water in the deeper zones resulting in much lower than predicted initial concentrations. The detection of relatively high residues in plots established outside of the treatment zones is evidence of rapid dilution within the bays. Furthernore, within both Carman and Phelps bay, the inability to maintain these initial, albeit lower residues over time, suggests rapid dispersion of the treated water into the main lake. Our research group has focused nwnerous trials on the relationship between herbicide concentration. and exposure time (CET) and target plant control. Higher concentrations of herbicide can provide control given shorter exposure periods, while lower concentrations can often provide excellent control under longer-term exposure scenarios. While there is ample evidence that combinations of endothall and triclopyr can provide control of Eurasian watennilfoil, the effectiveness of this combination (or any treatment combination) is dictated by the actual concentrations and exposures that result following application to the treatment site. As noted above, the treatment concentrations used for the applications to the bays in Lake Minnetonka were on the lower end of the maximum label use rates. To provide some perspective on the residue profiles achieved in the three bays, a theoretical 24-hour half life decay curve was plotted and compared to the average endothall residue values obtained within the treated sites of the bays {Figure 7). The reports of less than desired Eurasian watermilfoil control on Caymans Bay are not totally unexpected given the residue profiles. The loss of more than 80 to 90% of the herbicide from the treated plots within 1 S hr indicates a very short initial exposure to the targeted residues. Moreover, the inability to maintain a prolonged exposure period to these lower residuals was not conducive to achieving target plant control. While the residue profile on Phelps bay presents a more complicated profile than that observed on Caymans bay, the same factors likely impacted plant control. The initial treatment did not provide for maintenance of the higher residues within the treated plots and the resultant lower rate residuals that spread throughout the bay were rapidly dispersed into the main body of the lake. In contrast to Cannans, the residue data from Phelps suggest it is likely that some areas received an initial adequate exposure to cause some level of herbicide injury, while other areas within the bay did not. This type of residue patchiness would make efficacy evaluations difficult to evaluate on a bay wide scale. Grays bay showed a much different long-term residue pattern than either Carman or Phelps bay. While the initial residues were much lower than predicted, these concentrations did persist for several days. It is likely that exposure to extended low concentrations in Grays Bay resulted in the level of Eurasian watermilfoil control that was initially achieved. Despite the ability to maintain longer-term residues in Grays bay, there are reports of some Eurasian watennilfoil recovery in this plot. It is likely that outflow did have an impact on the results achieved in this bay. Discussion Points: L Would greater levels of plant biomass in the treatment plots mitigate rapid dispersion? Earlier demonstration trials were conducted in May and June. 2. Given the rapid dispersion of the herbicide, was there enough biomass to take up the herbicide and translocate it to rootcrowns ? 3. Should higher treatment concentrations be considered in bays subject to rapid dispersion? 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Cayman's Bay Endothali Residues ® May 14 - 1 DAT D May 15 D May 16 C May 17 May 18 O May 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 250 200 150 Cayman's Bay Triclopyr Residues 100 50 O I ^i l~ ^I lk~ ^I I~ ^I I[~ ^i'iili ^I I~! ^I'i T I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 4. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Caymans Bay, Lake Minnetonka. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 250 200 150 100 50 0 Phelp's Bay Endothall Residues ~ May 15 - 1 DAT (~ May 16 D May 17 D May 18 ~~? May 21 Phelps Bay Triclopyr Residues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 5. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Phelps Bay, Lake Minnetonka. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 250 -r 200 150 100 50 Gray's Bay Endothall Residues 0 May 16 1 DAT D May 17 D May 18 ID May 21 ~~ III Grays Bay Triclopyr Residues 'I 2 3 4 Sample Site 5 6 7 750 600 450 300 150 0 -~- Hypothetical 24 hr half-life ••••••••O••••••• Carmens Bay residues through 4 d ---~--- Phelps Bay residues through 4 d •. •\` -••-q•-•• Grays Bay residues through 4 d '~. l '~. ~` `•. •. ~••' - ~...... ~~_ mss---_ •.... __ •~••o~ ................-.-~, 0 1 2 3 4 Days Post-treattment Figure 7. A hypothetical residue profile comparing a 24-hour half-life versus the actual average values obtained following sampling of treatment sites on 3 bays of Lake Minnetonka. Draft Report Following April 2008 Aquatic Herbicide Treatments of Three Bays on Lake Minnetonka John G. Skogerboe and Michael D. Netherland US Army Engineer Research and Development Center BACKGROUND In Minnesota generally and on Lake Minnetonka in particular, there is interest in the potential for active aquatic plant management techniques to provide selective control of Eurasian watenmilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum, dicot) and curly-leaf pondweed {Potamogeton crispus, monocot). Selective control of dicotyledonous plants, which include Eurasian watennilfoil, may be achieved with 2,4-D (Green and Westerdahl 1990) and triclopyr (Netherland and Getsinger 1992), which are commonly used systemic herbicides (Getsinger et al. 1997, Poovey et al. 2004). Endothall is abroad-spectrum herbicide {Netherland et al. 1991), which can be used to control a wide range of aquatic plants. Research has shown that endothall can be used to selectively control curly-leaf pondweed with careful selection. of application rates (Skogerboe and Getsinger 2002) and seasonal timing (Poovey et al. 2002). Additional research has shown that low rates of endothall combined with 2,4-D or triclopyr can provide selective control of two invasive exotic species, Eurasian watennilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed, if applied in early spring when most native species are dormant (Skogerboe and Getsinger 2006). In 2007 a project was initiated on Lake Minnetonka to demonstrate the potential of aquatic plant management strategies to provide selective control of Eurasian watennilfoil {Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton c~°ispus). Three basins were selected for pre treatment aquatic plant surveys: Carnen's, Grays, and Phelps bays. Potential aquatic plant management strategies have not been selected to date. Eurasian watenmilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed were present in all basins, and native plants were abundant in depths < 15 ft. In Apri12008, large areas of Carmen's Bay, Phelps Bay, and Grays Bay on Lake Minnetonka were treated with a combination of the registered aquatic herbicides endothall and triclopyr. Treatment plans called for endothall and triclopyr to be applied at target concentrations of 1 mg a.i./L and 0.25 mg a.e./L respectively. For perspective, the maximum label rate of endothall is 5.0 mg a.i./L and triclopyr is 2.5 mg a.e./acre. In conjunction with these treatments, US Anny ERDC personnel collected water samples and conducted analyses to determine residuals for the two active ingredients. SaTnpling protocols were designed to determine initial dilution and dispersion patterns in order to link efficacy to herbicide residues. METHODS Treatments: Three basins were selected in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) including Carmen's Bay, Grays Bay, and Phelps Bay. Carmen 's Bay -Approximately 95 acres (avg. 6.4 feet deep) were treated on April 13, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. The shorelines closer to the main body of the lake (shaded in yellow) were treated with. endothall at 1 mg/L and triclopyr at 0.5 mg/L (Fig 1). The entire treatment represented 48% of the littoral area or 23% of the 403-acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that prevailing winds averaged between 10 and 15 mph on the day of treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Phelps Bay - Approximately 150 acres (average 5.9 feet deep) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 55% of the littoral area or 40% of the 373-acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were < 6 mph and remained light and variable for several. days post-treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay - Approximately 160 acres (average 5.7 feet) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treat~r~ent represented 91% ofthe 17~-acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were between 4 to 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days following the application. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay is located near the outlet of Lake Minnetonka, and water flow rates were measured at approximately 150 CFS (or 300 acre feet per day). This issue was discussed in a pretreatment conference call and it was decided that while the rate of outflow was not optimal from a treatment efficacy standpoint, the closed nature of the bay would insure that exposures would be dictated by outflow versus dispersion from the treatment zone. Aquatic Plant Evaluations: At the request of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS initiated plant surveys on all three basins to evaluate the plant communities and establish background data for potential future aquatic plant management demonstrations. The survey was conducted by John Skogerboe, ERDC Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Spring Valley, WI. Surveys were conducted in late June, 2007 and early September 2007. Additional surveys will be collected following the initiation of plant management demonstrations in order to evaluate their effectiveness. Prior to conducting the first surveys, 50x50 m grids were established for each basin using computer mapping software. The grids were downloaded unto GPS (Global Positioning System.) equipment accurate to 10 to 20 ft. Samples were collected using a 36-cm wide rake attached to a rope. At each sample point, the rake was thrown from the boat approximately 10 to 20 ft and then raised up to the water surface. Each species was then. recorded for each sample point. Percent occurrence of plant species was calculated by dividing the number of points where a particular species was present by the total number of sample points in the littoral zone. The average number of species per sample point, and the total the number of native plant species in each basin were calculated. Water Sampling: Water samples were collected by US Arny ERDC personnel prior to the treatment and at 1 (15-18 hour), 2, 3, and 4 days post-treatment on all three bays. Carnen's was further sampled at 5, 8, and 15 days, and Phelps and Grays were sampled at 7 and 14 days post- treatiinent. Sample sites for each bay were selected both within and outside of the application zones. This allowed for determination of herbicide residence within the plots as well as dispersion of residues from the treated areas. Maps showing the treated areas and water sample sites are included in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Based on prior experience with liquid herbicide applications, the majority of water samples were collected at mid-depth. Within each bay sites were also designated for vertical sampling at 3 depths {25, 50, and 75% of the average depth). Vertical water column sampling is conducted to insure that herbicides spread from top to bottom in the water column. Following collection, water samples were acidified and shipped to the University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Endothall analyses were conducted via immunoassay. For triclopyr analyses, water samples were shipped to the SePRO Corporation for analysis via immunoassay and HPLC. Results are analyzed and reported as the endothall acid and triclopyr acid. This is an important distinction, as the recommended treatment rates of LO mg/L endothall represent the active ingredient concentrations of the endothall salt. The maximum recoverable endothall acid would be 0.71 mg/L (710 ppb) based on the 1.0 mg/I, treatment. The maximum recoverable residue of the triclopyr would be 0.25 mg/L. The y-axis of the residue graphs in Figures 4, 5, and b reflect the maximwn detectable residues for both endothall and triclopyr based on the target application rates to the treatment plots. Results Water Sampling: Pretreahnent sampling indicated residues of both endothall and triclopyr were not detectable. Following herbicide application, data indicate there was a rapid dilution within and dispersion of residues from Carmen's Bay (Figure 4). While the target endothall concentration was 710 ppb in the treatment plots following application, residues collected at ~15 hr post-treatment were typically reduced by 80 to 90%. Moreover, residues were essentially equivalent both within and outside the treated areas, suggesting rapid dispersion from the treated area. A similar pattern of dilution and dispersion was also noticed for triclopyr residues (Figure 4). Based on the cold water temperatures (12 C) at the tune of application, it is highly unlikely that microbial degradation played a role in the loss of endothall from any of the treatment sites during the initial 15-hour period. The residues detected in Phelps Bay showed better retention through ~15 hr post- treatment when compared to Carmen's Bay; however these initial concentrations were still less than 50% of the target rate (Figure 5). The pattern of residue dissipation from the individual sites was not consistent. Despite the above-mentioned concerns with outflow from Grays Bay, this treatment provided the most consistent pattern of initial residue detection and degradation over time (Figure 6). Treatment of a large fraction of this Bay still only resulted in detection of initial residues less than half of the predicted concentration. Nonetheless, in contrast to Carmen's and Phelps, residue dissipation was much slower resulting in several days of exposure to herbicide concentrations that could provide herbicidal impacts. Vertical water column sampling in all three bays (Cannen's sites 2 and 4, Phelps sites 1 and 2, and Grays site 3) indicated that herbicides were distributed evenly through the water column. This is indicative of isothermal conditions at the time of treatment and it may explain the rapid mixing of residues from the treatment sites to the deeper water areas within the bays. Aquatic Plant Evaluations: Carmen's Bay Pre-treatment: The littoral zone (depth < 15) contained 181 sample points which was 59% of all sample points (Figure 8). The distribution of Eurasian watennilfoil, curly-leaf pondweed, and native aquatic plants in Carmen's Bay are shown in Figure 9. Eurasian watermilfoil was found at 58% (Jun 07) and 60% (Sep 07) of littoral zone sample points, and curly-leaf pondweed was found at 28% (Jun 07) and 4% (Sep 07) of the littoral zone sample points (Table 1). The decline in percent occurrence of curly-leaf pondweed was due to normal senescence in late spring and early summer. The native plant community was dominated by coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum, dicot), clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richar~dsonii, monocot), flat-stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis, monocot), and sago pondweed {Stukenia pectinata, monocot). Plant species were distinguished as monocots or dicots because some aquatic herbicides are selective for dicots while others are broad spectrum herbicides which can affect both monocots and dicots. The native plant community was composed of 18 different species including 6 dicots, 11 monocots, and 1 macro-alga. Post treatment: Post treatment plant data showed no decline in the percent occurrence of Eurasian watennilfoil (Table 1). The data did indicate a decline in curly-leaf pondweed in Jun 08 (28%) compared to Jun 07 (4%). Two native species (wild celery and water star-grass) significantly increased in occurrence in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07, and one species (flat-stem pondweed} significantly declined. Overall the number of native species per sample point increased in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07 and the percentage of sample points with native species increased. Grays Bay Pre-treatment: The littoral zone {depth < 15}contained 216 sample points which was 84% of all sample points (Figure 10}. The distribution Eurasian watennilfoil, curly-leaf pondweed, and native aquatic plants in Grays Bay are shown in Figure 11. Eurasian watermilfoil was found at 86% (Jun 07) and 86% (Sep 07) of littoral zone sample points, and curly-leaf pondweed was found at 20% (Jun 07) and 3% (Sep 07) of the littoral zone sample paints (Table 2). The decline in percent occurrence of curly-leaf pondweed was due to normal senescence in late spring and early summer. The native plant community was dominated by coontail (Ceratophyllum denaeJ°sum, dicot), big-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton ampl~olius, monocot), clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton ~°ichardsonii, monocot), flat-stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteNifof°mis, monocot), and sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata, monocot). Plant species were distinguished as monocots or dicots because some aquatic herbicides are selective for dicots while others are broad spectnun herbicides which can affect both monocots and dicots. The native plant community was composed of 18 different species including 6 dicots, 11 monocots, and 1 macro-alga. Post treatment: Post treatment plant data showed a decline in the percent occurrence of Eurasian watennilfoil (Table 2) from 54 % in Sep 08 compared to 86 % in Sep 07. The data also indicated a decline in curly-leaf pondweed in Jun 08 (5%) compared to Jun 07 (20%). Four native species (coontail, slender naiad, wild celery and water star-grass) sigiii icantly increased in occurrence in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07, ar~d one species (flat- stem pondweed) showed a significant decline. Overall the nwnber of native species per sample point decreased in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07 and the percentage of sample points with native species remained about the same. Phelps BaX Pre-treatment: The littoral zone (depth < 15) contained 257 sample points which was 703% of all sample points (Figure 12). The distribution Eurasian watennilfoil, curly-leaf pondweed, and native aquatic plants in Phelps Bay are shown in Figure 13. Eurasian watermilfoil was found at 65% (Jun 07) and 67% (Sep 07) of littoral zone sample points, and curly-leaf pondweed was found at 36% (Jun 07) and S% (Sep 07) of the littoral zone sample points (Table 3). The decline in percent occurrence of curly-leaf pondweed was due to normal senescence in late spring and early summer. The native plant community was dominated by coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum, dicot), big-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton ampl~olius, monocot), clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton riclaardsonii, monocot), flat-stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis, monocot), and sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata, monocot). Plant species are distinguished between monocots and dicots because some aquatic herbicides are selective for dicots such as Eurasian watennilfoil while others are broad spectrum herbicides which can affect both dicots and monocots. The native plant community was composed of 23 different species including 8 dicots, 14 monocots, and 1 macro-alga Post treatment: Post treatment plant data showed no decline in the percent occurrence of Eurasian watennilfoil (Table 3). The data did indicate a decline in curly-leaf pondweed in Jun 08 (36%) compared to Jun 07 (1%). Two native species (wild celery and water star-grass) significantly increased in occurrence in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07, and one species (flat-stem pondweed) significantly declined. Overall the number of native species per sample point increased in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07 and the percentage of sample points with native species increased. Discussion: The detection of much lower than expected residues at 15 hr post application in the treatment plots of a113 bays indicates an initial rapid dilution of herbicides within the bays. It is very likely the water from the treated areas rapidly mixed with untreated water in the deeper zones resulting in much lower than predicted initial concentrations. The detection of relatively high residues in plots established outside of the treatment zones is evidence of rapid dilution within the bays. Furthermore, within both Carman and Phelps bay, the inability to maintain these initial, albeit lower residues over time, suggests rapid dispersion of the treated water into the main lake. Our research group has focused numerous trials on the relationship between herbicide concentration and exposure time (CET) and target plant control. Higher concentrations of herbicide can provide control given shorter exposure periods, while lower concentrations can often provide excellent control under longer-tern exposure scena~ios. While there is ample evidence that combinations of endothall and triclopyr can provide control of Eurasian watermilfoil, the effectiveness of this combination (or any treatment combination) is dictated by the actual concentrations and exposures that result following application to the treatment site. As noted above, the treatment concentrations used for the applications to the bays in Lake Minnetonka were on the lower end of the maximum label use rates. To provide soiree perspective on the residue proles achieved in the three bays, a theoretica124-hour half life decay curve was plotted and compared to the average endothall residue values obtained within the treated sites of the bays (Figure 7). The reports of less than desired Eurasian waternilfoil control on Carmen's Bay are not totally unexpected given the residue profiles. The loss of more than 80 to 90% of the herbicide from the treated plots within 15 hr indicates a very short initial exposure to the targeted residues. Moreover, the inability to maintain a prolonged exposure period to these lower residuals was not conducive to achieving target plant control. While the residue prole on Phelps bay presents a more complicated profile than that observed on Carnen's bay, the same factors likely impacted plant control. The initial treatment did not provide for maintenance of the higher residues within the treated plots and the resultant lower rate residuals that spread throughout the bay were rapidly dispersed into the main body of the lake. In contrast to Carnen's, the residue data from Phelps suggest it is likely that soiree areas received an initial adequate exposure to cause some level of herbicide injury, while other areas within the bay did not. This type of residue patchiness would make efficacy evaluations difficult to evaluate on a bay wide scale. Grays bay showed a much different long-term residue pattern than either Carmen's or Phelps bay. While the initial residues were much lower than predicted, these concentrations did persist for several days. It is likely that exposure to extended low concentrations in Grays Bay resulted in the level of Eurasian watennilfoil control that was initially achieved. Despite the ability to maintain longer-term residues in Grays bay, there are reports of some Eurasian watennilfoil recovery in this plot. It is likely that outflow did have an impact on the results achieved in this bay. Eurasian water milfoil control was significantly less than anticipated in all three bays based on previous, growth chamber mesocosrn, and field data. Herbicide residue data indicate that the exposure times of the herbicides in all three bays were insufficient for good control, even though the large size of the treatment areas should have allowed for longer exposure times. The cause of the short exposure times is still being investigated. Residue data for Grays bay showed that exposure times were longer due to the enclosed setup of the bay. Grays bay did show a decline in Eurasian watennilfoil, while the other bays did not. Curly-leaf pondweed was significantly reduced in occurrence. The native plant community was not adversely affected, even though some species (wild celery and water Star-grass} showed consistent Increases In all three bays and once species (flat-stem pondweed declined in all three bays. Water-lilies did not appear to be adversely affected. References Crowell, W.J., N. Troelstrup, L. Queen, and J. Perry. 1994. Effects of harvesting on plant communities dominated by Eurasian watennilfoil Lake Minnetonka, MN. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 32:56-60. Getsinger, K.D., J.D. Madsen, E.G. Turner, and M.D. Netherland. 1997._ Restoring native vegetation in a Eurasian watennilfoil-dominated plant community using the herbicide triclopyr. Regul. Rivers Res. And Manage. 13: 357-375. Green, W.R. and H.E. Westerdahl. 1990. Response of Eurasian watennilfoil to 2,4-D concentrations and exposure times. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 28: 27-32. Madsen, J.D. and K.D. Getsinger. 1995. Assessment of aquatic plants before and after a triclopyr treatment in Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota. pp. 90-95 in Proceedings, 29th Annual Meeting, Aquatic Plant Control Research Program. Miscellaneous Paper A-95-3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180. Netherland, IVI.D., W.R. Green, and K.D. Getsinger. 1991. Endothall concentration and exposure time relationships for the control of Eurasian watennilfoil and hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 29: 61-67. Netherland, M.D. and K.D. Getsinger. 1992. Efficacy of triclopyr on Eurasian watennilfoil-concentration and exposure time effects. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 30:1-5. Parsons, J.K., K.S. Hamel, J.D. Madsen, and K.D. Getsinger. 2001. The use of 2,4-D for selective control of an early infestation of Eurasian watennilfoil in Loon. Lake, Washington. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 39:117-125. Poovey, A.G. J.G. Skogerboe, and C.S. Owens. 2002. Spring treatments of diquat and endothall for curly-leaf pandweed control. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 40:63-67 Poovey, A.G., K.D. Getsinger, J.G. Skogerboe. T.J. Koschnick, J.D. Madsen, and R.M. Stewart. 2004. Small-Plot, Low-Dose Treatments of triclopyr for Selective Control of Eurasian Watennilfoil. Lake and Reserv. Manage. 20(4}: 322-332. Skogerboe, J.G., and K.D. Getsinger. 2002. Endothall species selectivity evaluation: Northern latitude aquatic plant community. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 40: 1-5. Skogerboe, J.G., and K.D. Getsinger. 2006. Selective control of Eurasian watennilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed using low doses of endothall combined with 2,4-D. APCRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/TN APCRP-CC-OS). Vicksburg, MS: U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Figure 1. Cannen's Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. ,Y , ... Figure 2. Phelps Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. .,,.;, •{1~~" '.A Figure 3. Grays Bay treatment area {shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Garman's Bay Endothall Residues ® May 14 - 1 DAT D May 15 O May 16 -J May 17 -= :; r May 18 ~l May 21 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 200 150 Carman's Bay Triclopyr Residues 100 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 4. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Cannen's Bay, Lake Minnetonka. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 250 200 150 100 50 0 Phelp's Bay Endothall Residues ~ May 15 - 1 DAT D May 16 O May 17 C.~ May 18 ~~ May 21 Phelps Bay Triclopyr Residues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 5, Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Phelps Bay, Lake Minnetonka. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 250 200 150 100 50 0 Gray's Bay Endothall Residues ~ May 15 - 1 DAT [-]May 16 O May 17 D May 18 D May 21 Grays Bay Triclopyr Residues 1 2 3 4 Sample Site 5 6 7 750 600 '•. 450 300 150 0 ~ Hypothetical 24 hr half-life ••••••••O••••••• Carmens Bay residues through 4 d ---~--- Phelps Bay residues through 4 d -••~7•-•• Grays Bay residues through 4 d •, t` •' •.• ~ .._...0.._..~.._.._..~p.._.._..~..,..~. ~ ..... ••.. -_ o ....................-:,~ .. -~__.~~.W W ___.~ 0 1 2 3 4 Days Post-treattment Figure 7. A hypothetical residue profile comparing a 24-hour half-life versus the actual average values obtained following sampling of treatment sites on 3 bays of Lake Minnetonka. Figure 8. Carmen's Bay 2007 point intercept sample grid (50x50 m) I ;_._~- r--- -- =_ ~ , , . _ _ I '' i s'' n ,. = ~ _ .. _a .. r. -. ~- -~ - -} ~ ~t -- - ~. -- ` ~ . ~ _ _ P,Std E 1. »~ E} C~tB Zc~Orr~ 1 ~-l Figure 4. Carmen's Bay aquatic plant distribution, 2007 Figure 10. Gray's Bay 2007 point intercept sample grid (50x50 mj .... . -_7~ f`- - --.- _ .. ' +l ~ ~ t +P I I } ~ ~~ it ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ . .* ~ ~ v; r~'~ v ¢. '~~!~8i ~i i ~ ~ - , t ~ - - -~~ - _ _ _ ~- - .~ - ' 4 ~ -, ,~ ~ 1 .- - ~- 'r ~ .; - ~~. ~ _ _ ~ _ ~_ _ ~1 ~ -- - .._ X ., ~~~1. .. _. ._ __ ~ __ _~ - _~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~_' ~ ,a ~ - - - - __ _ ~ _~ _- - _ _: *. '_~ ~ S - _` - ' ~ ~ _ 1 ~;~; ~ _' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r J t ; # , 8^ , -. a ~ s -. w _ ~ _ • ,, N i t-,,~_ f t y -- -" ~ ~ , -' ...~ ~ " ~ . a ~.~ ~ ~ ~ N ~, e~ ~ ~} ~ _ ~. ~~i~~d E`1.~-= E~;, ~af~ ~c ~ 1~-7 ~rrraG.u~:~t~ Figure 11. Grays Bay aquatic plant distribution, 2007 Eurasian watermilfoil (red dot} Curly-leaf pondweed (blue dot) Native plants {green dot) Figure 12. Phelp's Bay 2007 point intercept sample grid (50x50 m} ,,~,-rig,-~ ~-- _- ----- ---- -- _ ~_ . .~ ~ ,, ,-, a ~ . 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 r . - 5 a _ ~ Q ~ !. ~ a v ~~ - a e E . ~r - ~ ~' ~' r ~~'q[ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 . P A f f ~ ~ + . 3. - F ~ ~. ' i E . f ~ ' r . r i ~ ~ ~ w ~ f -# 1 } - `~. a ~ ~. e ~ w __ ' _ __ F ~y. + y~ . ,. ~ ~ .~ 1. 4 ~ ~, ~a - .ate • - .• ~ ' ;_ + - ^ .. ~ .. . a ; ~ n ,• __ y ~ ~ i ~~" ~~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ __ __ _ {. __ ._ _ __ __ _ t~ A _ _ _ _ . _ _ .. _ 1 ~ _ _ ~ ~ 1 ~3 - • - '-'- N+ •: . I I ~ ~ ~~ ~ a m k~~. .. _ ~ -~ _ ~~~~. -...~t~.Fs ~t+ :.3_i^~ i.. [~, LI i~LL~a.'x,~~~ ~ `^-~ Figure 13. Grays Bay aquatic plant distribution, 2007 Eurasian watermilfoil (red dot) Curly-leaf pondweed (blue dot) elp~ ,' land Native plants (green dot) Table 1. Plant diversity data for Carmen's Bay Percent occurrence results: Carmen's Bay Jun 07 Sep 07 Jun 08 Sep 08 Exotic submersed macrophytes (%) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) 58 60 62 72 Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) 28 4 4 0 Native submersed macrophytes (%) water marigold (Bidens beckii) coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) elodea (E/odes canadensis) Northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum} slender naiad (Najas flexilis) big-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis) white-stem pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonit) flat-stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) white water crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris) sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinate} great bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris) wild celery (Va//isneria americans} water star-grass (Zosterella dubia) Native floating-leaf macrophytes {%) fragrant water-lily (Nymphaea odorata) Submersed macro-algae {%) chars Number of sample sites Number of sample sites in littoral zone (depth < 15 ft) Percent points in littoral zone Mean number of species per point (littoral zone) Mean number of native species per point (littoral zone) Percentage of points with plants Percentage of points with native plants Number of plant species Number of native plant species 4 4 1 10 42 40 39 35 3 5 3 6 7 8 2 7 12 10 3 24 9 9 3 1 3 4 3 15 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 24 25 15 28 24 21 5 4 2 0 2 0 17 20 10 16 2 2 1 1 4 6 5 23 7 7 5 26 10 10 13 14 7 6 6 14 305 305 304 301 181 181 175 170 59% 59% 58% 56% 2.64 2.30 2.10 3.05 1.78 1.68 1.25 2.32 85 83 85 95 72 73 69 85 20 19 21 20 18 17 19 19 *All percent occurrence data is based on percentage of littoral zone Table 2. Plant diversity data for Gray's Bay Percent occurrence results: Gray's Bay Exotic submersed macrophytes (%)* Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) Native submersed macrophytes (%)* water marigold (Bidens beckii} coontail {Ceratophyllum demersum) elodea (Elodea canadensis) slender naiad (Najas f(exi/is) big-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis) white-stem pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii) fern pondweed (Potamogeton robbinsii) flat-stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) white water crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris) sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata) wild celery (Vallisneria americans) water star-grass (Zosterella dubia) Native floating-leaf macrophytes (%)* spatterdock (Nuphar advena) fragrant water-lily (Nymphaea odorata} Submersed macro-algae (%)* chars Jun 07 Sep 07 Jun 08 Sep 08 86 86 50 54 20 3 5 0 1 1 1 2 38 40 45 56 8 9 15 19 5 2 21 35 27 28 18 16 3 3 1 4 7 8 1 0 10 5 2 2 62 60 51 45 24 23 16 17 54 51 12 6 3 1 2 0 19 21 13 16 5 5 6 17 1 1 2 13 4 5 4 4 7 7 6 7 13 8 3 11 Number of sample sites 258 258 262 264 Number of sample sites in littoral zone (depth < 15 ft) 216 216 218 238 Percent points in littoral zone 84% 84% 83% 90% Mean number of species per point (littoral zone) 3.95 3.75 3.22 3.24 Mean number of native species per point (littoral zone) 2.89 2.91 2.4 2.7 Percentage of points with plants (littoral zone) 99 98 94 98 Percentage of points with native plants (littoral zone) 94 94 91 97 Number of plant species 20 20 20 18 Number of native plant species 18 18 18 17 "All percent occurrence data is based on percentage of littoral zone Table 3. Plant diversity data for Phelp'sSay Percent occurrence results: Phelps Bay Jun 0? Sep 07 Jun 08 Sep 08 Exotic submersed macrophytes (%) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum} 65 67 60 69 Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus} 36 5 1 7 Native submersed macrophytes {% water marigold (Bidens beckii) 7 8 2 4 coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) 52 55 56 69 elodea (E/odea canadensis} 1 2 3 5 northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum) 5 8 5 11 slender naiad (Najas flexi/is} 13 10 8 21 big-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) 18 23 15 6 Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton i/linoensis) 16 17 8 11 floating-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton natans) 1 1 1 1 white-stem pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) 2 3 3 7 small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) 4 0 2 7 clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsoni~) 27 29 23 24 fern pondweed (Potamogeton robbinsii) 3 3 3 1 flat-stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) 37 40 10 17 white water crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris) 5 1 5 0 grassy arrowhead (Sagittaria graminea} <1 1 0 1 softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) 1 1 1 1 sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata) 15 17 5 10 great bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris) 2 2 2 2 wild celery (Vallisneria americans} 8 9 12 25 water star-grass (Zosterella dubia) 5 7 5 27 Native floating-leaf macrophytes {%) spatterdock (Nuphar advena) 7 7 5 5 fragrant water-lily (Nymphaea odorata) 19 21 18 22 Submersed macro-algae (%) chars 3 2 1 2 Number of sample sites 365 365 363 360 Number of sample sites in littoral zone (depth < 15 ft) 257 257 255 255 Percent points in littoral zone 70% 70% 70% 71 Mean number of species per point (littoral zone) 3.53 3.12 3.2 3.44 Mean number of native species per point (littoral zone) 2.51 2.7 2.2 2.66 Percentage of points with plants 97 96 91 92 Percentage of points with native plants 89 91 85 90 Number of plant species 25 24 24 24 Number of native plant species 23 22 22 22 All percent occurrence data is based on per CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952-474-3236 Fax: 952-474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Councilmember's From: James Landini -City Engineer Date: November 19, 2008 Re: Request for Proposal for Consultant for Park Designs The Park Comrriissioii is looking for a consultant who can provide insight and analysis to the parks. The consultant would review the park master plan and the survey results, provide ideas and trends, meet with the Park Commission and help assist in utilizing the budget for future planning, and review the current park infrastructure on a park-by-park basis. The Park Commission would then take the information provided to them and prioritize the options and equipment purchases for the next 20+ years. The Request for the Proposal is attached for the Council's review. The Park Commission approved the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Consulting Services and has asked that the council also approve. If approved tonight, it would be advertised in the December League of Minnesota Cities and the official city paper. The deadlines set for proposal submittals are as follows: Deadline for questions -December 24, 2008 Proposals received at City Hall -December 31, 2008 Interviews (if necessary) - To Be Determined Select Consultant -February 10, 2009 Recommendation The Park Commission recommends the City Council approve the request for proposals for Consulting Services. Request for Proposals For Consulting Park Planning Services The City of Shorewood is soliciting Requests for Proposals (RFP) from qualified consultants to assist in the validation of our current park infrastructure, and to make recommendations on future planning considerations as we prioritize our upcoming capital expenditures. OVERVIEW The City of Shorewood, Minnesota park system contains five major park facilities and a number of smaller areas that provide additional recreational opportunities. The park system contains approximately 100 acres of usable recreation land. Given the fact that the City is not expected to see significant additional residential growth and the fact that few vacant land parcels remain in the community, Shorewood is not expected to add new park sites and intends to ensure that we invest iil the development and enhancement of these parks to continue serving our community. The existing parks are considered adequate in size and location to meet the future needs of the community. Shorewood residents are generally well served by the existing park system as most areas of the community are within a 1/z to one-mile radius of neighborhood park facilities. As a result, the focus of future park planning will be on developing existing parks. As land becomes available through tax forfeiture, vacation of public right-of--way, donations and/or other means, it will be examined for possible inclusion in the park system but this is generally not anticipated as part of our master plan. A driver for this RFP is the general consensus that the City of Shorewood is at a significant crossroad's for the direction we take with our Parks Systems, and we are looking for expertise that will challenge our typical ways of thinking and help to create a progressive and innovative design that will help be sustainable and economical. The list below represents the current park designations and their approximate size. Cathcart Park 4.8 acres Freeman Park 67.8 acres Badger Park (including City Hall) 10.2 acres Crescent Beach (joint use with Tonka Bay) .4 acres Manor Park 4.5 acres Silverwood Park 8.1 acres South Shore Community Park 3.4 acres Total 99.2 acres -1- SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Shorewood Park Commission is looking for a consultant to assist in the design, future vision and feasibility analysis in optimally utilizing our budgeted capital dollars towards park improvements.The scope of this RFP is intended to identify a consultant who can provide insight and analysis around the following two areas: Review of Shorewood's Master Park Plan and Survey Results that have been compiled from the community. With this information, we are looking for the chosen consultant to provide specific design ideas and trends that are both progressive and fiscally attainable. The Park Commission will use this information to prioritize potential configuration options and equipment purchases in the near term that will be sustainable for the next 20+ years. Primary focus will be around the following 5 parks (in alphabetical order) - Badger Park - Cathcart Park - Freeman Park - Manor Park - Silverwood Park This analysis would include, but is not limited to, a review of all aspects of our parks including: - Playgrounds - Open lands - Community Shelters - Playing fields - Trails & Accessibility - Parking Accommodations 2. The Park Commission is looking for an innovative template for renewal and reconstruction to include a prototype for a park building /warming house / picnic shelter that could reside in any /all of our parks. We expect that the chosen consultant will provide the Park Commission with a design that is sustainable, brings continuity to the Park System based on your analysis of our Master Plan, and is innovative in how it can be utilized and enjoyed by the community. -2- PROPOSAL FORMAT Please include the following in your proposal submission: 1. State in clear terms your understanding of the proposed project and describe in narrative form the approach which the firm plans to use to complete the stated Scope of Services. 2. Qualifications and Experience -Describe the background, experience and qualifications of the principal contact and individual team members proposed to be involved in the design and concept plans of the projects. Provide three (3) client references regarding the firm's performance. The references shall include the firm's name, contact name, title and phone number of each of the references. 3. Present a schedule or time line for completion of the entire project 4. The proposals shall include the principal contact person or who will be the initial point of contact for all matters. 5. Clearly articulate the format in how you will deliver your findings to the City and Park Commission. It is expected that there will be a written report and at least one oral presentation to the Park Commission as part of your proposal. 6. Provide a detailed fee schedule. This should be broken out to include a review of the Master Plan and recommendation of the 5 parks (outlined in Question 1). Please include any additional fees if the Park Commission were to increase the scope to include additional parks or projects. 7. Please include any samples of your work that would help to demonstrate your experience, areas of expertise and commitment to these types of engagements. 8. Include any other information believed to be pertinent, but not specifically mentioned in this RFP. INSURANCE The selected organization will be required to provide evidence of the following insurance coverage's: a) Professional and or Errors and Omissions Insurance. b) Liability insurance in the amount of 1.2 million, which shall cover all actions and operations of the organization. c) Automobile Insurance and Workers Compensation. Liability insurance coverage shall name the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, its agents, officers, and employees as additional insures. The coverage shall contain a 30-day notice and cancellation clause. BASIS OF AWARD Proposals will be evaluated upon experience, qualifications, and consultant's hourly fees. The provider who can best demonstrate a combination of experience, vision and report their findings in a tangible report within the guidelines of this RFP will be awarded the business. -3- Upon selection, the chosen Consultant will meet with the Park Commission to discuss needs that we would like to incorporate into our plan on a park-by-park basis to help understand the needs and challenges that we feel are relevant and would like to have validated as a priority. DEADLINE FOR PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS A selection team comprised of the City of Shorewood Park Commission and City Staff will review all the proposals. The selection team shall select the firm they feel will supply the City the best and most complete effort. Selection will be based on the proposals and subsequent oral interviews, if needed. The selection of a qualified firm will be made no later than February 10, 2009. The evaluation of proposals shall proceed on the following schedule: December 24, 2008 Deadline for questions December 31, 2008 Proposals received at City Hall To Be Determined Interviews, if necessary February 10, 2009 Select consultant and prepare agreement Please furnish five copies of the proposals to the following: Attn: James Landini City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 All proposals must be clearly marked on the outside "Consulting Services for Shorewood Parks". Any and all Proposals arriving after said time shall be returned unopened to the firm submitting the proposal. Questions with regard to the proposal may be addressed via e-mail at jlandini(a?ci.sl~orewood.mn.us or by telephone at 952.474.3236 during normal business hours. -4- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952-474-3236 Fax: 952-474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: James Landini -City Engineer - .- Date: November 20, 2008 Re: Approve Changes to Park Priority Policy At the last City Council meeting council asked that the Park Commission review the Park Priority Policy and incorporate the use of reserving the tennis courts for for-profit businesses. The Park Commission at their last meeting made the following changes to the Park Priority Policy. On page 2 of the Park Priority Policy, tennis courts have been deleted from Category 1 Facilities, and ~ inserted into the Category 2 Facilities. On page 3 under Prioritization for Category 2 and 3 Facilities, ~ Priority 2, the following was added: Tennis Court use for for profit groups may reserve the tennis courts ~ Monday-Friday from 9: DO a. m. to 3:00 p. m. no more than 3 hours a day and not exceed 1 S hours a week. ~ The reason for this change is that Prioritization for Category 2 still gives the resident first priority. e The Park Priority Policy is also attached for your review of the changes. Recommendation The Park Commission recommends the City Council approve the changes to the Park Priority Policy relating to the use of the tennis courts. #7~ City of Shorewood Park Priority Policies The City of Shorewood is very proud of its parks system and works enthusiastically to maintain and enhance park facilities. To that end, the City utilizes a number of policies to help guide implementation of park goals, directives, and ordinances regulating park usage for all residents. The intent of this policy is to grant all users the opportunity to utilize facilities within a managed and predictable manner, thereby allowing all residents an optimum park usage experience. 1. DEFINITIONS The Park Priority Policies utilize a number of definitions for clarity to allow objective use by all park users. Following is a list of definitions found throughout the Park Priority Policies. Designated Representative: Each organization or group requesting priority field or facility use shall designate and file with the Park Coordinator the name, address, and contact information of the individual who shall serve as the sole contact for the City of Shorewood. This individual shall serve as the liaison for all matters between the City of Shorewood and the sports organization or group requesting field use. Facility Use Equation: An equation which assists the Park Coordinator in allocating facility use for organized sporting events. This equation (described further in this document) sets forth the maximum allocation of facility time available to each organization for all athletic events. Organized Park Users: Any group desiring dedicated field time and/or space within the Shorewood parks system for an activity with ongoing use throughout the sporting season. Groups fitting this definition would be required to submit the required user packet, attached to the back of these policies, including certificate of insurance, rosters and full payment of all user fees, in accordance with the Maximum Field Use Equation outlined in this policy. Any group wishing to secure dedicated field time/space for a single use, such as a tournament, would also submit the appropriate application for that activity along with the user packet, and would also be governed by the city permit regulations applicable for that request. Preseason Coordination Meeting: A meeting, hosted by the City of Shorewood, prior to the anticipated seasons of activities between the City Staff, City of Shorewood Park Coordinator, and, sports organizations, nonprofit groups and non-organized groups who are requesting dedicated use of facilities. The purpose of this meeting is to outline polices and regulations for requests and scheduled use of the facilities, and to address questions, concerns, or issues associated with field use or schedules. All organizations or groups requesting dedicated facility usage shall have a representative at the preseason Coordination meeting. Failure to attend this meeting shall result in loss of dedicated field time for the season. It is anticipated that Preseason Coordination meetings will be conducted as follows: • Spring and Summer Events: March preceding the spring sporting season. • Fall and Winter Events: July preceding the fall sporting season. • Other preseason coordination meetings may be conducted, should event schedules dictate. Sports Organization: An Organization registered with the City of Shorewood Park Coordinator and has successfully filed with the City of Shorewood a copy of the bylaws with which they are governed, appropriate certificates of insurance, fees, and team rosters, prior to any field use. Tournament Permit: Permit required for all activities involving a succession of activities falling within a defined period outside of the normal game or practice times allocated for the organization. This permit must be approved by the Park Coordinator or City Staff at least 60 days prior to tournament date. 2. CATEGORIZATION OF FACILITIES The City of Shorewood owns and operates athletic, non-athletic, and passive use type facilities. To assist with the administration of these facilities, each one has been placed in a category shown below. Category 1 Facilities: Athletic Facilities Little League ball diamonds Babe Ruth ball diamonds Softball diamonds Soccer fields Football fields Hockey rinks Free skating rinks ~~is-courts Volleyball courts Skate park facilities Category 2 Facilities: Non Athletic Facilities Park Shelters and Multi-Use Buildings Playgrounds City of Shorewood Parking Lots Tennis Courts Category 3 Facilities: Passive Use Open Park Space for events 3. AVAILABILITY OF FACILITIES Facility Description Available From To Softball Fields April 1 Octobe~° 20 Babe Ruth Field April 1 October 20 Little League Fields April 1 October 20 Soccer Fields April 1 October 20 Football Fields August 1 October 31 Hockey Rinks December 20 February 15 Free Skating Rinks December 20 February 15 Open Spaces Year Round Year Round Playgrounds Year Round Year Round Skate Parks May 1 October 31 Park Shelters Year Round Year Round Volleyball Courts May 1 October 31 Tennis Courts May 1 October 31 Parking Lots Year Round Year Round 4. PI~I®IaITI~ATI®N ~F FACILITY IJSE IaE~ITESTS As stated, the intent of this policy is to grant all users the opportunity to utilize facilities within a managed and predictable manner. Facility allocations shall be evaluated first by the type of request (or need) received, in accordance to the "Category of Facility" outlined previously within this document, and then by the prioritization schedule listed below. Prioritization for Category 1 Facilities Note: Throughout the priority schedule, orgauized user trctivities shall take precedence over scheduled tournament activities. • Priority 1: Field resting time. • Priority 2: Organized users' activities within the predetermined time allocations. • Priority 3: All other organizational requests, such as church picnics, family reunions, School District 276 Groups or Programs (examples curriculum programs, interscholastic team practices, etc.), and other athletic tournaments, shall be considered on a first come first serve basis. Prioritization for Category 2 and 3 Facilities: • Priority 1: Resident request on first come first served basis. • Priority 2: Organized activity previously registered with the City of Shorewood Park Coordinator. Tennis court use for for-profit groups may reserve the temlis courts Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. no :more than. 3 hours a day and. not exceed 15 hours a week. • Priority 3: Non-resident request on a first come first serve basis. 5. MAXIMUM FACILITY USE EQUATION The intent of this equation is to provide allocations of time for Category 1 facilities in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. Therefore, the City of Shorewood has compiled an equation to determine the maximum time that is to be allocated to any organization for initial facility assignments for seasonal use. The maximum number of initial Facility Time Periods (MTPs) available to any team is based upon the following equation. Variables: P =Average Number Kids Per Team in Organization T =Total Pop. Vying for Field Use TS =Time Slots Equation: MTP = (~(TS per Wk)(#of Teams in Org) T While using the Maximum Facility Use Equation as a starting point, the Park Coordinator has the authority to increase the MTP for any one organization, providing that a separate organization has indicated that an equivalent amount of their allocated time is not going to be utilized. This equation is based upon the following assumptions: • All turf areas are to be "rested" the equivalent of one day per week. • Facility Time Periods are based upon 1.5-hour time periods. • Times may be further limited based upon the occurrence of limited parking or other facility demands. • The Maximum .Facility Use Equation will arrive at a decimal equivalent as to the maximum time allotted per activity. The final maximum time slots shall be rounded down. • The Maximum Facility Use Equation is evaluated "Per Activity." The Park Coordinator has the authority to adjust scheduling based upon compatibility between two events occurring simultaneously, or other facility limitations. 6. Process for Requesting Field Use for Each Season The City of Shorewood welcomes all persons interested in utilizing park space and/or field usage. In order to establish an objective non-discriminatory manner in which all parties interested in using the City's parks can be facilitated, it is important to follow the listed procedures below. Notify City of interest in requesting field use. Contact the City of Shorewood Parks Secretary, Twila Grout, at 952.474.3236. 2. Depending on group needs and at the direction of City Hall Staff contact the Park Coordinator. For the 2004-2005 Sporting Seasons, please contact Community Rec. Resources at 612.743.4124, for further information regarding documentation needed by the City prior to field usage of any kind. 3. Complete appropriate documentation. If a group is classified as an organized user, the following documentation should be completed, submitted, reviewed and approved by the Park Coordinator, prior to a_y park usage: • Certificate of insurance for the year the organized user activity will occur • Facility Use Agreement • Memorandum Agreement • Organizational Data Sheet If group is a sports organization the following additional information must also be submitted to the City prior to field usa e of any kind• • Complete rosters of all participants within the organization utilizing City park facilities • Sports Data Sheet • User fees paid in full Should the requested documentation not be made available to Community Rec. Resources prior to the designated deadline for completion, absolutely no field usage shall take place until such time as completed documentation has been received and approved by Community Rec. Resources Staff. 4. Submit appropriate documentation to Community Rec. Resources at: Community Rec. Resources 1408 Baldur Park Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Or online at: commrecresources(a~juno.com 5. Receive confirmed field schedule. City Hall Staff or Community Rec. Resources Staff will notify applicant in writing of park usage times allotted for activity. Modifications to that allotted time may be made at the sole discretion of City Staff or Community Rec. Resources Staff at any time based on the Prioritization of Facility Use Requests section and in accordance with the Maximum Facility Use Equation, if applicable, as described earlier in this document. 6. Enjo~he parks! Any questions regarding this process should be directed to Community Rec. Resources Staff members Kristi Anderson or Sally Keefe at 612.743.4124. The City of Shorewood enforces these policies for the benefit of all park users, and wishes to thank you in advance for making application to the City of Shorewood for park usage. The City of Shorewood wishes you all the best in maximizing your park experience! If approved, all documentation found in the user packet (specifically detailed in Item 3 above) would then be attached to these priority policies CITI' 0[' SHOREWOG[~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Debra Weiss - TT ,Inc. FROM: Brian Heck J ~. Brad Nielsen Lai7y Brown Bonnie Burton DATE: 20 November 2008 RE: Proposed Lease Agreement - 5500 Old Market Road FILE NO. 405(08.13) TTM Inc. leas requested certain revisions to the City's standard lease agreement. Following is Shorewood staff's response: L .Reduction of rent from $18,000 to $3600 per year. Staff researched a number of other cities (several of which you have dealt with), finding that rents are all over the board. While it appears that some cities have agreed to lower their rate or negotiate their rates, staff is not recommending this to our City Council We have a finite amount of space on each of the towers and, without a crystal ball, we do not know what the next telecomm company may want or need in terms of space. Consequently, we are recommending the current rate remain at $18,000. This allows up to nine antemlae under the teens of the lease agreement. 2. We see no need to reduce the number of antennae, particularly in light of l., above. 3. We will change the initial term date to 15 December. 4. We are not recommending deleting the reference to CPI. 5. We are proposing to add "...and $1,200,000 total claims per occurrence." after $600,000. in paragraphl7.)(c). ~®~0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~8~} 6. We are recommending that the "prior written consent" phrase be retained regarding assignment. Cc: Mayor and City Council Tim Keane CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO TELECOM TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, INC. WHEREAS, Telecom Transport Management, hlc. (Applicant) has contracted with wireless carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide personal communications services to the Mimleapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has determined that, in order to provide uninterrupted personal communications services to the western segment of its territory, it requires an antemla site in an area along Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has therefore applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of one (1) dish-style communications anteimae to be located on the top rail system of Shorewood's Southeast Area water tower, and the installation of a small equipment cabinet to be located within the fenced-in enclosure at the base of the water tower; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the Plaiming Commission dated 29 September 2008, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Public Works Director, and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 6 October 2008, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Plaiming Commission at its regular meeting on 7 October 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's application was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting held on 24 November 2008, at which time the Planner's and Public Works Director's memoranda were reviewed, the minutes of the Plam~ing Commission were reviewed, comments were heard from City Council members and staff, and approval given for the Conditional Use Permit, subject to review and completion of a satisfactory lease agreement between the City and the Applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject water tower site is located on T.H. 7 and is presently zoned R-lA, single-family residential. The site is occupied by the Shorewood water tower, a small bituminous parking area, and communications equipment enclosure at the base of the tower. 2. Land. use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: north and west -State 1-Iighway 7 r.o.w., then single and two-family homes; zoned R-2A east - Commercial and two-family residential; zoned P.U.D. south - Cemetery and single-family homes; zoned R-lA and P.U.D., respectively. 3. Section 1201.23, Subd. 4a. of the Shorewood City Code provides for govenumental and public regulated utility buildings and structures to be constructed within the R- lAzoning district by Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain requirements of screening and landscaping when abutting a residential use in a residential district. 4. The Applicant's activity serves a valuable purpose in the community, and there is a need for the activity and services provided by the Applicant in order that the community be properly serviced, and that the Federal Telecommunications Act requires that local governments accommodate personal conmlunications services within their boundaries. 5. The proposed use of the land is in accordance with the official City Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the general welfare, public health and safety of the community. 6. The approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit should be in the form. of a lease agreement setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties to the Agreement. CONCLUSIONS The Applicant's application for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of an antemla array as shown on Exhibit 1 is hereby granted, subject to the provisions of City Code, Section 1201.04, Subd. l.d.(1), and the following additional conditions: 1. The grant and term of the Conditional Use Permit shall comply and be subject to all of the terns and conditions set forth in the Water Tower Space Lease Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 2. 2. The attachments to said Water Tower Space Lease Agreement consisting of Exhibit A, Tower Site Legal Description; Exhibit B, Equipment to be Placed Within the Enclosure; and Exhibit C, Equipment to be Placed on the Water Tower, shall be considered as a part of and a condition to the approvals and grants herein. The site shall be restored and landscaped to its present condition. 4. The Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized to execute said Water Tower Space Lease Agreement on behalf of the City Council. 2 5. That this resolution, together with the Exhibits attached hereto, be filed and recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of certification hereof. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of November, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk 3 Pi20POS)=D t11TEP.COi~tt~lECT If--Ti=1~@aA9. MINIt~SI~'t IS" SEPA{2ATION ~TIfJEEN ANitt~G~IAS VERIFY 0.j/t~ EN~Q~EER FXISTINCz CAf~21Ff2 Ar1TE~lA RAC C~TiT1=R ~XISTINCz CAf r2fER .4t•fTET~lA {2dp CENTC=R EXISTl1v~ CARRIER ANTENNA RAU CENTER ~- a~ >~ Q r NOTE: C4J NEtU 1!2" COAX TO BE RUN FT201•t hlEu3 7TM ~QUIES'Ikl~4T CABINET TO NJ=W (NTEI`c=01~tJ=CT ANTF~tA. 9EE A-5. FOLLOWINCs EXISTWG COAX TO TOP OF SANK NOTI=: p0 NOT INSTAE_~ ~t1TENNAS lfilTlL AXIMtfTNS, EL~VATIC3J3, AND A11TI-TINA S]ZE IS vi=RIF1~p BY THE t~o~>=cT rlnrlA~eR_ NOTJ=: NO ilX~: OR i-fOpIFICATIONS SI {AI-L. BE PONE TO TCt7J~t2 lWil-{OUT TH;; APPRO~p STRUCTURAL ,MIAt_YS[S. TANK ELEVATION ,~ 3 ,4NTFt~lA ~ A}1T~[A i GOAX CO LOC+:tNC~ AT SITE f='I'~ii'1 Exhibit 1 WATER TOWER SPACE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS WATER TOWER SPACE LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of , 2008 (the "Effective Date"), between TTM Operating Corporation, Inc., a Nevada corporation, 146 North Canal Street, Seattle, WA 981031 ("Lessee"); and the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnnesota 55331 ("City") STATEMENT OF FACTS City owns certain real estate located at 5500 Old Market Road, in the City of Shorewood, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). City owns and operates a municipal water tower on the Property (the "Tower"). Lessee desires to enter into this non-exclusive lease to lease from City a portion of the Property and certain space on the Tower for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating certain equipment therein and thereon. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1.) TERM. (a) Initial Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the earlier of December 15, 2008, or the date that Lessee begins construction on the Property (the "Commencement Date"), and continue through December 31, 2013 (the "Initial Term"), unless sooner terminated as provided for herein. (b) Renewal Teim(s). The term of this Agreement shall automatically renew on the same terns and conditions herein, for up to three (3) additional and successive periods of five (5) years each (the "Renewal Terns"), unless Lessee notifies City im writing of Lessee's intention not to renew at least ninety (90) days before the expiration of the then current team, as provided in Section 11 (a) below. The Initial Term and all Renewal Terms are collectively referred to herein as the "Tenn." 2.) DEMISE OF SPACE. City hereby lets and demises unto Lessee, and Lessee hereby receives and accepts from City, the following: (a) Building Space. City shall provide sufficient ground or interior space near the Tower to accommodate the construction, maintenance and operation, pursuant to the specifications and requirements listed in Exhibit B hereto, to house certain equipment therein (the "Building Space"). { 123498-v.2 } Exhibit 2 (b) Tower Space. (1) Initial -- City shall provide Lessee space on the Tower for the purpose of attaching the transmitting and receiving equipment and apparatus and facilities used in connection therewith (the "Initial Equipment") set forth in Exhibit C, in the locations designated in such exhibit (the "Tower Space"). (2) Additional Equipment and Modifications -- Any plans to: (i) modify, change or replace the Initial Equipment; (ii) modify or change the installation of such Initial Equipment; (iii) change the location or frequency of all or any part of the hlitial Equipment; or (iv) add any additional equipment to the Tower, shall be submitted for City's prior approval, and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Items (i) through (iv), inclusive, shall hereinafter be collectively refereed to as the "Additional Equipment." Lessee shall promptly, upon demand by City, pay for an evaluation performed by an independent structural engineer and/or a professional communications engineer, retained by City, as City deems necessary, to determine whether the Additional Equipment will interfere with existing or proposed operations on the Property, and whether the Tower can structurally support the Additional Equipment. In addition, a proportional adjustment to the Base Rent shall be agreed upon by the parties hereto if additional antennae (ill excess of nine (9) antennae) will be installed or additional space on the Tower is required to accommodate the Additional Equipment. The Initial Equipment and Additional Equipment shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Equipment." (c) Access. Subject to acts of God and other occurrences beyond the reasonable control of the parties, Lessee and its authorized agents shall have access to the Premises (as defined below) twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week in order to maintain and operate its Equipment thereon. Lessee shall telephonically request access to the Premises in advance, at a place designated by the City. The Building Space, Tower Space and all necessary easements or rights-of--way for Lessee's access and utilities are collectively referred to herein as the "Premises." 3.) RENT. (a) Base Rent. (1) During the period from the Commencement Date through December 31, 2010, Lessee shall pay rent (the "Base Rent") to City, for the Premises, in an annualized amount of Eighteen Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($18,000.00) per year. The first installment of Base Rent will be paid by Lessee to City prior to the Commencement Date, and all subsequent {123498-v.2} 2 payments of Base Rent will be paid amlually in advance, on or before January 1st of each year. (2) The Base Rent shall be increased by $60.00 per month for each antenna in excess of six (6) antennae. (3) Annual Adjustments -- The annualized Base Rent shall be increased as of January 1, 2010, and each January 1st thereafter, by the greater of: a. four percent (4%) of the previous year's annualized Base Rent; or b. by an amount equivalent to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, All Cities, All Items (1984 = 100) (the CPI), as published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics, or if such index shall be discarltinued, the successor index, or if there shall be no successor index, such comparable index as mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. To determine the annual increase in Base Rent under this paragraph, the annualized Base Rent for the previous calendar year shall be multiplied by a percentage figure, computed from a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the CPI for the third quarter of the preceding year and the denominator of which shall be the CPI for the corresponding quarter one year earlier. Such fraction shall be converted to a percentage equivalent, and shall be multiplied by the previous year's Base Rent. City shall be responsible for calculating all aimual increases in Base Rent and for communicating the same to Lessee by December 1st of each year. 4.) ADDITIONAL RENT. Lessee shall pay all taxes, charges, costs and expenses that are directly attributable to Lessee's improvements, and all damages, costs, expenses and sums that City may incur or that may become due by reason of any default by Lessee or failure by Lessee to comply with the terms and conditions hereof (such taxes, charges costs and expenses shall be deemed to be "Additional Rent" and, in the event of nonpayment thereof, City shall have all rights and remedies as hereinafter provided for failure to pay Base Rent when due). 5.) GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL CONTINGENCY. Lessee's right to use the Premises is expressly contingent upon its obtaining, in advance, all the certificates, permits, zoning and other approvals that maybe required by any federal, state, or local authority. City shall cooperate with Lessee in its efforts to obtain such approvals and shall take no action that would adversely affect the status of the Premises with respect to the Lessee's proposed use thereof. In addition, before obtaining a building permit, Lessee shall cause to be performed and pay the reasonable cost of: (i) a radio frequency interference study performed by an independent, qualified communications engineer selected by the City, showing that Lessee's use contemplated herein will not interfere with any existing communications facilities upon the Tower (the "lnterference Study"); and (ii) an engineering study performed by an independent structural engineer selected by the City, showing that the Tower is able to support the Equipment, without prejudice to the City's use thereof (the "Structural Stability Study"). If the {123498-v.2} 3 Interference Shady reveals that there is a potential for interference that cannot be reasonably remedied by the Lessee, or the Structural Stability Study reveals that the structure is unable to safely bear the weight of the Equipment, neither of such findings shall constitute a default by either party hereto, but Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 11(c), below. 6.) OWNERSHIP. a Tower. City shall at all times retain exclusive title to and interest in, and control of the Tower and the Property. (b) Equipment. Lessee shall at all times retain exclusive title to and interest in, and control of the Equipment. The Equipment shall at all times remain the personal property of Lessee and shall not be fixtures on the Premises. 7.) USE, INSTALLATION AND NON-INTERFERENCE. Lessee shall use the Premises only for and in comlection with the installation, operation, repair and maintenance of a City- approved cormnunications antenna facility, Equipment and cabinets and uses incidental thereto for providing radio and wireless telecommunication services. The Equipment shall be installed at Lessee's sole cost and expense in a manner approved by City in advance, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. A government unit may be allowed to place antennae or other communication facilities on the Tower regardless of potential or actual interference with Lessee's use; however, if Lessee's use of the Premises or Equipment is materially affected, Lessee may terminate the Agreement. A government unit is to include public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services. Lessee shall promptly cure any interference caused by Lessee's Equipment to pre-existing equipment on the Tower belonging to City, governmental units or other tenants of City, and if such interference cannot be cured within 72 hours of notice to Lessee, Lessee shall temporarily reduce power or cease the offending operations, until a cure at full power is achieved. City covenants to use its best efforts to afford Lessee similar protection from interference caused by the operations of any subsequent user of the Property. 8.) MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. (a) Tower. City shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Property and the Tower and keeping the same in a safe condition and fit for the use contemplated hereby, except any damage resulting from the acts or omissions of Lessee or its authorized agents shall be repaired by City, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs associated with such repair. The City may, with 45 days notice, require the Lessee to remove the Equipment for repairs without cost or penalty to the City. The City will undertake its best efforts to cooperate to mitigate disruption and expense to the Lessee. The City shall provide Lessee with invoices for reimbursement of extraordinary costs as a result of the Lessee's equipment in the course of such repairs. (b) Equipment. Lessee shall pay and be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Equipment. If Lessee fails to timely maintain or repair the Equipment as herein required, City may, but is not hereby required to, after 30 days notice to Lessee, { 123498-v.2 } 4 take reasonable steps to maintain or repair the Equipment, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs associated with such repair and maintenance. In addition, at all times during the Term, all of the Equipment installed on the Tower shall be painted the same color as the Tower, at the sole expense of Lessee. 9.) EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement: (a) Failure to Pay. Lessee shall fail to timely pay any amount due under this Agreement, and such failure shall continue uncured for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof from City; (b) Failure to Perform. Except as otherwise stated herein, if either party shall fail to perform any other covenant of this Agreement and does not cure or reasonably commence and proceed diligently to cure such failure within sixty (60) days after receipt of notice thereof from the other party; or (c) Bankruptcy. (i) Lessee shall make an assigmnent for the benefit of creditors; (ii) Lessee files a voluntary petition under the Bankruptcy Code of the United States or any state statute similar thereto, or Lessee be adjudged insolvent or a bankrupt pursuant to an involuntary petition, and such petition is not dismissed within sixty (60) days of filing; (iii) a receiver or trustee is appointed for the property of Lessee by reason of insolvency of Lessee and such receiver or trustee is not discharged within 60 days; (iv) any department of the state or federal government, or any officer thereof duly authorized, takes possession of the business or property of Lessee by reason of the insolvency of Lessee; (v) Lessee continues in possession without the appointment of a receiver or trustee under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; or (vi) Lessee is the subject of any petition or proceeding related to relief from creditors. 10.) REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. If an Event of Default occurs, the non-defaulting party may at any time thereafter: (a) Terminate this Agreement. Terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 11(b) below; and/or (b) Other Available Remedies. Pursue any other available remedies at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of this Agreement. ll.) TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement, except if terminated by reason of an Event of Default, Lessee shall be entitled to a refund of any Base Rent paid in advance. This Agreement maybe terminated pursuant to any of the following provisions: (a) By Notice. Lessee may elect to terminate this Agreement, without cause, as of the end of the Initial Term or any subsequent Renewal Tern by giving notice to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any subsequent Renewal Term. {123498-v.2} 5 (b) By Default. Either party may terminate this Agreement as described in this paragraph. If City or Lessee fail to perform any covenant of this Agreement and does not cure or reasonably commence and proceed diligently to cure such failure within sixty (60) days after receipt of notice thereof from the other party, the other party may at any time thereafter: (i) terminate this Agreement as of the date stated in such notice; and/or (ii) subject to the limitations of Section 26(k) herein, pursue any other available remedies at law or in equity that inay appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of this Agreement. (c) By Failure of Governmental Approval Contingency. Lessee may terminate this Agreement if the Governmental Approval Contingency is not satisfied as a result of an adverse finding in either the Interference Study or the Structural Stability Study. (d) By Lessee. Lessee may terminate this Agreement with cause, i£ (i) Lessee gives City at least sixty (60) days notice of Lessee's exercise of this provision; (ii) Lessee is not in default under the terms hereof; (iii) Lessee pays City all outstanding amounts that are due and payable hereunder as of the termination date; and: (1) Lessee is unable, after exerting all reasonable efforts, to obtain and/or maintain any license, permit or other governmental approval necessary for the construction and/or operation of the Equipment or Lessee's business; or (2) During any of the Renewal Terns (if any), if the Premises or Equipment is or becomes unacceptable under Lessee's design or engineering specifications for its Equipment or the communications system to which the Equipment belongs. (e) By City. City may terminate this Agreement if City gives Lessee at least sixty (60) days notice of City's exercise of this provision, and: (1) City's Council decides, for any reason, to redevelop the Property, or any portion thereof, in a manner inconsistent with the continued use of the Premises by Lessee, and/or discontinues use of the Tower for all purposes. The City will undertake its best efforts to provide notice of at least one year to Lessee; (2) An independent structural engineer determines that the Tower is structurally unsound, after considering all reasonable factors, including without limitation, the age of the Tower, damage or destruction of all or any part thereof, and factors relating to condition of the Property; (3) After considering relevant engineering studies, City reasonably determines that a City of Shorewood governmental unit as provided for in Section 7 herein cannot find another adequate location on the Tower, or the Equipment unreasonably interferes with the City of Shorewood governmental unit's use of the Tower; or { 123498-v.2 } 6 (4) City reasonably determines that Lessee has failed to comply with applicable ordinances, or state or federal law, or any conditions attached to govermnent approvals granted thereunder, after a public hearing before the City's Council. (f) By Destruction. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days notice, if, as a result of any natural disaster, act of God or other occurrence beyond the control of the parties hereto, all or any part of the Premises is destroyed or damaged to the extent that it is reasonably determined that such will be unusable for more than one hundred twenty (120) days. If this Agreement is not so terminated, City shall undertake to repair or replace the Premises within a reasonable period of time, and if such damage renders the Premises unfit for Lessee's use, and Lessee, by reason thereof, discontinues its use of such facilities, the Base Rent payments due hereunder shall abate in proportion to that part of the Premises that is rendered unusable, until such time as the Premises is again operational. 12.) COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. (a) Lessee. Lessee shall (i) acquire, at Lessee's sole expense, all necessary federal, state and local certificates, permits, licenses, zoning and other approvals that are necessary for Lessee to operate and maintain the Equipment on the Premises, as contemplated in this Agreement, and (ii) comply with all federal, state and local laws, and regulations that are applicable to such use of the Premises. (b) City. Subject to Section 12(a) above, City shall: (i) acquire, at City's expense, all necessary federal, state and local certificates, permits, licenses, zoning .and other approvals that are necessary for City to operate and maintain the Tower, and (ii) comply with all federal, state and current local laws, and regulations that are applicable to the operation and maintenance of the Tower. 13.) TAXES. Lessee shall be solely responsible for charges, levies, taxes, assessments and similar impositions, directly attributable to Lessee's Equipment, the Building Space, or that arise out of Lessee's use of the Tower. 14.) UTILITIES. Lessee shall be responsible for payment and separate metering of all utility services directly with the utility providers for services consumed by Lessee's operations at the Premises. City will reasonably cooperate with Lessee's efforts to improve existing utilities on the Property for Lessee's use, or to connect the Equipment to existing utilities on the Property, and City will execute any easement, right-of--way or similar agreement that Lessee or a utility service provider may reasonably request for any such purposes. 15). INDEMNIFICATION. Lessee and City each indemnify and hold harmless the other and their respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses of litigation arising out of the use and occupancy of the Premises by Lessee, which may be asserted against or incurred by either party or for which either party may be liable in the performance of this Agreement, except {123498-v.2} 7 those to the extent that the same arise from the negligence, willful misconduct, or other fault of either party, its employees, agents or contractors. Lessee shall defend all claims arising out of the installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair, removal, or presence of Lessee's Equipment and related facilities on the Premises. 16.) REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Without limiting the scope of subparagraph 15 above, Lessee will be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify, and hold City, its agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, and liabilities, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or restoration of the Premises associated with the Lessee's use of Hazardous Materials. For purposes of this Agreement, "Hazardous Materials" shall be interpreted broadly and specifically includes, without limitation asbestos, fuel, batteries or any hazardous substance, waste, or materials as defined in any federal, state, or local environmental or safety law or regulations including, but not limited to, CERCLA, other than such materials used in the ordinary course of Lessee's business in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. City represents that it has no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste on the City's Property that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in an applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. 17.) INSURANCE. (a) Coverage. During the Term, Lessee shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep in force comprehensive general liability coverage with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence; One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) personal injury; One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) products and completed operations aggregate, covering Lessee's work and operations at or in connection with the Premises, and naming City as an additional insured. (b) Evidence of Coverage. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of any then current policy, Lessee shall deliver to City, a certificate of insurance showing that Lessee maintains all the insurance required under this Agreement. Such policy shall also provide that City must receive thirty (30) days' notice of any reduction in coverage, expiration or cancellation thereof, and shall be issued by a company reasonably satisfactory to City. (c) Landlord's Insurance. City shall maintain commercial general liability insurance against liability for personal injury, death or damage arising out of City's use or management of the Structure by City, its employees or agents, with combined single limits of not less than $600,000 and $1,200,000 total claims per occurrence. City shall also maintain fire and extended coverage insurance insuring the Tower for its full insurable value (subject to reasonable deductibles). (d) Waiver of Subro ag tion. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, each party releases the other party from all liability, whether for negligence or otherwise, in connection with any loss covered by any policies which the releasing party carries with respect to such property or is required to be carried hereunder. Any policy {123498-v.2} g required to be obtained pursuant to this Agreement shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the party hereto. 18.) ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement and Lessee's rights and duties established hereunder, may be sold, assigned, or transferred at any time by Lessee to Lessee's parent, affiliate or subsidiary, or any party that merges or consolidates with Lessee or its parent, or any party that purchases or otherwise acquires all or substantially all of Lessee's stock or asset, without notice to or the consent of City. Subject to the foregoing sentence, Lessee shall not assign this Agreement or any of the rights or duties established hereunder without the prior written consent of City. City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or unduly delayed. For purposes of this section, an "affiliate" or "subsidiary" means an entity that owns greater than a fifty percent (50%) interest or any entity which is controlling, under the control of or controlled by a common entity. City hereby consents to the assignment of its rights under this Agreement, as collateral, to any entity that provides financing for the purchase of the equipment to be installed at the Premises. 19.) CONDEMNATION. (a) Entire Premises. If, during the Term, the entire Premises shall be taken as a result of the power of eminent domain, condemnation proceedings, or other like proceedings (the "Proceedings"), this Agreement and all right, title, and interest of Lessee hereunder shall cease and come to an end on the date of taking of possession pursuant to the Proceedings. (b) Portion of the Premises. If, during the Term, less than the entire Premises shall be taken by the Proceedings, this Agreement shall, upon taking of possession pursuant to the Proceedings, terminate as to the portion of the Premises so taken, and either party may elect to terminate this Agreement with respect to the remainder of the Premises, as of the date of taking such possession, by giving the other party at least thirty (30) days notice. If neither City or Lessee elects to terminate this Agreement as to the remainder of the Premises, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, but the Base Rent shall be reduced pro rata in accordance with the percentage of value of the Premises so taken compared with the total value of the Premises immediately prior to such taking. Nothing herein contained shall affect Lessee's obligation to pay in full the Additional Rent. City shall, however, at City's sole cost and expense, restore that portion of the Premises not so taken to a complete architectural unit for the use and occupancy of Lessee. (c) Lessee's Share of Condemnation Award. If all or any portion of the Premises is taken, Lessee shall not be entitled to any portion of any payment or award made in connection therewith. Lessee hereby expressly waives any right or claim to any portion of such award or payment. Lessee shall, however, have the right to claim and recover from the condemning authority, but not from City, such compensation as may be separately awarded or recoverable by Lessee on account of any and all damage to Lessee's business, equipment and relocation costs and expenses. {123498-v.2} 9 20.) QUIET ENJOYMENT. Except as otherwise provided for herein, Lessee shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the Premises throughout the Term, and City will not intentionally disturb Lessee's occupancy thereof as long as Lessee is not in default hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee's right to quiet enjoyment shall not apply to events beyond the control of City, or interference during periods of normal and extraordinary repairs and maintenance of the Property or Tower by City. 21.) REMOVAL AND SURRENDER. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by City, within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed sixty (60) days, after the expiration or earlier termination of the Tenn, Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, remove all of the Equipment from the Premises, and restore and surrender the Premises to City in good condition without damage thereto, reasonable wear and tear and casualty excepted. If Lessee fails to timely remove as required herein: (i) the Equipment shall be deemed abandoned and become the property of City (subject to the interests of other persons or entities disclosed in writing to City prior to the date of hereof); and (ii) City may take reasonable steps to remove the same and restore the Premises, and Lessee shall be responsible for, and pay upon demand by City, all reasonable costs associated with such removal and restoration. 22.) BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, assigns and successors in interest. 23.) LIENS. Lessee shall not pernlit any mechanics or other liens to be filed or placed against the Premises or any part thereof by reason of work, services, materials supplied to or claimed to have been supplied to Lessee, and if such lien is filed against the Premises at any time, Lessee shall cause the same to be discharged of record by paying the amount claimed to be due, shall deposit with the court an amount equal to the amount claimed, or shall post bond for the same, within thirty (30) days of the date of such filing. If Lessee shall fail to discharge such lien or to so deposit such amount within such period, then, City may, but is not hereby required to, take reasonable steps to discharge such lien, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with such discharge. 24.) ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS. City shall have the right to pernlit the construction of other buildings and equipment on the Property, pursuant to the specifications and requirements set forth in Exhibit B, and Lessee shall permit such buildings to be placed immediately on the Property; provided, however, that no such other buildings or equipment will interfere with Lessee's ability to use or access the Premises and Equipment. 25.) NOTICE. Any notice, election, request, or other communication herein required or permitted to be given or served shall be delivered to the other party hereto (with receipt obtained therefor), or mailed by United States certified mail, returl receipt requested, postage prepaid, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, properly addressed to such other party at the following addresses: {123498-v.2} 10 If to Lessee: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. Attn: Lease Administrator 146 North Canal Street Seattle, WA 98103 with an additional copy to: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. Attn: Bill Buck 146 North Canal Street Seattle, WA 98103 If to City: City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Attention: City Administrator with an additional copy to: Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Attn: Timothy J. Keane, City Attorney 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Unless and until changed by notice as herein provided, notices and communications shall be addressed to the above-listed addresses. Each such mailed notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon the party to which addressed, (i) on the date the same is personally delivered or (ii) on the date set forth on the certified receipt. All payments required by this Agreement shall be made to City at the address designated above, or as may be hereafter designated. 26.) MISCELLANEOUS. (a) Applicable Law. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is subject to the provisions of applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Any obligation, duty or provision under this Agreement that conflicts with any provision of applicable federal or state laws or regulations, is to that extent void. This Agreement has been made, and its validity, performance and effect shall be determined in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota. {123498-v.2} 11 (b) Waiver. The waiver by either party of a breach or violation of, or failure of either party to enforce, any provision of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation or relinquishment of any rights hereunder. (c) Entire Agreement and Modification. This writing represents the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all previous agreements of whatever nature between the parties with respect to the subject matter. This Agreement may not be altered or amended except by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. (d) Headings; Exhibits. The headings of sections in this Agreement are for convenience only; they form no part of this Agreement and shall not affect its interpretation. The Statement of Facts contained herein, and ail schedules, exhibits, addenda or attachments referred to herein are incorporated in and constitute a part of this Agreement. (e) Severability. If any part of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, that part shall be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without in any way affecting the remaining parts of the provision or this Agreement. (f) Sublet/Sublicensing Prohibited. Subject to Section 18, Lessee shall not sublease, license or otherwise make the Premises available to others for use in any manner. (g) Construction. Both parties hereby acknowledge that they participated equally in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and that, accordingly, no court construing this Agreement shall construe it more stringently against one party than against the other. (h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instniment. (i) Trade Tenn Usage. Words used in this Agreement shall be given the meanings that they normally possess in the wireless communications industry, unless otherwise specifically defined herein. (j) Recording. At the option of either party, this Agreement, or a mutually agreeable Memorandum hereof, may be recorded in the real property records of the county where the Premises is located. (k) Limitations of Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event will either party be liable to the other party for, or indemnify the other party against, punitive, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities; provided, however, that this provision shall not release or reduce Lessee's obligation to pay rent to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. { 123498-v.2 } 12 (1) Authority. City represents and warrants that City has full authority to enter into and sign this Agreement and has good and marketable title to the Property. (m) Alterations. The Lessee shall make no alternations to the Equipment, facilities and antennas as depicted in Exhibits B and C without the written consent of the City, which will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. (n) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota. (o) Waiver of Landlord's Liens. City waives any lien rights it may have, statutory or otherwise, regarding Lessee's Equipment, all of which shall be deemed personal property, whether considered real or personal property under applicable state laws. (p) Tlus Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mimnesota. {123498-v.2} 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page 1 hereof. LESSEE: CITY: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. City of Shorewood By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) Christine Lizee Its: Mayor Brian Heck Its: City Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2008, by ,the of TTM Operating Corporation, Inc., a Nevada corporation, on behalf of corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2008, by Christine Lizee and Brian Heck, the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of the City of Shorewood, a Miimesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP (TJK) 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1900 Milmeapolis, MN 55402 Timothy J. Keane. City Attorney {123498-v.2} By: By: Notary Public 14 Legal Description: "The South 200.00 feet of the East 200.00 feet of Lot 34, Auditor's Subd. No. 141, Heiulepin County, Minnesota." Exhibit A INSIPE SHALL .ICs 3X TRENCH U.l1DT#-1 REPLACE CzRAYEL TO SAME ~ ~ DEPTH AS I3EFORlr tK n~ ~~ iA ~ 6° lU1DE WART7IkY TAF'£. 8"-l0° ABA CONDUIT EXISTING WEED CGNTROL FABRIC REPAIR FAHRIG /INSTALL NEW W££D CONTROL FABRIC 9X T12ENCH WIDTH COI-IPAGT SOIL M 6°-8° LIFTS TO AvDID £XGE$SiV£ SETTLEMENT P}F'E / GONDUI7 FOR ELECTRIC OR TELEPHONE S,a1JD 6EDDINCi 6' Mal. BURIED CONDUIT DETAIL SCALE= N.T.S. P SCHED. ~O GALV. A'r'S t (4) ~ .~ t ~- :xALY. STEEL ~`~- -~~` STRUT TO POST ~~ ALTS IUASHER9 "P). TRIM STR4~T5 TO ~ - ~ ~~ JCzTH IN FIELD ~. ~ -. -~:: 1:~--~+:: METI=R TO B£ ~ ~ ~~ NEW H-FR.4T'i£--.T. _ °~~ ` 3 ~ u ~ ~~ SJ 117 FROtH METER TO d9t EGT TD 6E MIXINT£D _ _ ~ ~~ I _ ~ F RIG CONDUIT TO NEW ~ ~ _ _ ~- - _~ _ ( ~ RIG CONDUIT RUN l`-`'~~ - D BURY PER N1=G _ , ` 5. CONDUIT TO STUB _ H£RN STATE9 ECTION I lz b- ~E ~ ~ ~an ~ ! ', ~: . 1 if 1 ~ ~, ~:.~ ~ ~ l? ~I ~'~,~ _ ~ t , ~~: ' - t > o3'~ti.b 6~443497j .''1 h r., ,>$4+444+r9d 44 T~h iR5 ~ ,, y 3b s~4edt~o$o~~~4~o$4&a4~~~ ~ r~:~~ a~ - :i~4b46 . ->df 4w3d4+S~~~- ~ r- a~4ti b344444d4448~ 1 . 4$0 1 3 mt~i ei 1044,~0f404~ `'k~a~ ys i .~ ~ t 1 b44,~b44dOV4 ~rd95 ~ d T'~- x44.9 da'.~ ~ +~ r - ' j~~~4°! 6 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r4i~ I ` ~ ~ , abab4ya ~s ~ a°v4i i r ~ r j i+t ''~"~ z~ ~ ~~qo~ ~a I s4t'~ ~ ~i}sf>~ p:f~ t~ h ~ 3 I ... ~ } ~~ J ~1.~ I Y ~4• 9-I - 1 - ;:' ,, a ~ ~~~~ ~~ EI.EGTRIC DETAIL ~ SCALEI N.T.S. TTM TaEGOi41 TF21Ui8PORT AAJ4tiA0~.@1T, HC. iu K cu~u s , srte ma seATn~ +u seia3 p. (zoa) ao3-s2se ac (zasy ass-ssa3 ~~ rf-T COIrlU[lCATfON Dl~FOM Oi4fitlP. LtC VlE;EtEBB tNFRAi1RV CTVRR YYSaEh'~f, ne:l6i'3] '. F.t pl+}5133)] FlCR1at3:]LI1a N+~ . ati~}c~ R.LW-aa M1a31611ViiLd &Fbt'3wtl UYrQa-t C~wT GwLL:wz-.VYM ~Tt~'tYb.P~l1l PROJECT N0: 7070402 DRAWN BY: DKW CHECKED eY: JKR SCOTT iL 'II~fi/JiN P.E LICf?ISF~ PftCfESSCNAL P7gtiEER STA~~ W2i~TA '~~l~rNOa:~~ M5P-OMR 6600 OLD MARKET ROAD SHOREWOOD,hiN 66331 SHEET TITLE PENETRATION ~ UTILITY DETAELS ~' Exhibit B x'09)=D t11T)=12COhdF(ECT ANTEt~@~IA3. MMIf-1t~'t IS° SEPARATION E3ET1LEEt~! ANTEh~*iAS YE#2}FY UllE~ E1JCxQJEER FJCIBTINC~ GA3~21~R ANTE'~tA RAD C~TlTER i;XtSTINCx CARf2EER AFfTETIFIA RAD CENTER EXIBT1NCrt CARf21Et? ANTENNA RAD CENTER NOTEe (4J NEuI 1/2" COAX TO BE Rl6~l FRO1"I NEu3 TTM ~QUIf'S'fE]JT CABINET TO NEW MTi=RCOt~G~ECT ANt>=~iA. BEE A-5. FC7LLOWtIdG EXIBTtN~x COAX TO TDP OF TANK. NOT)=: p0 NOT INSTALL ANTE1~lAS IA~FTIL AXIi~1UTHS, EL~VATIONB, AND A?,tT1=NNA SIZE (S vEf=IF1~D BY THE }~2OJEGT MAfJAGECZ NOTE NO tUO~: OR ~-iopiPICATIONS BNA!_L. ~ pONE TD TCtUt=12 IUiTHOUT THE AF'PROYED 87~CTURAI_ ANAt.YSiB. ANTENNA ~ ANT~IA I COAX C01 LOOKINCs AT BITE F!"ti'1 TANK ELEVATION ,~ 3 Exhibit C ~' SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEIVIOIZAlVDUlVI TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 November 2008 RE: TTM, Inc. -Conditional Use Pernlit for Telecommunications Facilities at' Minnewashta Water Tower Site FILE NO.: 405(08.13) BACKGROUND Last month Telecom Transport Management, Inc. (TTM) received approval of a conditional use pernut to locate microwave dish antennae on the Southeast Area water tower. TTM has now applied for a conditional use permit to locate telecommunications facilities at 26352 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). The property is the site of Shorewood's Minnewashta water tower. Although similar to their SE Area request, TTM proposes to erect dish-style antennae around the tower pedestal at a height of 110 feet (see Exhibit B). They also propose to install four anteimae, two - 2' diameter and two - 3' diameter dishes. Although their request letter proposes to locate ground equipment inside the water tower, staff has advised them that no equipment will be placed inside the tower. There are two buildings on the site, one of which has been oversized to accommodate future equipment, in which their equipment can be housed. The property in question is zoned R-lA, Single-family Residential and is part of the Minnewashta Elementary School. property. A public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, 18 November 2008. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Since the current request is similar to the previous request, this report has been patterned after the earlier one. ,~ ,~, ~®r® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: TTM Conditional Use Permit 15 November 2008 Telecommunications facilities are governed by the Teleco~nunucations Act of 1995. Shorewood has adopted its local regulations consistent with Federal requirements. These are found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 21 of the City Code. A. Land Use. For the most part, telecommunications facilities have been limited to commercial' zoning districts within the city, although the Code does allow the use of public property for this purpose by conditional use permit. While the Code states that there is no obligation on the part of the City to sell or lease public property to telecommunications carriers, the Planning Commission had at one time recommended existing tower facilities (i.e. City water towers) be used first before constructing additional freestanding towers. B. Code Requirements. Much of the current Code is intended to address new, freestanding tower sites. Several provisions, however, are relevant to location of facilities on existing towers: 1. Finish. The proposed antenmae must be finished to match the color of the existing water tower. 2. Proposed Ground Facilities. Proposed ground equipment is shown on Exhibit C. The applicant initially proposed placing the equipment inside the base of the tower, however, the Public Works Director strongly recommends that the equipment be placed in one of the existing buildings on the site. The larger of the two was specifically oversized for just such purpose. 3. Fencing. The existing fencing on the site will remain as is. 4. Landscaping. Since ground equipment is proposed to be located in a building and landscaping is already established, no additional vegetation is considered necessary. 5. Stealth. As difficult as it can be to disguise antenna facilities, locating them on existing towers or water towers is undoubtedly less visually obtrusive than building new freestanding towers. It is worth noting that the proposed antennas are adish-type of design. They propose two, two-foot diameter round dishes and two, three-foot diameter round dishes to be located on the pedestal of the tower at a height of 110 feet. 6. Evaluation and Monitoring. Our current code requirements provide for initial and ongoing monitoring of FCC radiation emission requirements. The City's standard lease agreements between telecommunications carriers and the City provide for annual monitoring and, if necessary, testing. In this regard, the City uses Owl Engineering for such work. The conditional use permit, if approved, should include a condition that the antenna installation be subject to the review, recommendations and approval of Owl Engineering. 7. Engineering. The structural attachment to the water tower is reviewed by KLM Engineering. Details should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. -2- Memorandum Re: TTM Conditional Use Permit 15 November 2008 RECOMMENDATION Approval of this conditional use permit should be subject to the following: a. The recommendations of the City Engineer with respect to structural and operational issues. b. The applicant must enter into the City's lease agreement including provisions for al~tlual monitoring. c. The current lease rate for water tower space is $1500 per month. There are provisions in the standard lease agreement for annual rate escalation, based on the CPI. or four percent, whichever is greater. It is worth noting that TTM has requested a lower lease rate for the SE Area tower, because it may use space that is otherwise umisable. The City has agreed to look into this issue for that application. Since the Miimewashta request proposes to use space on the pedestal of the tower, the standard lease rate will apply. Cc: Brian Heck Larry Brown James Landini Tim Keane Debra Weiss -3- -S ~ -~ ~I -» -~ ~ ~ -~ "~ ~ \ tlNaana -~ -1f 1 "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~Y 3 ~~ p ^LnL~) A ~ ~ ~') ~ ~ ~L 3 ^~ "~ .~L/ ~il '~ ~ ~ -~ -~ -~ -3I -~ -31 -71 .~ ~ -31 -~ -~ g 3 0 N }^1 ^V^, L W ^ iO~l~ ~ L ~Q. K z O x H SatlW O z 0 0 M \ O Y O Y/~` \ r ~ \Yv ~ -31 Od ~ ~~o ~ ~ f ~'`ys -~ -71 .y -li ~ -~ -1 ~~./ ~ .~ i -~ -~ Exhibit A a SITE LOCATION TTM CUP - Minnewashta ExlaT11~ U}ATE~ TANK ~lArtDRAIL~ it1ATER pC19Tt{dCi CAf~Td!)=~ ANT~SA ANT4 I , AHTET 2 ANTENNA 3 AN7Ek@d,A ~ CDASC C LOO~3;s AT SITE AG4 LYE'I 1~aH A#1 kiGH a PRdPO9ED R+t7ERGT ANTS. htAdihRB~l 18~ SEPA}2ATIOtJ ~H'tuEEti ANT~h1A9 VERIFY ti11RF 1~zp~Eta -- Ex6s7~ cA~J1=R ANTi3~9~3A NaTE~ c0l~IT{7iACFOR TO W9TALL $ERVlcE LC?OPS AT eACH ENt? OF TF~E C.dAX ANP A PR1P-LOOP JUST ~ T~ I<.'ADid/ANTEt+>rfA ct7k~8dEGT1ON UR-3EPi ~I9T.~d,.Lft~s cC~A3t. NOTE DO NOT INSTALL ANTENNAS tA!'TIL AZINRRFS3, ELEVATIONS, ANi> At~ETENNA 61ZE 19 YER~i1"D F3Y THE 3'F2dlEGT f1ANAGEf2 NOTEz NO Uk~fdC OR MODfFicAT~N9 91-TALL 8E DONE TO TANK WITE3OllT T33E APPROVED STE~tJGTURAi. ArtA!-76I9. ~ ~ b § TANK ELEVAT[t,N__~ SCALE: I° _ 15'-O' ' E'Xhlblt B TOWER ELEVATION ~~`, 11Y`6 0Y4. .4 1 ~ r ~- +- G a ~p ~~ ~~ d~ uu~ O~ 4 _ ~~ d~ W fi a W f W a W ~ X a a v w t ua ~ ~, F r N^ tdt Ii ~ ~ it Q ~~ L6d T ~c. t a~. ~y yr - ~ ~ ^rv 3{3.~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,,;..,.as,:az~ .. _ u~~~~~~5'~d~trte, s~~~.~~m ~ ~.'a t'6~t~ 3#'rzk Sn tt-'t~`a* r d A Sk '~~ ~; Iii'' 4 _ :A J Q ~" r,L~, ~. ~° Z~' _~ .:~ ~ '"`s~r,~~' ~ EX111U1t C §~b ~bp 4 ...~ ~ edd 'S ~ S `' ~ GROUND EQUIPMENT ~ r iqM' jV ~~, >y i'#~.6~ ~., ~:~Rnt'Y~~iY .. n~-N p`~~1~~31[e3`mP~~~m _-.... ... ~. ...s a ~ ~ ~ W ~C a ~n Q ~ o° ~ ~a = ~ Y° ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ x W n n 0 Xx ~ - v aXXa ul~~ o~ ~WLL6 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO TELECOM TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, INC. WHEREAS, Telecom Transport Management, Inc. (Applicant) has contracted with wireless carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide personal communications services to the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has determined that, in order to provide uninterrupted personal communications services to the western segment of its territory, it requires an antenna site in an area along Smithtown Road in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has therefore applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of four ~4) dish-style communications antennae to be located on the stem of Shorewood's Minnewashta water tower at a height of approximately 110 feet, and the installation of a small equipment cabinet to be located within the fenced-in enclosure at the base of the water tower; aild WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner, and his recolumendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 15 November 2008, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Plaiming Commission at its regular meeting on 18 November 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's application was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting held on 24 November 2008, at which time the Planner's memorandum was reviewed, the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed, comments were heard from City Council members and staff, and approval given for the Conditional Use Permit, subject to review and completion of a satisfactory lease agreement between the City and the Applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject water tower site is located on Smithtown Road and is presently zoned R-lA, single-family residential. The site is occupied by the Shorewood water tower, a small bituminous parking area, and two communications equipment enclosures at the base of the tower. 2. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: north and west - Minnewashta Elementary School property, parking lot, wetlands and ball fields east - Minnewashta Elementary School south - Single-family homes; zoned R-lA 3. Section 1201.23, Subd. 4a. of the Shorewood City Code provides for governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures to be constructed withal the R- lAzoning district by Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain requirements of screening and landscaping when abutting a residential use in a residential district. 4. The Applicant's activity serves a valuable purpose in the community, and there is a need for the activity and services provided by the Applicant in order that the community be properly serviced, and that the Federal Telecommunications Act requires that local govermnents accommodate personal communications services within their boundaries. 5. The proposed use of the land is in accordance with the official City Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the general welfare, public health and safety of the community. 6. The approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit should be in the form of a lease agreement setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties to the Agreement. CONCLUSIONS The Applicant's application for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of an antenna array as shown on Exhibit 1 is hereby granted, subject to the provisions of City Code, Section 1201.04, Subd. l.d.(1), and the following additional conditions: 1. The grant and team of the Conditional Use Permit shall comply and be subject to all of the tends and conditions set forth in the Water Tower Space Lease Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 2. 2. The attachments to said Water Tower Space Lease Agreement consisting of Exhibit A, Tower Site Legal Description; Exhibit B, Equipment to be Placed Within the Enclosure; and Exhibit C, Equipment to be Placed on the Water Tower, shall be considered as a part of and a condition to the approvals and grants herein. The site shall be restored and landscaped to its present condition. 4. The Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized to execute said Water Tower Space Lease Agreement on behalf of the City Council. 5. That this resolution, together with the Exhibits attached hereto, be filed and recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of certification hereof. 2 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of November, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk ->c13T1~ U3k"CEr2 tl~ Nfi~~fpi<dIL it[ATEt~ ~tl$tthlG C1if2~lE{Z ,drlit=~lh1A ~~ A~ ~ti'i=PtN.4 fi~IT~NNA ; .82t'7r1,0. COAX L~ dT 6iTi=: ~i4 LYC1 HGN AID H~xH MINIt~i IS° BEP.~.4TIOf,1 DETIL~EN .4hITf~N,49 VERIF`f tEJff~ El~C"xi?~ER - EXI~vT~{Ci CA~'1t=R 1~`1Tt~6~,~!' hIOT~t CONTf'.dGFOI~ Td 1N?iTdl-C_ $ERYICI= LObr''"~ A3 EACN EMU dF THE COAX f~1p A DRIP-LC)DP JUST SF: THE i'dL 10I1thi1E1+~ GGhS~iEGT1Gf*l tUHRd ~l9TALLR~SCz CO,Nt. IdDTE~ DQ NOT INSTALL A1~fTl=hif~3 t~JTll_ AZIt"~1TH8, )=LEvATic~FiS, ANC7 AtdTENhtA ~i~ IS V£RIF1Efl FAY 7HE I~F,'tx1EGT 1'1At~ACzEi2 i^M1lT~I Nc3 ttK?f'dC Df~ f 'iop 1FIGd T I[~I3 gNALL ~E PGi~iE Td 7d2~ W1TNC~l.IT THE dcD ~aTf~1GTISPAI. ANAI-YSI3, TANK ~LEVAT[Ot~ __~``' b 4 Exhlblt 1 WATER TOWER SPACE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS WATER TOWER SPACE LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of , 2008 (the "Effective Date"), between TTM Operating Corporation, Inc., a Nevada corporation, 146 North Canal Street, Seattle, WA 981031 ("Lessee"); and the City of Shorewood, a Mimnesota municipal corporation, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 ("City"). STATEMENT OF FACTS City has an interest in certain real estate located at 26352 Smithtown Road, in the City of Shorewood, in the County of Hemlepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). City owns and operates a municipal water tower on the Property (the "Tower"). Lessee desires to enter into this non-exclusive lease to lease from City a portion of the Property and certain space on the Tower for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating certain equipment therein and thereon. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: l.) TERM. (a) Initial Term. The initial team of this Agreement shall cornmence on the earlier of December 15, 2008, or the date that Lessee begins construction on the Property (the "Commencement Date"), and continue through December 31, 2013 (the "Initial Term"), unless sooner terminated as provided for herein. (b) Renewal Term(s). The term of this Agreement shall automatically renew on the same terns and conditions herein, for up to three (3) additional and successive periods of five (5) years each (the "Renewal Tenns"), unless Lessee notifies City in writing of Lessee's intention not to renew at least ninety (90) days before the expiration of the then current term, as provided in Section 11 (a) below. The Initial Teim and all Renewal Terms are collectively referred to herein as the "Tenn." 2.) DEMISE OF SPACE. City hereby lets and demises unto Lessee, and Lessee hereby receives and accepts from City, the following: (a) Building Space. City shall provide sufficient ground or interior space near the Tower to accommodate the construction, maintenance and operation, pursuant to the specifications and requirements listed in Exhibit B hereto, to house certain equipment therein (the "Building Space"). {123498-v.2} Exhibit 2 (b) Tower Space. (1) Initial -- City shall provide Lessee space on the Tower for the purpose of attaching the transmitting and receiving equipment and apparatus and facilities used in comlection therewith (the "Initial Equipment") set forth in Exhibit C, in the locations designated in such exhibit (the "Tower Space"). (2) Additional Equipment and Modifications -- Any plans to: (i) modify, change or replace the Initial Equipment; (ii) modify or change the installation of such Initial Equipment; (iii) change the location or frequency of all or any part of the Initial Equipment; or (iv) add any additional equipment to the Tower, shall be submitted for City's prior approval, and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Items (i) through (iv), inclusive, shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Additional Equipment." Lessee shall promptly, upon demand by City, pay for an evaluation performed by an independent stn~ctural engineer and/or a p_ro_fessional co,,,municatlo_n_s engineer, retained by City, as City deems necessary, to determine whether the Additional Equipment will interfere with existing or proposed operations on the Property, and whether the Tower can structurally support the Additional Equipment. In addition, a proportional adjustment to the Base Rent shall be agreed upon by the parties hereto if additional antennae (in excess of nine (9) antelmae) will be installed or additional space on the Tower is required to accommodate the Additional Equipment. The Initial Equipment and Additional Equipment shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Equipment." (c) Access. Subject to acts of God and other occurrences beyond the reasonable control of the parties, Lessee and its authorized agents shall have access to the Premises (as defined below) twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week in order to maintain and operate its Equipment thereon. Lessee shall telephonically request access to the Premises in advance, at a place designated by the City. The Building Space, Tower Space and all necessary easements or rights-of--way for Lessee's access and utilities are collectively referred to herein as the "Premises." 3.) RENT. (a) Base Rent. (1) During the period from the Commencement Date through December 31, 2010, Lessee shall pay rent (the "Base Rent") to City, for the Premises, in an annualized amount of Eighteen Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($18,000.00) per year. The first installment of Base Rent will be paid by Lessee to City prior to the Commencement Date, and all subsequent {123498-v.2} 2 payments of Base Rent will be paid annually in advance, on or before January lst of each year. (2) The Base Rent shall be increased by $60.00 per month for each antenna in excess of six (6) antennae. (3) Annual Adjustments -- The annualized Base Rent shall be increased as of January 1, 2010, and each January 1St thereafter, by the greater of: a. four percent (4%) of the previous year's annualized Base Rent; or b. by an amount equivalent to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, All Cities, All Items (1984 = 100) (the CPI), as published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics, or if such index shall be discontinued, the successor index, or if there shall be no successor index, such comparable index as mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. To determine the annual increase in Base Rent under this paragraph, the annualized Base Rent for the previous calendar year shall be multiplied by a percentage figure, computed from a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the CPI for the third quarter of the preceding year and the denominator of which shall be the CPI for the corresponding quarter one year earlier. Such fraction shall be converted to a percentage equivalent, and shall be multiplied by the previous year's Base Rent. City shall be responsible for calculating all annual increases in Base Rent and for communicating the same to Lessee by December 1St of each year. 4.) ADDITIONAL RENT. Lessee shall pay all taxes, charges, costs and expenses that are directly attributable to Lessee's improvements, and all damages, costs, expenses and sums that City may incur or that inay become due by reason of any default by Lessee or failure by Lessee to comply with the terms and conditions hereof (such taxes, charges costs and expenses shall be deemed to be "Additional Rent" and, in the event of nonpayment thereof, City shall have all rights and remedies as hereinafter provided for failure to pay Base Rent when due). 5.) GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL CONTINGENCY. Lessee's right to use the Premises is expressly contingent upon its obtaining, in advance, all the certificates, permits, zoning and other approvals that maybe required by any federal, state, or local authority. City shall cooperate with Lessee in its efforts to obtain such approvals and shall take no action that would adversely affect the status of the Premises with respect to the Lessee's proposed use thereof. In addition, before obtaining a building permit, Lessee shall cause to be performed and pay the reasonable cost of: (i) a radio frequency interference study performed by an independent, qualified communications engineer selected by the City, showing that Lessee's use contemplated herein will not interfere with any existing communications facilities upon the Tower (the "Interference Study"); and (ii) an engineering study performed by an independent structural engineer selected by the City, showing that the Tower is able to support the Equipment, without prejudice to the City's use thereof (the "Structural Stability Study"). If the { 123498-v.2 } 3 Interference Study reveals that there is a potential for interference that cannot be reasonably remedied by the Lessee, or the Structural Stability Study reveals that the structure is unable to safely bear the weight of the Equipment, neither of such findings shall constitute a default by either party hereto, but Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 11(c), below. 6.) OWNERSHIP. a Tower. City shall at all times retain exclusive title to and interest in, and control of the Tower and the Property. (b) Equipment. Lessee shall at all times retain exclusive title to and interest in, and control of the Equipment. The Equipment shall at all times remain the personal property of Lessee and shall not be fixtures on the Premises. 7.) USE, INSTALLATION AND NON-INTERFERENCE. Lessee shall use the Premises only for and in connection with the installation, operation, repair and maintenance of a City- approved communications antenna facility; Equipment and cabinets and uses incidental thereto for providing radio and wireless telecommunication services. The Equipment shall be installed at Lessee's sole cost and expense in a manner approved by City in advance, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. A government unit may be allowed to place antennae or other communication facilities on the Tower regardless of potential or actual interference with Lessee's use; however, if Lessee's use of the Premises or Equipment is materially affected, Lessee may terminate the Agreement. A government unit is to include public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services. Lessee shall promptly cure any interference caused by Lessee's Equipment to pre-existing equipment on the Tower belonging to City, governmental units or other tenants of City, and if such interference cannot be cured within 72 hours of notice to Lessee, Lessee shall temporarily reduce power or cease the offending operations, until a cure at full power is achieved. City covenants to use its best efforts to afford Lessee similar protection from interference caused by the operations of any subsequent user of the Property. 8.) MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. (a) Tower. City shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Property and the Tower and keeping the same in a safe condition and fit for the use contemplated hereby, except any damage resulting from the acts or omissions of Lessee or its authorized agents shall be repaired by City, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for ali reasonable costs associated with such repair. The City may, with 45 days notice, require the Lessee to remove the Equipment for repairs without cost or penalty to the City. The City will undertake its best efforts to cooperate to mitigate disruption and expense to the Lessee. The City shall provide Lessee with invoices for reimbursement of extraordinary costs as a result of the Lessee's equipment in the course of such repairs. (b) Equipment. Lessee shall pay and be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Equipment. If Lessee fails to timely maintain or repair the Equipment as herein required, City may, but is not hereby required to, after 30 days notice to Lessee, {123498-v.2} 4 take reasonable steps to maintain or repair the Equipment, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs associated with such repair and maintenance. In addition, at all times during the Term, all of the Equipment installed on the Tower shall be painted the same color as the Tower, at the sole expense of Lessee. 9.) EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement: (a) Faihire to Pay. Lessee shall fail to timely pay any amount due under this Agreement, and such failure shall continue uncured for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof from City; (b) Failure to Perform. Except as otherwise stated herein, if either party shall fail to perform any other covenant of this Agreement and does not cure or reasonably commence and proceed diligently to cure such failure within sixty (60) days after receipt of notice thereof from the other party; or (c) Bankruptcy, (i) Lessee shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors; (ii) Lessee files a voluntary petition under the Bankruptcy Code of the United States or any state statute similar thereto, or Lessee be adjudged insolvent or a bankrupt pursuant to an involuntary petition, and such petition is not dismissed within sixty (60) days of filing; (iii) a receiver or trustee is appointed for the property of Lessee by reason of insolvency of Lessee and such receiver or trustee is not discharged within 60 days; (iv) any department of the state or federal government, or any officer thereof duly authorized, takes possession of the business or property of Lessee by reason of the insolvency of Lessee; (v) Lessee continues in possession without the appointment of a receiver or trustee under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; or (vi) Lessee is the subject of any petition or proceeding related to relief from creditors. 10.) REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. If an Event of Default occurs, the non-defaulting party may at any time thereafter: (a) Terminate this Agreement. Terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 11(b) below; and/or (b) Other Available Remedies. Pursue any other available remedies at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of this Agreement. ll.) TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement, except if terminated by reason of an Event of Default, Lessee shall be entitled to a refund of any Base Rent paid in advance. This Agreement may be terminated pursuant to any of the following provisions: (a) By Notice. Lessee may elect to terminate this Agreement, without cause, as of 'the end of the Initial Term or any subsequent Renewal Term by giving notice to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any subsequent Renewal Term. {123498-v.2} 5 (b) By Default. Either party may terminate this Agreement as described in this paragraph. If City or Lessee fail to perform any covenant of this Agreement and does not cure or reasonably commence and proceed diligently to cure such failure within sixty (60) days after receipt of notice thereof from the other party, the other party may at any time thereafter: (i) terminate this Agreement as of the date stated in such notice; and/or (ii) subject to the limitations of Section 26(k) herein, pursue any other available remedies at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of this Agreement. (c) By Failure of Governmental Approval Continency. Lessee may terminate this Agreement if the Governmental Approval Contingency is not satisfied as a result of an adverse finding in either the Interference Study or the Structural Stability Study. (d) By Lessee. Lessee may terminate this Agreement with cause, if: (i) Lessee gives City at least sixty (60) days notice of Lessee's exercise of this provision; (ii) Lessee is not in default under the terms hereof; (iii) Lessee pays City all outstanding amounts that are due and payable hereunder as of the termination date; and: (1) Lessee is unable, after exerting all reasonable efforts, to obtain and/or maintain any license, permit or other governmental approval necessary for the construction and/or operation of the Equipment or Lessee's business; or (2) During any of the Renewal Terms (if any), if the Premises or Equipment is or becomes unacceptable under Lessee's design or engineering specifications for its Equipment or the communications system to which the Equipment belongs. (e) By CitX. City may terminate this Agreement if City gives Lessee at least sixty (60) days notice of City's exercise of this provision, and: (1) City's Council decides, for any reason, to redevelop the Property, or any portion thereof, in a mamier inconsistent with the continued use of the Premises by Lessee, and/or discontinues use of the Tower for all purposes. The City will undertake its best efforts to provide notice of at least one year to Lessee; (2) An independent structural engineer determines that the Tower is structurally unsound, after considering all reasonable factors, including without limitation, the age of the Tower, damage or destruction of all or any part thereof, and factors relating to condition of the Property; (3) After considering relevant engineering studies, City reasonably determines that a City of Shorewood governmental unit as provided for in Section 7 herein cannot find another adequate location on the Tower, or the Equipment unreasonably interferes with the City of Shorewood governmental unit's use of the Tower; or {123498-v.2} 6 (4) City reasonably determines that Lessee has failed to comply with applicable ordinances, or state or federal law, or any conditions attached to government approvals granted thereunder, after a public hearing before the City's Council. (f) By Destruction. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days notice, if, as a result of any natural disaster, act of God or other occurrence beyond the control of the parties hereto, all or any part of the Premises is destroyed or damaged to the extent that it is reasonably determined that such will be unusable for more than one hundred twenty (120) days. If this Agreement is not so terminated, City shall undertake to repair or replace the Premises within a reasonable period of time, and if such damage renders the Premises unfit for Lessee's use, and Lessee, by reason thereof, discontinues its use of such facilities, the Base Rent payments due hereunder shall abate in proportion to that part of the Premises that is rendered unusable, tmtil such time as the Premises is again operational. 12.) COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. (a) Lessee. Lessee shall (i) acquire, at Lessee's sole expense, all necessary federal, state and local certificates, permits, licenses, zoning and other approvals that are necessary for Lessee to operate and maintain the Equipment on the Premises, as contemplated in this Agreement, and (ii) comply with all federal, state and local laws, and regulations that are applicable to such use of the Premises. (b) City. Subject to Section 12(a) above, City shall: (i) acquire, at City's expense, all necessary federal, state and local certificates, permits, licenses, zoning and other approvals that are necessary for City to operate and maintain the Tower, and (ii) comply with all federal, state and current local laws, and regulations that are applicable to the operation and maintenance of the Tower. 13.) TAXES. Lessee shall be solely responsible for charges, levies, taxes, assessments and similar impositions, directly attributable to Lessee's Equipment, the Building Space, or that arise out of Lessee's use of the Tower. 14.) UTILITIES. Lessee shall be responsible for payment and separate metering of all utility services directly with the utility providers for services consumed by Lessee's operations at the Premises. City will reasonably cooperate with Lessee's efforts to improve existing utilities on the Property for Lessee's use, or to connect the Equipment to existing utilities on the Property, and City will execute any easement, right-of--way or similar agreement that Lessee or a utility service provider may reasonably request for any such purposes. 15). INDEMNIFICATION. Lessee and City each indemnify and hold harmless the other and their respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses of litigation arising out of the use and occupancy of the Premises by Lessee, which may be asserted against or incurred by either party or for which either party maybe liable in the performance of this Agreement, except {123498-v.2} 7 those to the extent that the same arise from the negligence, willful nusconduct, or other fault of either party, its employees, agents or contractors. Lessee shall defend all claims arising out of the installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair, removal, or presence of Lessee's Equipment and related facilities on the Premises. 16.) REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Without limiting the scope of subparagraph 15 above, Lessee will be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify, and hold City, its agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, and liabilities, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or restoration of the Premises associated with the Lessee's use of Hazardous Materials. For purposes of this Agreement, "Hazardous Materials" shall be interpreted broadly and specifically includes, without limitation asbestos, fuel, batteries or any hazardous substance, waste, or materials as defined in any federal, state, or local environmental or safety law or regulations including, but not limited to, CERCLA, other than such materials used in the ordinary course of Lessee's business in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. City represents that it has no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste on the City's Property that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in an applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. 17.) INSURANCE. (a) Coverage. During the Term, Lessee shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep in force comprehensive general liability coverage with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence; One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) personal injury; One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) products and completed operations aggregate, covering Lessee's work and operations at or in connection with the Premises, and naming City as an additional insured. (b) Evidence of Coverage. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of any then current policy, Lessee shall deliver to City, a certificate of insurance showing that Lessee maintains all the insurance required under this Agreement. Such policy shall also provide that City must receive thirty (30) days' notice of any reduction in coverage, expiration or cancellation thereof, and shall be issued by a company reasonably satisfactory to City. (c) Landlord's Insurance. City shall maintain cormnercial general liability insurance against liability for personal injury, death or da2nage arising out of City's use or management of the Structure by City, its employees or agents, with combined single limits of not less than $600,000 and $1,200,000 total claims per occurrence. City shall also maintain fire and extended coverage insurance insuring the Tower for its full insurable value (subject to reasonable deductibles). (d) Waiver of Subro ag tion. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, each party releases the other party from all liability, whether for negligence or otherwise, in connection with any loss covered by any policies which the releasing party carries with respect to such property or is required to be carried hereunder. Any policy {123498-v.2} g required to be obtained pursuant to this Agreement shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the party hereto. 18.) ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement and Lessee's rights and duties established hereunder, may be sold, assigned, or transferred at any time by Lessee to Lessee's parent, affiliate or subsidiary, or any party that merges or consolidates with Lessee or its parent, or any party that purchases or otherwise acquires all or substantially all of Lessee's stock or asset, without notice to or the consent of City. Subject to the foregoing sentence, Lessee shall not assign this Agreement or any of the rights or duties established hereunder without the prior written consent of City. City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or unduly delayed. For purposes of this section, an "affiliate" or "subsidiary" means an entity that owns greater than a fifty percent (50%) interest or any entity which is controlling, under the control of or controlled by a common entity. City hereby consents to the assignment of its rights under this Agreement, as collateral, to any entity that provides financing for the purchase of the equipment to be installed at the Premises. 19.) CONDEMNATION. (a) Entire Premises. If, during the Term, the entire Premises shall be taken as a result of the power of eminent domain, condemnation proceedings, or other like proceedings (the "Proceedings"), this Agreement and all right, title, and interest of Lessee hereunder shall cease and come to an end on the date of taking of possession pursuant to the Proceedings. (b) Portion of the Premises. If, during the Term, less than the entire Premises shall be taken by the Proceedings, this Agreement shall, upon taking of possession pursuant to the Proceedings, terminate as to the portion of the Premises so taken, and either party may elect to terminate this Agreement with respect to the remainder of the Premises, as of the date of taking such possession, by giving the other party at least thirty (30) days notice. If neither City or Lessee elects to terminate this Agreement as to the remainder of the Premises, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, but the Base Rent shall be reduced pro rata in accordance with the percentage of value of the Premises so taken compared with the total value of the Premises immediately prior to such taking. Nothing herein contained shall affect Lessee's obligation to pay in full the Additional Rent. City shall, however, at City's sole cost and expense, restore that portion of the Premises not so taken to a complete architectural unit for the use and occupancy of Lessee. (c) Lessee's Share of Condemnation Award. If all or any portion of the Premises is taken, Lessee shall not be entitled to any portion of any payment or award made in connection therewith. Lessee hereby expressly waives any right or claim to any portion of such award or payment. Lessee shall, however, have the right to claim and recover from the condemning authority, but not from City, such compensation as may be separately awarded or recoverable by Lessee on account of any and all damage to Lessee's business, equipment and relocation costs and expenses. {123498-v.2} 9 20.) QUIET ENJOYMENT. Except as otherwise provided for herein, Lessee shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the Premises throughout the Term, and City will not intentionally disturb Lessee's occupancy thereof as long as Lessee is not in default hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee's right to quiet enjoyment shall not apply to events beyond the control of City, or interference during periods of normal and extraordinary repairs and maintenance of the Property or Tower by City. 21.) REMOVAL AND SURRENDER. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by City, within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed sixty (60) days, after the expiration or earlier termination of the Term, Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, remove all of the Equipment from the Premises, and restore and surrender the Premises to City in good condition without damage thereto, reasonable wear and tear and casualty excepted. If Lessee fails to timely remove as required herein: (i) the Equipment shall be deemed abandoned and become the property of City (subject to the interests of other persons or entities disclosed in writing to City prior to the date of hereof); and (ii) City may take reasonable steps to remove the same and restore the Premises, and Lessee shall be responsible for, and pay upon demand by City, all reasonable costs associated with such removal and restoration. 22.) BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, assigns and successors in interest. 23.) LIENS. Lessee shall not permit any mechanics or other liens to be filed or placed against the Premises or any part thereof by reason of work, services, materials supplied to or claimed to have been supplied to Lessee, and if such lien is filed against the Premises at any time, Lessee shall cause the same to be discharged of record by paying the amount claimed to be due, shall deposit with the court an amount equal to the amount claimed, or shall post bond for the same, within thirty (30) days of the date of such filing. If Lessee shall fail to discharge such lien or to so deposit such amount within such period, then, City may, but is not hereby required to, take reasonable steps to discharge such lien, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with such discharge. 24.) ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS. City shall have the right to permit the construction of other buildings and equipment on the Property, pursuant to the specifications and requirements set forth in Exhibit B, and Lessee shall permit such buildings to be placed immediately on the Property; provided, however, that no such other buildings or equipment will interfere with Lessee's ability to use or access the Premises and Equipment. 25.) NOTICE. Any notice, election, request, or other communication herein required or permitted to be given or served shall be delivered to the other party hereto (with receipt obtained therefor), or mailed by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, properly addressed to such other party at the following addresses: {123498-v.2} l0 If to Lessee: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. Attn: Lease Administrator 146 North Canal Street Seattle, WA 98103 with an additional copy to: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. Attn: Bill Buck 146 North Canal Street Seattle, WA 98103 If to City: City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Attention: City Administrator with an additional copy to: Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Attn: Timothy J. Keane, City Attorney 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Unless and until changed by notice as herein provided, notices and communications shall be addressed to the above-listed addresses. Each such mailed notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon the party to which addressed, (i) on the date the same is personally delivered or (ii) on the date set forth on the certified receipt. All payments required by this Agreement shall be made to City at the address designated above, or as may be hereafter designated. 26.) MISCELLANEOUS. (a) Applicable Law. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is subject to the provisions of applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Any obligation, duty or provision under this Agreement that conflicts with any provision of applicable federal or state laws or regulations, is to that extent void. This Agreement has been made, and its validity, performance and effect shall be determined in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota. ' {]23498-v.2} 11 (b) Waiver. The waiver by either party of a breach or violation of, or failure of either party to enforce, any provision of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation or relinquishment of any rights hereunder. (c) Entire Agreement and Modification. This writing represents the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all previous agreements of whatever nature between the parties with respect to the subject matter. This Agreement may not be altered or amended except by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. (d) Headings; Exhibits. The headings of sections in this Agreement are for convenience only; they form no part of this Agreement and shall not affect its interpretation. The Statement of Facts contained herein, and all schedules, exhibits, addenda or attachments referred to herein are incorporated in and constitute a part of this Agreement. (e) Severability. If any part of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, that part shall be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without in any way affecting the remaining parts of the provision or this Agreement. (f) Sublet/Sublicensin~ Prohibited. Subject to Section 18, Lessee shall not sublease, license or otherwise make the Premises available to others for use in any manner. (g) Construction. Both parties hereby acknowledge that they participated equally in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and that, accordingly, no court construing this Agreement shall construe it more stringently against one party than against the other. (h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. (i) Trade Term Usage. Words used in this Agreement shall be given the meanings that they normally possess in the wireless communications industry, unless otherwise specifically defined herein. (j) Recording. At the option of either party, this Agreement, or a mutually agreeable Memorandum hereof, may be recorded in the real property records of the county where the Premises is located. (k) Limitations of Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event will either party be liable to the other party for, or indemnify the other party against, punitive, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities; provided, however, that this provision shall not release or reduce Lessee's obligation to pay rent to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. {123498-v.2} 12, (1) Authority. City represents and warrants that City has full authority to enter into and sign this Agreement and has good and marketable title to the Property. (m) Alterations. The Lessee shall make no alternations to the Equipment, facilities and antennas as depicted in Exhibits B and C without the written consent of the City, which will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. (n) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota. (o) Waiver of Landlord's Liens. City waives any lien rights it may have, statutory or otherwise, regarding Lessee's Equipment, all of which shall be deemed personal property, whether considered real or personal property under applicable state laws. (p) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. { 123498-v.2 } 13 IN WI'T'NESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page 1 hereof. LESSEE: CITY: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. City of Shorewood By: By: Its: STATE OF MIr~.TESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) By: Christine Lizee Its: Mayor Brian Heck Its: City Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2008, by ,the of TTM Operating Corporation, Inc., a Nevada corporation, on behalf of corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2008, by Christine Lizee and Brian Heck, the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP (TJK) 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Timothy J. Keane. City Attorney {123498-v.2} 14 EXHIBIT A Legal Description -Premises: {123498-v.2} Exhibit A TTM ~c~rr~ J J t -~-_ _„_ i ------* T t ..~ T - T - SAM n t+tOTEa GOPlTRAGTc~R TO VERIFI' L[3CAT#efit OF Al.l. %XfST~J'x tk~i?l~~.~iD l1TiLiTiES F'RIOf? TO COh18?RllGTE[;~t t~fOTEs GE7h1TRl+GTOR TO t1SE SEN. T1GNT WifP3 AP~O'YE Gf?,4pE ANP PYC CtJhlDil#T R'~l.lat[f E. __" ~7" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f ~~5~~~ ILT-iN P13GOPtl~ftCT ~ . :~ F ~ E .; .ygS ~ F .=~~ .~~~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D. ~I9TAl.i- NEUt IGSD ~ -'~` .`~ =~ £f2 ~. ~. ,~ 9 2 , J ~ ~+, t +s r- ~" Vf } t~S '^{ -. , { ~'~E~f`Iy i'~i/E~T~Ef~Z~y8~~0Gf4.f_T !~ ~ : 1 f I r ~ . t ~ ki~' ' i ~i ai LA`iN+~S'I TYPE 'U$E` t?Npf1tT #~~) TO _ vl ~ a # ~~~, .~F ~ ^~ f' y~=. j ± ~ ~Y m, :TSf2 CENTER ,( ~' ~~ ^^ ~~~ ; ~~ yy ~ . ~~ rte w craw. sY, satE 2:n srtitm~ w,~ satio3 a. {axy sa-eara ^ w-T CbYr~t+McR";~CM DE8[Gti taRtMlP. LLC. WIRELESS IHf'RABTRUdTUkE aerar~r. M._ PtLryg79tia7i l~.~(dgaP3i5f! www.Ma ~F.e~?e~mn 14lttssi N?: tlRA011f-0 E.P: Gil?G! I PROSECTND; T07W03 9RA1Nd BY: SAC CHECKED 8Y; JKR SGOTT F. te2~P}UHH P.E. <J#2. {iED PRt4E~i~)a. Enf41EtTt SfA~~ -YA ESQ 9Bla'14/i4S>t~ E~.._/._..fr. IYt>77" ~a7 f M ae362 8h11TM7t76YN RCAp 9HCREWOOD, biN bb331 $HEE77fTLE t3'ftLITY DETAitS S'i 1 G-R,~LE>E ELECT~IG l3~TAlL f~ sc~Ei N.TS. Exhibit B s"x19Tt~y U3A'('1:R Ts~ HAi•(RRAIL Itl/~tER Exit}ttr~ CAE2R1E~2 ANt~1A ,~rtT>=r1NA AriTENt~IA a~NTEtddA ; ANTEhIMM,4 c Ak1Tr"t. NA d 1~~-M~~Jyyf~t~~A~~~~~ ~~..+L.R~[i'i.~ AT $1Ti:. ~C3 LYt'1 HGN Atl }-4GH PRUpO~ER N7~RC(~~tECT ANT~tA. Mltdtl~i 18° SI:pA~4TilX~1 i3ETt~Ehi ANTEI~iNA9 Vl=RtF'Y UU{~ {t~tR - EXiST~iCi Cl~RJI=~ ,4Atl~,A NDTI;: CoNTf~.4CFOR To tN9TA1..I. SERv[C!= LC1Uf'S AT EACH ErtC) C7F THE COAX ANR A DRIP-LOOP JUST SE'FORE THE ~ArilO/ANT~fA Ct~NEGTION UA-3F~3 ~f9TAi.LThiCs C.oA>c. NOTEr DO NOT N9TALL ANTI=MyAB tAiT1L A4ft"~1TI-,°v, ELEYATICtJ°~, I~fJL? At~i'ENNA &I~E IS vERfE=EED {:3Y THE S'~JEGT MfiJ.iACsEi2 NOTE! tdo Ult. oR t•1OPFFICtiTiDht3 BNALL CiE RGtdE TO L4t~ UHTHt?UT THE ,drED ~TE~1GTi.iRAL Nllal-Yfi19. T~-NK ELEiJaT(a~! ~/ {` SCALE: I° = 75'-O' ~~, a Exhibit C "I"~' SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0.128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Plaiuling Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 November 2008 RE: Brockwood -Preliminary Plat FILE NO. 405(08.15) BACKGROUND Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company, LLC, has azranged to purchase approximately 5.3 acres of land located between Cathcart Drive and Strawberry Lane, just north of the H.C.R.R.A right-of--way (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to subdivide the property into two parcels, as shown on Exhibit B. Since the property is capable of being redivided into additional lots, the applicant has submitted a resubdivision sketch (Exhibit C) demonstrating how the property can be redeveloped in the future. The property is zoned R-lA, Single-Family Residential, which requires lots to be at least 40,000 square feet in area. The proposed lots range in size from 40,638 square feet to 60,475 square feet. The land is relatively flat and substantially wooded (see Exhibit D). According to the Miimehaha Creek Watershed District, there are no wetlands on the subject property. ISSUES AND ANAI.~'SIS The proposed division is somewhat similar to the Petron Rearrangement that was approved earlier tl>is year, except in this case a new building site is being created as a result of the division. In this case, the applicant proposes to subdivide off one lot fronting on Cathcart Drive to be sold. He intends to build his own house on the larger parcel, which could be resubdivided at a later date. p®~0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Brockwood -Preliminary Plat 15 November 2008 Resubdivision Sketch. The Shorewood Zoning Code requires that when properties capable of additional development are subdivided, the applicant must provide a resubdivision-sketch, or "ghost plat", demonstrating how the remainder of the property can be developed in the future, in accordance with Subdivision and Zoning Codes. The applicant has submitted a plan that will accommodate the future development of the site (see Exhibit C). It should be noted that the property is not required to develop as illustrated on Exhibit C. Rather, this plan will be incorporated into a development agreement as a guide for when the property ultimately develops. Zoning Requirements. Oise of the purposes of the resubdivision sketch is to determine if proposed and future lots comply with zoning requirements. In this case, the two initial lots and the proposed future lots all meet or exceed R-lA zoning requirements. One item that should be corrected is the lot line between future lots 3 and 4. Straightening this line will not adversely affect Lot 4. hl addition to meeting the minimum lot size requirements, all proposed lots have ample buildable area. This is ilhistrated on Exhibits E and F, which show proposed utilities and grading, respectively, as well as building setbacks. Subdivision Requirements. The resubdivision sketch shows the future lots being accessed by a cur-de-sac street extending westward from Strawberry Lane. The proposed location of the street is based upon soil tests of the property, which indicate deeper levels of organic soil on the northerly portion of the site. Placing the street on the southerly portion of the site, results in considerably less site alteration (grading and tree removal) than a northerly alignment. In evaluating the street and lot layout, the potential redevelopment of surrounding properties was taken into consideration. All surrounding properties are larger than what is required by the R-lA zoning district. The lots to the north were designed as two-acre lots with a drainage pond at the rear of the lots. The lot to the west of the property in question is large enough to be divided, however, extending the proposed cur-de-sac would necessitate a variance for the length of the cur-de-sac. The property to the south benefits from the proposed street location as it provides street frontage that does not exist otherwise. Most ofthe issues associated with this plat have to do with engineering. The City Engineer has addressed these under separate cover. It is worth noting that the developer had originally considered extending city water to the site, but the cost of doing so became prohibitive. Shorewood's development regulations require that a development capable of three or more lots must install water if the cost does not exceed $10,000 per lot. In this case, the estimates prepared by the applicant's engineer suggest nearly twice that amount. This may change in the future since there is land south of the LRT Trail capable of development. This would extend the water main closer to the subject property, increasing the feasibility of extension later on. -2- Memorandum Re: Brockwood -Preliminary Plat 15 November 2008 The applicant shows drainage and utility easements for all lots, including the ones that will be required as part of this proposal. Finally, the two-lot plat will require payment of park dedication fees ($5000 per lot) and local sanitary sewer extension charges ($120.0 per lot). The development of the future lots will be subject to the charges in effect at the time they are platted. RECOMMENDATION Ill light of the preceding, it is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved. Tlus approval is contingent upon the applicant entering into a development agreement as part of the final plat process, stipulating that any future development of the property will include the installation of all site improvements, including street, utilities and stone water drainage facilities. Cc: Brian Heck Larry Brown Tim Keane James Landini Brent Hislop -3- °a vN3an3 -~ -p o ~ w 3 ~~, o LL- -~ ~ i W CV ~~~ z o ~ ~ 3 oa na3innao°vaw O o, z z~ o~ -p y`~ oR ~ ~ s o 0 m ~ ~ -~ ,r o ,~ 5 . ~~H ow"aa O °o o ~ 3 o a eM F x v 3~anv ~S a boy o 0 Oa ZN3a0'11NVa`J , ~J yJd d dl Aaa38MVa1S '. tll ANN39Mtlb15 K +--~ +r ~ 3 U L. ~ ~ ~ CJ d^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~ o - ~ Z y O ~ L I y0 31NlOd '~ w ~~ ~ - ~' ~ HSab'W ~; -)f a41atl~Hltl~ b~ 3w~od Nsab'W 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ s -~ rc ~ ~ ~ ~I pd, ~ ~ ~ .~~0 Zi ,.~ ~ thy, c ~ ~ ~ ~ bl °3N~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..] '~ ~I -y -1 ~ ~ ~ ~ BEM plots pa oa EX1111~1t 1~ eaE"`~°G~ SITE LOCATION Po~NS P° "°"'P"p5 Brocl~wood Preli111inary Plat -~ ~' _° m~ I ( ~L. I I Gtal G~/ I ( I ---~ ~ I I I I l ., I ~ i 5895 ~ ~-- I -~~~ ~ ~ (2.08 acres) I I .--NW G1~71IERICf'SE7/~Lt` C'~ T ~ n v n / ~ r- ~ ~ ~ i i~ 7{IE,gµ7/4 G'~-y4,$;l •~ I i-\ v v L~ L- I 'd ~ TXP.1177L Rf~1S i a ~ ~~ jd f rhos/x-aw z: ,~ a ..,~,~nw._,=~. --.~. I ~ I C 1 e~ ------°-- 1- i --- I S~~GQD~ I w~' I ~~ /~ n C) r--V r- n I CT \ 7 /-\ I \\ L~ L- I V JJJJ N89°10'46 E I _, j4 ~.-.~~~. ~~~a~.~ ~.~_ .. 1 il. 33.00 - ~ -- ._......v...~._ - --'°" _._ ~~~ _.....,e ~. .-,~_.V ~ I\/ /o I\ I ~ i y " ~ 364, 03 y I ~ I p ~ i I I , I > ~~ o ~~N At ~ i ; ~ N (o o 1 ~ ~ I i i PI I~; i .J v~ N ~ ` I Ira ~ ~ ql i 3\ ~ i . I~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.. I'v ~ .~ ~ I ~ ~--:TACn IiNE f 364.03 I i I L _ - ~ I ( I ' - _1_~-_._...---- Ij ~ 3~ o ~ ..._ _ ~, ~~. ~ry " ' ° .__ 14.,. 513 tt6. 11 ` l ,~,_- I I ~ ~ 10 h6 E N69 . \ ~ -2NE PMAIII W/H iFA MN1H I ~ S ~ ._ - I 1.11£ q~' t!£ SE'I/4 A' fit' SN7/i I I d-ss CfSGJ2 rXP.7/T( RCE1J m j ,~ 1 I I 1~P,,R,~ X91 r~~F1>~__~ I I I .1 tier i ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ T I ~ ~ ~ r.!`' 7Hf ~.T/4 LF ITC SM7/I 4T 3 w ~l'- ,1 -- I I~~ \ I I A I I I ~, I _ I I - - I M1 ~ I ( L t ~ I \\ ~ ( la~uo/x-ne SE'Q.T2 rNP.117A; lKE1J W( l i I q 6035 0 ~ I "~~_' ~ e (2.07 acres) o ~ I ~ ; ) ~ ~ 1 i9y I~' i r---~ ~ I I I t) I I ~ ~ tx~ a- >~ si/~ a- n!c sxr/4 I ~-__~ ~~ CM'SEG,I$ 1MP.IlRd ht'Lr2p I ~ ..A ~~._-_.T -~~,_ - - - - -~tlw-t-~ ..~,_. _ _ u ~S~_ F---~ ~ I 1057 (DE@J I w.ao/w-a.a I I I ~ 10579 (S)RANBERRY gRIX£f / ~ I i n\ A x ~-~ r- >\ i i `~ I c~ i. l r- I I 6065 I i i I ^ I -- i i i I ~~o~-,;,-z~w~, ~--~I I ~ \ .,^~ I.aa;:~nsns I I :~ogeo~aa~~T iV ~ ( L--~ aLxv ~~7'NfiiYr Lx ~ ~ I ( \ r-r ~ I I I I i ~---~ ~_~ _~ I 5990 i I ~ ~ti --- ,I `~ (2.09 acres) ~ r~ I ~~ ~__J ,~camcxa~,~r/ate--~ ~ ~~ IM :11~7i4/4~,ffCJ2 v~ ~a ?SI y~~~ M0. /F-Q1\~~ 3~ 1317.03 u-at/w-a4 - ~ ~ I •1 ,,. w~ ~.r..,7,, ~ _ -~~:~~ a m'~ < Go __-___._.._...._. -- ~ a v i I r+ N N w I ~' ~r.:o p ° ~ o c3 ~ Ito ~m / _ '~ t I i ~ q~3~-- N00•f3' 2 tste4s.ra aq.n ~ ~~yrC~~\-'4~ 60 ~J `S89' 46' 4 i ~ ~ ?5, 76 I ~ ~~~~ BLOCK 1 ,~%~ ° ~~ ~,~; ~~~~` ~~. ~ ~~Ory~{ ~~ // ~ ~ ~~ , fir' .4B' J- fL~'~A6 ~~ ~~ fi ~~ ,~,~~ °5 ~a,r, , ; I i ~ ~N0 ~~tiJ~~i i`~ ~~~ f . ;. ~ ~; <: N89°10'45°E 539.71 ~~ ~IJ~•~Q1,~5'r"~r/ I I // y/ I ~ I /'/ ~~` /// ~ I / // ~ / I // // ~I I // / I / / I I ~ ~ I I -- I -+ ~ I I I ~ ' TM~ orw-ot ~ I I ~ ~ S i I ~ -------- -- - - I L L i i I - - \ ces antxcaxs tat Vacant Lot I r---, I I i i I ~ 6085 i I I I I ~ I ~ I ~ 6075 ---~ I ~ ~ I I ~I~ ~I ^~; ~- -~ ~ ~ ~ I „ LF'GI-t PL ~ - - - I mo \ I I nrC L`FC f I I G~. ,a, ~8 ,xaa~L .~ n~ v v SHEET INDEX TABLE 1 2 Lot -Preliminary Plat 5 Lot -Preliminary Plat Alta Survey 2 Lot - Sketch Plan 5 Lo[ -Preliminary Utility Plan 5 Lot -Preliminary Grading Plan 5 Lot-Tree Cover Plan Notes: Proposed Zoning - R1A Min Width -120 ft Min Area - 40,OD0 sf Fysb - 50 ft Sysb -10 ft Rysb-50ft 50' Row NaTEs This smvry dos not purport b show all underground utilities. The eziadng u61i6ea shoam eti shoam in rn approximate way only. The conhactor shall determine the exact location of any and all exisdngmilities before commrncing work. The contractorshnll be fWlyresponsble forany and all damages raising out of his failure fo exazily locale and prated all existing utility Cacilifies. Contact GDPHER BTATE ONE CALL at 651-054-0002 for precise onsite locatiom oCufitides prior to any excavation. Carver County Absuact &'I3tla Cornrdfinent fox Title hisumnce File No. CA26190, e0ective date July 23, 2008, was relied upo¢ as to matters o(reeord. The subject property appeem to lie witFin Zone X, (Areas outside the 1-percent annual chance floodp(ain, areas of 1 % annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than I foot, areas of I % annual chance stream flood'mgwhere the contributing damage azea is less than 1 square mile, orazeas pmtemed firm the I % anoual chance flood by levees. No Base Flood Elevadons or depths ere show¢ within this zone. Insurance purehase u not required in these zones. ), per the National Flood Insurance &ogmm, Flood Insurance Rate Map Community PanetNa. 27053 C 0313E, dated September 2, 2004 as acquired fiom the Federal Emergency Management Agency Web Sik. Areas : Net: 275,364 Sq. Ft - 6321 Aaes R/W; 3,960 Sq. Ft - 0.091 Acres (Cathcart Drive) PJW__ 2,3825g. Ft.-0.055 Acres (SOawberrv Lanel Gmss:28I,706 Bq. Ft. - 6.467 Acros Zoning inf rnation ere provided by (fie Planning Departmml of the City of Shorewood R-IA Single Family Survey coordinate nod herring basis : Nennepw Cowty No modi5catiem m tNs survey or sketch may he performed by any person o0ier Oran ffiesuxveyor signing this ceriificadon or persons underhis d'¢mt supervision. Being 6 frzf in widW and adjoining lot lines, unless othernise indicated, and (0 feetin width and adjoining right ofway Ives, unless otherwise mdicaled, as shown om the plat. DESCRIPTION OF SI78JECT PROPERTY All that partofthe Southeast 1!4 ofthe Southwcst 114 of Secdo¢ 32, Township I17Nmib, Runge 23, desenbed as follows: Comment ug at rho Northwest wmermfeaid SouOeaat 174 of01e Southwest ll4 of said Section 32; thence South along the West Gme ofsaid quarter sectio¢ a dkstance of 311 feet; thence Past parallel with theNorth line of said q¢ar4rquestersecdon adismnce of 1052 fcet to right o[wayofOse Mimeapolis and 5[ Louis Rmlway; themceNorbeasterly xlemgsaid fight of way a d'utnnce of345 feel to the East line of said quarter quater section; thrnceNoAh a disbnceof 92 feet b The Norlheastcomer of said quarter quertexseetion; thence West to beginning, EXCEPT Therefrom the following described hacC Commencing etlheNorthwest comer of said Southeast IlAofthe Southwest 114; 0emce South along We West line ofsaid quaderquarter seeh'on a distnnae of 120 feel W the acNel point of beginning ofthe pact of land to be described; (hence East paallel with the North line of said qu:uterquarter section a distance of 513.14 feet thence South parallel with the West tine of said quarto quadersecdon a distance of I9I feet tfience SVest parallel with Iha NorW line of said quarter quarter section a list®ee of5t3.t4 feet to the West line of said quarter quartersemion; thence North atomg the West line of said quarter quarter section a distance of 191 feetto the actual point ofbeginning, NORTH T-~'.; I herehy certify thnt this plan arspecificntion was prep my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed L the laws ofthe state of Minnesota Dated thu 13W day of OcmbeS 2008. SATHRE-EEAGQULST, INC. 50 25 0 25 50 700 -/~~ SCALE IN FEET LtJ"i Licemsdi Lmd Surveyor, Minn. Lis No. 26147 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHDWN THUS: I I I 10; _^r i- I I _l (0 I I ___..I_._.._J L~_._1..._~_. NDT TO SCALE 0 0 U° u Z~ . v N rn ~~ m qo ~'7( In V ? /~ ~ V ~ M~~ W } 1 O m 2F ~-' ~ O (~ ° J~~~p46 Sy~~i' % 0. d 3 ro ~~ =(`Q' ~'DN8 DESIG U ~ F- o Q Q ~ ~ d ~ Q ~ 0 U Z ~ U ~ ~ W ~° W 0 w = ~ I;v } DRAWN Dks CHECKED RSM DATE 10110(08 3 ZINARY PLAT ~c. I t ac.lcaj Id /• ~~- ~u ~A / t 1 - 300 ---~ ti it I I 5995 _;- ~ (2.08 acres) i~~'71,t'~~~,y1 ~ ~T I~ i~• xv~v L~ L_ ~ ~l \I~ 1M°.fI2N, IKE2J v ~J =- I Any ~ ~ i i I v ~~: I i ~ ~ n ~C! t-1 r- \ I 1 N89°10 46 E j ~~ /a lO E ~ _.- ~_ __ a i l _..._,~ 364, 03 > ~n ~~ ~ W i OI 67999 s ft 1 43 ~\y CJ ~ ~ ~ i I , q. 'A~ul ~a y, ~ [~ ~ i 11 43,819.99 sq.ft -~ p .r • ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ J ° f ~ _1_m ~___- 364 03 -~ ,.,~, ._ ,,~ ~ - MM I r Y ter, I I~ ( N ~~! I ~,-.~,~ II ~~ ~,~N89°10'46"E~.. ;~ I I ~ \ \ ~ -lhC' PM.1lFJ. XIM pA ,VC1P71/ _ ( I l.M,C CF RE' .47/4 LY' 11k' SW!/6 I ,!-9s 3>e a°.4'c~Z iXP,117K AGE2S ~I I = c F~TIO^~, r I I ,_ I ~ I N ;~r~ ,-- L -~ 6035 . I ~ ,n r ta, ",N I (2.07 acres} _ L- __~ ~- ~ ~ y ,i I I ~ I 1\ x-ao/W.o.s ---, I I I t r--, I i 1 ] _ t I ( ~--- ~_J ~ I ~ 5990 ~ i I I ~ti 1 ~____~ ~ I I w E i ~ (2.09 acres} ~ ~-~ ~ I ~~ 1 L----~ ~ ! .: ~__~ M GYRMR (f .47/4 Cf ~ S I I7VE SWIM tY SGS$ \ ~"{ PONDING I GPTIGN%2 IXP.II71( RG:2J \ ~' fNtt-969.9 1!~ ~ ~'\ \ ~~' xvn.e69s ~ 1317.D3 N-a11w-a4 1~ I W -~.x,. --~.. ~,. -...,, a~..._~. ,._-_....-. s ...,~.,- 2~p_5 r m-~ v _~~ ~ - ~~~-- w.-~ ~-7~m PONOINO k ~~ ~ \ (// ~ NS 96 I (N OPTION RI '"'~ ~J°r1• ~,\ t'f EO NY/L.9fi8.9 ~/ 4). Tr1 Nvrr-9rc.9 6 bt 9° p ry 1 1' ~Y.g'I !/`` F tT o lA ~•-" --..~r 15 Ol i~ ~z 3 ~ y o L 16 11 ~ 'sy ~Oi•3r• - ~ 1 -' _,- ,~.~.~.. .. ~,~'~ I ° b S t N 513.14 ~~ \.. ~1z•c~~ ~'{ I w~af/u-1,e t f 210,21' ~,. _"~ ~~~.. ~1.44f ~$ y` ~ fME vAaW¢c w>H tar Ilcsr ur~_--.-; ~' ar' mx-s-r/4 a~ ns- sWri< r~ +~ ?=! i l ,~'~' ~r ,ffc,r4 ntr.nm; RCE2d w ~ i ~ \ ~. N - ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ij R~50 ~-~31~ Q ~ 2 ~ = k11 ~ ~ ~ x ° ~ ~ I 4gfi61.7fis¢ft 4 'mot '~ N~ ~ I 1 y~ s ~ ~ `ti qsr ~..~ ~. -WE PARAIFL Mlfll llr£AYNIN \ ~~~ l.NE f1~ 7fC' SEI/4 Cf fiE• SW7/I ~---~ y -a~sxs2 1MP.117K RCE2J II u i\~=~-_ ---i----- ! I i ~ JYI~i~\xvAV L~ ~_ ~ I \\1~ ~I I _rr~nt/M-t4 ~ ~ _ ----- - x-aD/w-u N89°10'4$'E I f052 (OfIDJ ~ 1052.9 (SIRANBfRRY gRIX£J I;_'I~':'L_~_ ~ I ~ i 6065 I r---- --~ ~ I - i I ~\„ ; I P;D2P.,i1.24318„a ~- -~, ~ . ~?. MEtaa I I ocaem_rnau I ~ V I I ~_-~ ctascnttnaroa I L_ I _J I ~ v ~ I L-~ r- --~ ~ ~ I ~ eT ;~~ ~`- i l v N-0.0/k~a.t ~ \ h / 1 r---- --- ------ --- i ~ I \ / 9m:32~i t1 26-9S C:lrw j- I I I 7-L- f -'- - ~ \ / 1A8pkf iUF3tL~9- A / ens cx?ecsxl Ge Vacant Lot ~---, ` ~ I \ ~ I ~ I i i i 6085 i ( J I ~~ -- ~ ~ r ~ I I ~ ~__ ~ 6075 I n.: °., I ~~ a r-~ I I Notes: Proposed Zoning - R1A Min Width -120 ft Min Area - 40,1700 sf Fysb - 50 ft Sysb -10 ft Rysb - 50 ft 5D' Row Carver County Ahatmd & Title Commitment for Title Insurance Filc No. CA26190, effccOve dofa Iuly 23, 2008, waz relied upea az to matters ofrecord. The subject property appears k lie within Zone X, (Amaz outside the I-pemrnt annual chance floadplam, amaz of I % annual chance sheet flow flooding when average depths are less Then 1 foot, areas of t % annual chance stream flooding where the eontribuOng drainage men is less than l square mile, or mans protected from the (% annual chance flood by levees. No Baze Flood Elevations ordeptlu me shownwifhin this zone. Insurmtce purchase is not required in these zones, ), perthe National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Tns~ce Rate Map Commonity Pmel No.27063 C 03178, dated Sepkmher 2, 2004 az acquired from the Fedemt Emergrncy Management Agency Web Site, trees: Nd: 275,364 Sq. Ft.-6.321 Accts RNl: 3,9605q. Ft-0.091 Acres (Cathcart Drive) RIW: 2,762 Sq. Ft-0.055 Ares (Shawbenv Lane) Cmtss:281,7065q. FL -6.467 Acres Zoning informafion es provided byoe Plemmg Department of the City of Shorewood R-IA Single Family Survey comdioate end bearing bazis ; Hemepin County No modificatlons to this survey or skekh may be performed by any peesoo other than the surveyersigning this certification or persons under his directsupervisiort 312, 10 J 1 272, 38 ~ - ~ a rs: ~~ I ~ ~ `~ - ~ ~ 0 of p ~ ~ ~{ /t tiNbv -. .- I assae.ze sq.n I 3'~ 5p ~t~- N00'13' 1sta4s.la~.a /~ I ~ /` ~ -gip , o g'C J' '4, 60 "7 W ~ / ~ ~ ~0~~ . [~.,. `589.46' 4 w 69.4M.14 aq. n a ~ I n / `.~' ~,~~ i 25, 76 ~'i + ~' \ y o ~ (N ~f yti~ ~~ o~~al ~ ~ j v ~ m BLOCK 1 =1 i ~ r,, ~ ~:~~ as 5~ ~, , Tl'22.04 ~ ~ i I ,+'~ ®3f ~ ghR' hb , a ~~ i h ~ 4 f yN~ • bsiw ~!L 4y{ ~'~.. / ~NSv~ ~ rS ~' ~ 1 / ~ o ~ 1 l-'~ 6pesq,.,._ ~~'~rf "-____'~ •~ ~~/~'.` ti~,hv6~515~~ i 1 f ..OS <9 ~ ~~d.` f I ~~4•f Rye' 10 ~h~ F . ~ ! ~ l ~ I 131.27 f~9 ~ ` . Le ~sq~~ i 4 F ffi50 ~ _~~ ^.1$.08 ~ .~ ~ _` 0 ~{`~ ~ M Y~r /~~ ,~a- / ~ I10.51E,5~ f--~ ~ 2°i, tl ,, x / /~% '~ i ~ ~~~ R ' t r h. ~ ~1 Ir Sq:. '~,. ~ ~,~.,~L.251 88~ ~ C.. f ~ JG i ~ \y / 143 78~ . ~„~~ ~`'f~/,f'~ \ ~• ~ ~ / ; I 539.71 _._n m w p• ~~i~a r~ ~-~/ ~ ~", / /,;; v~, E I I f~ . ~/ % // Ij I / // /// ~I / / II / / ~ -~ I I /// // i I / ~/ I 1 DESCRIP370N OP SUB7ECTPROPERTY DRAQJAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN TI7U5; I e 1~I I i i 10 it --°!___J ~__J----- NOT TO SCALE Edng 6 feet in width end sdjoimng lot lines, unless otherwise indicated, and 10 feet in width aril adjoining rigPot afwey lines, unless otherwise indicated, es shoum on the plat NORTH All thatpart of the Southeast 114 ofthe Southwest I14 of Section 32, Tovmsldp I l7 Nosth, Range 27, described as follows: Commrncing at the Nodhwest comer of said Southeast 114 ofOle Southwest 114 of said Section 72; thence South along the West Una of said quarkrsection a distance of3II feeq fheoce East parallel wish We North line of said gaarkrgoadm section a distance of lOS2 feet to right of wayofWe Minneapolis and St Louis Railway; thence Norlheaslerly along said right of way a distance of 345 feet to the East line of svd quarfm gvartersection; thrnceNodh a distance of 92 fed k the Northeast wmm of said quarter quarter section; thence West to beginning, EXCEPT therefrom the following described tract: Commencing et Ole Northwest wmer of said Seutheas21f4 of the Soothwest I/4; fbrnce SouOl along tlra West line of said qualm quadmseotloo a distance of L20 feetto the acmot point of beginning of dle hnA of land to be described; thence East pmallel with the Nodh line of said quarter quarter section a distance of 513,14 fret; thence South parallel with the West line of said quarterquarter section a disance of 191 fed; thrnce West pmallet with the North line of said quarter gvartersection a dishmrce of 513.14 feetto the West line of said quarter gvarfersecNon; thence North along the West line of said quarter qumter section a distance of 191 feetto Ore actual point of beginning, 50 25 0 25 50 100 SCALE IN FEET Ihere6y certify That this plan er spceifi mydvect supervision and that I am a e the laws ofthe state oCMinnesota. Dated this 13th day oCOctobm, 2008. SATHRE-EERGQULST, INC, ~l- n.~ l_e . ~ Licensed Land Surreyey Mion Lic. Nc 0 0 U° N ti Z `° a N ^ N IL_, ~ m M N Z /~ ~ V t- '~ ~ LJM.d ~ W Q 1 ~ ~/ 0 T L1~ ~ r 0 rn o vJ ~EyO~S 9y~~ ~~ ti; d a ; " ~ ~~ dti/ \G2 ON3 OES U F Q F ~ Q 0 z 0 ~ 0 Z U ~ U 0 ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ > > J M W O O ~ z ~ DRAWN OLS CHECKED RSM GATE 10110!08 cynic IoN sxETCx I i ~-__~ I ~--- ~ I I , Cfi NCgCEd Ee,'tl~.-K09 I~ NOTES This surveydoes oot puryort to show sO underground uOlities. The existng ufihfia shown are shown inan eppmximak way only, The wnffidor shall deknninethe exact location ofeny and all exisOogotiliSes before commeodng work. The wotmdorshall he fully responsible T r any end all damages arising out of his failure to exactly locate and pmkd all existing utility Geilities. Contact GOPHER STATE ONE CALL at 651-054-0002 for preciso onsitelocntion ofulilities prior to any excavation -~ ,~~ 1 ~ vtn I~_--'~ ---~ ( z I f ~t'~` 5"75 ~ I I `I I I , ~ ~ (2.11 acres) ~---- ~-U~ 1 ~o ~ ny i,$ ----------------------------- -z--~-°-- NO~TH ~o'a"is / r---~ Puazi~ .aa ois XR&]A PEA L I I I ssvs c, cnw ~R ` ~ l~~„ i i 5995 -;- ~..-~ .,,~ SFIN~ ~` ~~. . ° 2,,, 3~ r-------, ~~ Pia ~ I I 9, 0 S-PA 5970 ~~ i ~ (2.08 aCFeS) i I L___ ~ I toz"i~2' CPEH r--~ I I ¢ iza.ai~iz I I e~acla comNeu r''-~ L--~ .:~ rw,~. er.RV is ~ I ~, r----, ,_ 5990 r (2.09 acres) ~ ~-~ UYP I r' (2.08 acres) ' ~ 1 IPE -- -- ,~_ :~:~ _ ~t - I I ~e~ I I ~ ~ (~ 8a Rt 11 , L _J I azcax \ ~rv~ I ~. ~~ . ~, _,_~, 3 ~{ .25 OPEN ~ o ®~ r ~ o ~J O ~~ ~~ N tt~~ m ~J ~ M '/y~q ~ bf ? rr~~ ~ ~d ryp~ 6L6 Q I O 0 ~¢ m H 0 N rn o V.l ~~ ~ ~ 2~ `~ a ~~ ~ y w~ dry/ \0~ ON3 DE5 ~- _, , ., ^. m 7 33 ~ - /`Y r'~J ` t ~ 1317 0 S ~ / I ~ bar s.r ~~ ~~ ^( '' ~N89°1046 E ~ ~~I- + ,, o1%~a ,,» FDi w /: m E ?1? ~'~ ~~~ 'die ',M.'+~ -®-.~..~-.,_. ~~"_._ - ~ - ~ It ~ a I t .3 aD - -- z i ~. 1 n -- - ~ N I ~ ', .P ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ... 3.=. c2' Ic Y _ _.. __~ I ;., . i _.(_Li FZNCe ~cR. 'G' 3 ~ .- ° ~\~ ~ ~ __ ~., ~... utWC ~ I _ _.._.. ~~i ~ra,P ,e ;~ ~iN f ,,,~ .... __. -- - \ ~ ~ ~Tr,. a~~~~: ~~m 1 ~ ~~ ! i 0 i ,I ~ r ~ ;v ~ z~ ~, ~ ~~: "I ~ ~ ~~ t.. ,.~ ~ ~ / ~a 1 1 1 L is // v i _ 1 (1 r- ,(J 1 / }I' (~'. Emi 1 \, ~ T I 2 LJ ~ ~- lf]in n,.d.~I 1912?x ~ 1 1 _ % ~ 9.' IJr i;\l r mci~l~/ ~ ~ ~' I V.i 1111 :/ l ~ ~ ~r ` ~ a3a ', I ~ Lr err r{°, I ~ t ~~ ~~ ~ / z i, ~ ~i ~j _I _ ~_ _ ~ / \~ ; - iarzsi I ,. I - 80.74 _ ~ ~ / ~~ I '~ ~ ~ iw'~'~ ~_ y N&9 10 46' ~ V '1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I - Lj _J~ ~ h I ... ... .~ al ..; ~~ ~ 5 J14 ez~e Eoi 'oPa \ c /a ~'~ i'I ! u\...~~ i ~;'. ~ \-' \~~~ ``'~! 3 s..: /$ I C- e l 1 I ~ .. ~-: N.O.i/W'1.4 \= L el i ~~ \~C ~^ ~v ~ 1,='_ 91r' ~\ / ~~ t \ \ ` ~~ ~ on ( ',~G _ ~- /_ /, 1° 3 li ~ 74.ox I O ~ ~ / 'H ao uiuT /` L I ~ ~ $ / .495' sno. I I I \ i~~ ~ ~ o f" ~~C /~~ //I , _ ''.c~~~' ~_~ ~ _~'Ti ~. ~ ~ v ,,zrlx i I1 ,/~ ~ \\~ // ~: ~s\ / ~l j l~, I `l ,_ /` `J~~ y~~~ ~, ~'Y=q~' d/ i:; / ~p, / ~ - J' ~ I ° v ~ ~ log 1 ~' ,A ~ I ~ ° -- L `~ P•~P.~d I I o~` Ey~1~a I ,~~ - j, ~ i J, ~ %~ cF.~01'~-a' .~ ~f ~ ~h0 0 ~- ~ I aN N I 1Pd,aoSrs a' ~_ z ~~ ~~ ~ < \"°r~ p, (l E~ -- 6035 ~ I ~ I ~i ,~~ ~ a ~ > ~6 ~~ ~ ~~ y e 11 ';' ( a,o- 2 t 7~s°ncaw O \ ~ ~'~ I I i I T"~. a t'~ ~ P / ~ ~ f ~ a ~ ~ ~ I / ~ d ~ Kexez~luim (2.07 aoreS) ° I ~ ~ ml ~ '^u a~ ~; ~ xTC nr uti° ~ ~ ~ l`~1°'0~. 1 e~aECNnraar°R I o \ / ~ ,~ ~~, er a ~ / /,/ / 116.5 16.5 b~ ~ ILL [[~~ I------~- ~ I r ~ I ` \\\ ~.~ /'9 //7~~ =_. \ I ~ ~ ~ tE~PV ~r ~ ~~, ~~ ~ % :.., j(~ ,,, ~ / / / [T I go I 1 / \\`-~ 'LT FENCI: / 4, D ~ ~ / j -~ - ~~ ti_ .~Mr i I ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~. _ _ _ p. x / / ~ ~ ~,~ r ~' L---- r r,- i' ~ ~ ~ / n~'~ a~~'~ / iD 1/2' LpFll _ 1 /8'1.4' ~-__ _ ___ _ ____ __ _ __ _ ___ N0 ~ a7.3 p 1zn.p jv4. 9 / l,~~:~ """ r~ 1/x ca~ N89 10'46' E 539.71 / / ~S x• oP f ~! ~~ I_ e-oo .za~ g7 raps / N-~/w,' I ~~ ~`° 33 JJ ~'---~ F /w 2 gPe x o3 °Y J ,rt C,c ~ / 4~ / / 1- EYJSIING CONTWR n" t X- .4 I C I 6065 r------, ~ / /i~ / ~ ~. I 1 ~ ~ ~ ,„ - - NHS ~ I I o a 1 sTacxz I (---,, / v ~ / ~;' ~ / I I resec ecru~~ I I N ~ / ~ ~__J scTS Cn HCART a1 L__J ~ i Y ;/ /a, ~ / 1 rHH"I xv' io i`'oPEN nl°.3z ~~i ~yat cae I cnuonr.~a~orrzeas ~ 6C8a C4 'riC AT OR --. \ ~7 / ~ ~ / \ / o ' / / / / ,,,~, ' / ~ r I (----L; --, IN .32 i~)21Yi9855 ~ / .ABAM TLAiJ°UIST ,/ soe=cAZHCnerca ~ '-r / 3 / Vacant Lof / \ q ~ i i ~ ~ 6085 i ( / / ~ / / ~ ~----~ ~ I I ~ i ~ ~ ~ / / 6075 ~ / ~ ( P~~ 94.,,1.2f.M{k~(1 ~-- ' ~ ~-----~ ~ - ~ -~ / / TREE COVER - Al &I(J Fl HRLUN° ENS CATHGtFi °R (--~ ~ ~ / / ~ I Ex~etinq Hyd ~~~~ ~ ~~dNA~ ~ ~~ I I I ~ ~ ~ / / L-J ~;,, ~ ~ / / D A GRADE -HIGH QUALITY MATURE TREES j~; WEN 1--------~----------~ y/ -1N.o.o/w.os------------- ? / (Maple, Basswood, Oak) ~ - _ - - - - - - -STRAWBERRY CIRCLE (25' Outlot, Gravel Surface(_ / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ / B GRADE -MODERATE QUALITY AND COVER ~ 76'1 6135 / D C GRADE -SPARSE, LOWER QUALITY ~ ~ (4.73 acres) / / I I / E%ISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE 4VAY ONLY. 7HE COMRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. U J J CY ~ Q ~ )" z ~i r ~ 4 0 o W n. ~~ Z ~ w~ z 0 wQ; ~ U ~~ o 0 I 0 ZU ~ Q ~~~ V h 4i ° ~ w N ~ W ~ z I } DRAWN R.S.M. CHECKED R.E.P. DATE Exhibit D EXISTING TREE COVER A ...._....,, ld.. ...., vj 50 26 D 25 50 100 ~ _ _ _ _ _ SCALELN FEET - - - - - - -- - - - fD`as r---~ I I s~sc roc rT DR ~~;~. , I 5995 ~~- N6R~H I ~ (2.aa acres} I i I i - I _ L J ~ i I~ i~~'vw l_~ ~_ Z IZ ~i~ /t I~ ~ f- 1 PINCH ~t. . ~~asA1 ox - S3'UO ~la,xn -- -----------'1 ~ ~~. I i ---~\~------- I o ~~ r i III, ~° I N I~ °o i ~~~ It I Ir w ~~. l a i ~~'; ~ .I ~~ ~ I I i, yN. ~ ~ a6~ ~ ~ ~ L°~~ 1~ " 1 11 ~,D° ~_- --~I~6rg~~~„~]o I ~ ~ } BF9~IQ33~ I n ~ - - 0 48014 ~ ~ . ~ 1 ' ' I N89°1046 E 513.14 i .h ss' , cD 1 ~ ~~ ~ I - C - c»- I N ~ p I I _ „ ~ ~_ ,~ 17, E,,6aN I -----I•-- ~ 6035 ( ~ ~ , ~ ~ KD&EA MUILEN~ I e~6r,, raraTDa I I (2,o7 acres} I ~-----~- -~ 73 1, ~~; I I 65LF~ C ~ /~." 539.71 ~"I%i oeEx 1 r~/ ~~ ~,,~i `~ t v l i ~ I a ~i vQ ,~T I I I 0 I \ '~ I '-----' N-00/MI-0.5 _ _ _ _ _N 01/Yl-14~~, )^'J FD'i/r aPa N89°10'46"E I I _ ~ I ~ i ~ I 6x65 ~ r------~ ~ ~ 3 ( I I / \ ~ 6118 (+10'12-Ii7-233A-0~i ~--~, / V A L J 0G8 EO LE GhULi 6xerhrHCnHT Oa I I L J /\/ \ / i -- __ \ / 6] FO ' PFN I O N-0.0/'N-0.7 ~ CkNOAC J WJA(i0S \ ~ ~ / I _ _ _ _ - 5P65 G'Cr.AT DH \ / PiD. a?~it] Y&3i{pE6 ~ r - \ / JA &aM 1'I1RN°UISi A / ~-- -~ --~ rcae G.THCnRT CH Vacant Lol / ---i I I ~ ~ 6a85 i ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ I HIGH POINT ELEV=976.6 L J ~`a'~~C ~ f HIGH POINT STA=2+50 -.. 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ PVI STA=2+60 l aio s2-I nzaam RL 3KJ FYHRLIIND -_ -_ L-0W-POINT-EL~V=974,0 o I / PVFELFF=976,8 ~ _^~_^^ ~^^~ ^~ , r LOW POINT STA=5+50 A.D, =-2.00• ~ + m a°v ~ m PVI STA=5+50 PVI ELEV=973,8 0'" N m `r° K=37.50 ~ w U 0 ]s.gxa'vc -.-I m m A.D. =2,00 K=5g.9o m ~ ~ J w w >W Imocenvc 'mm \ / / ~~~ ~' /\ ~ ~ / / / '/'; / / / ,ry/~~/'! / / / ~ b' g~ / / / / / LOW POINT ELEV=974.6 / LOW POINT STA=0+29.17 / PVI STA=0+25 / / PVI ELEV=974.5 / / A.0.=3.00 / / K = 8.33 Edstrg Nyd Lrsaoee ~ i YerhJ'Nhl Lua3x 25.OOea'YC y r-- NV jp^j ow +om > wW tg5°o u mm ao°h CITY OF SHOREWOOD -TYPICAL URBAN STREET SECTION e nOWo 20.67 Sheet Wldlh (14.33' CL to Back of Curb) 2°! Cross Slope Type 5 -Surmountah)e Curb end Guher 4" Rigid Pedaraled DrelnUle wlsOCk 2" Bituminous Wear Caurse -Type 41 2357 Bifumincw Tack Ccat 2" 8lfumincus Base Caurse-Type 31 8"Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crashed Rockf 24" Select Granular Geotextlle Fabric (Type V) City Detail RDW-002 EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPRO%IMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANVAND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO E%ACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL E%15TING UTILITIES. Developer: Synergy land Compang LLC PO Bax 470 Chanhassen, MN 65317 PJotes; LL @ N U tt U ~~ ~ \ hs° L r~'i7z• oaEx ~ ~ ( D~' `' v v(CLA"Y PIPE ~ II~~ ~~.-s.l-~ v ~_ i v ~ s~lan f._ r ia~ a ~~ 2.i // N69°10'46"E 7 ' / 1317.D3 I-I I I D , a ,~,z _ 6LhC5C 04'ELL r _-~ I----I Va ftRVtA i ~ F____i 5990 I (2.09 acres) ~ r~ ovnon^i `5 I I;M lfi n . ~ ~ I wLy + p 33 _____- ~.______ - ~ - ~ ay~~t ~_____~ ___----_-~/, I o A ~ PiDUZ1 ] a~mav I ~ °~~~ I '1 ~ L°TS 5V ~~ V aEEfaErza R°E I ~/s14/ i~) //~ 7 ~' `I ^~ 14]lea vs sa-n"1'~ \ V - YV tots ( I I ,~ // le]rai -. ~%/ .~~ ~ I I / ti~o.i7w~uo _.\~ ~~ // s.m; ~., ~ ¢Fa~ELOT4 T@ ~ ~i~f'~/ sav< ' e Lc o I ``, I~_ ~ ~ `~ s7 fio.waaaw.n ~e o I I - ~ _ rn I j ~ st'` ~ I s,l," '~, ~ ~r° I I ~ " MHz !`/~ a I I w ~~f ~ ° ~'`, `~ _ '~ ~~~ I I , tv" Tas]as ,/~a/'a d5 LE6 WC sDN as ®ds , MHi iG8]42 INVAE05 Isr '~i '( ~ t: 3 '25 p 0.w. - 4 2J DD f '~ v \I r~,~C 5 1 J~ ,<~' ~° f `' . ~ ivv E~ v. ~ t , /A I I sESZ4asl If ~jsS ~° ~ ~"sei` ~ I/ IrN.esz.l/ ~ ~,0`~ ~~0~~~~ f',,°,~ ~ / ~ I ~~ I ~oTZ .~ I ~ I aes ,^ a~~e> ]ay, _ !" ~ ~ ,1 ~~6 C T~ N O 4P63]156q ~RI I ~ '~ '7 h5 ~ ./ 'd. i I r oo MH6 zra °°. '-0 •!~ MNS 2 k L r .~ „/ v o I. Y , ~ I i h m e.ev, ~ e Tcaree - a•¢y e o ~ MH4 Tcs]s ,,~'~ ~ ~ n~~/ G.c, {t~ 0 I i l INJ 164.0 ~ ° ~ 7Gg14.Z INJ962 A' ~4R O 1' \~ 1 ~`*, ' INY163.6,+o s° d' ~/.! ~ / 16.516.5 BROCKWOOD COURT Zoning-R-1A ~ q a O W ~ r` ® v N ~y~ ~~ry/ m V! rn ~Z /P~~ ~.J ~ Q I ILLI II ~ 0 m F 0 N U? ° a`~~DRS sy~~ J~ y j h a I ~; ~ ~p "'ry/ ~? GN3 oESt ° J o ~ Q '~ 0 Q ~ ~ ~ { Z Z O ~, ~ U ~ O z ~ ~ W Q ~ W W ~ ~ } a ~ "=pup Mnimum Lot hrea-au,uuu sr g Cell, 812-59U0817 Minimum Lat Width-120 feel Emell: brent.hislop@SynergyLaod Company,com Minimum Lol Oepth-150 feet DRAWN tt ~ Setbacks- R.S,M. w Land Surveycrl Clvl Engineer. Front-50 fee( CHECKED ~ Sathre•Bergquisl, inc. Rear-50 feet R.E.P. 1505oulh 8roadvay Side-10fee1 IidTF r m Wayzata, MN 65391 tilde abutting ROW Phone: 952-076-fi000 Maximum Helght.2 0 Surveyor Oavltl Pemhedon, PLB (pembedon(o~salhre.wm) ----------- ---- Engineer: RohedMolslad, PE(nwlsfatl@salhre.com) Ea Xhlblt o IHEREBYCERTIFYTHATTHISPLANORSPECIFICATIONWASPRE D tn7t LI6MINARY UTILITY PLAN a _ a v DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROF I j\j~ ° THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. `~ ~ S ~ 6+47.98 6+00 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+Op 3+50 3+00 2+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 ~ DATE O O O 8 „~~,~•~ '~OF SHEETS 9 ~~ -~_--_ ~______ _____ _____~-_-__~~_~ ~ __~ __~--_ _ _-_--_--.--_-~ _ 50 25 6 26 60 190 SCALE IN FEET ID 1,_23 ,~It 3X s-r L ~sis rv. HC Da I 5975 (2.11 acres) NORTH NDRIS T--- PIP t l T- }SI-0GI3 kft BDA PI L I >99 LA HGR"-R 5995 P ~ ~~1,= I ~' (2 08 acres) '"~V ~ ~ ~ ~ eruuesaa.vrula.r~l \ aaea~,oi ~p eacneaw l>o~w•.v.uq \ ` asw / _ -_-_--t \ ` ` ~ PIO.3Z-i1T d31~Wf1 1 I ~ ~ c.E sa a TwzLrs I -~-___ ~.e - ~ RAAeEnF~N I I h F. aPa m_. I ~-~ i ~ --'~ ~ 5970 I ~ `' i I r ~ ~ ,e~,ve rba~ (2.08 acres} -----y ' i ~ o ~ ~ ~--- L_~J ~ S;Ii FENCE DETAIL ~--I ~~ STANDARD DETNILS ~T 1 - NOTES - _ - _ _ .. _ .. - .. _ _ . -~- _ ,., _ FD 1/Y GPkN r-~ Q/ :3 11I 2>31 ^..312 0~ - eza,.r~cnDt~EU. r----~ Oq ~ -. L-J U,s*fw~ aav l;, r, 5~~ ~ 5990 I I ~~ w IR _, r----T I I / / ~~, ',,,. ~n~' ~,~ ~ , . ~~ i i (2.09 acres) ~ ~~ a ~ ~ I - R oa e ~~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ 1Tnla r 1 ~l r / ~ L J alp I L _J \ I Z .~. vvwv L~ ~_ h ~' \I ~ ~ .- I ' ,t/ ~- I ~ o-. / r ou I - ~'~,) /' d.~, ~ ,. Z `I j.}/ a r .., -~.~ .r~ w q ;~,r'-\,~-~ ~,..-.~! r r _ ~ I rln ~I ~~ a I ~j ~ ~u I Pwc,~~ ~~~~ ~Y ~~_l 1. fir., ~I'~'.v~' - snsx~~ r ~~N89°1046"E ~~~ °- w~~377 03 _ I 1IH ,. .~ ~ 1a f? i I 35 25 ow I~ ~ I:li I::E~ , ND --'---"- a1 `~~~~ ~ %l s;ux rraN 9 :, L1vU I SS'UO I n ~ - ~ _ ~Im~. -.-~---_ • ~ / ,~ /~ - - --- avzl. / T.Y.G. ~~ ~L// ~ ` ,;a:, ~ I~ ~ ~ ~m (1) 1 ~ G V vzaa ~ T+1To-1 Oc to nrPl ~/~ i ~ ~s~ I "sd ~ \ \ - v^ 9 03 ~ I d6Lf B WC J N O ! / / ~ I '~ \ ~f J - / -V I Q1SN7G r~rm 0 J / ~\9 < I v ~ _ v CONTWR ~51 ~IFENCE SOR 35®dP% / ~ ~ J O / P I lp \ wc.ax g n "r~ \ \~f B 3.2 9 ~ ~~r-~ N i / aA C I I ~ ~ t \ aT~ EXISiiNG CCNTd..'R I m ~ ~~_ _ __ _ _ .......x _ _-.,.,..,,-_-_ I~ o I ~a 1 ~ ~ I ~,. ~- (-_ -- \. r .. YyogR~~ ~~ 7--__- - ~ y/ \V a;. urva d~ /~~ ~/ (1 ~ -9r -'^~~5 ~~. ~ PRDPQSEO CON TOUR ~ _. ------__--.':'~ _ V'e / ~ I i 1U 10 N 1/ ~" ~ I i ',L I /~ ~ Y 1 / ~~f 1 ~~' r~ N ~ 52 ~ ~ ~ I .;} 10 \ \ 10'. 3211]23 Y.~39 / 9ti ^^~\ ~q / INJ §9 ~~ ~ \ -d eFFFlFrR PERCF / / (i'E ~I ~ ~~, 11~ ~~ ,, s$ I~ 2c~ ~ ~~Hiora ~. ~~ ~ 6 I ~ ~ ~"qTs%~^~A1 s'~ ~ I r~av.l ~ t I 20i5 i I LDi 1 1 33Z.ex ~ 1184.99agFA 1~ _ 0R Lr1T3 ^\ PROPOSED CDNTDIIR ~ /r ~ ~ !NV, i F ~_~ '- ~Sffi~BSawIR~]DI ~ I sTae, i sTlsK ~ .'".I ; ~ 1, ~ ~ ~ ~ I Imo! tYd3~B.aB~i~/~\ ~ D ~ I {-- rt ass I 1 ~ ~ I z .. I y ` ~x ~ ~ e~ ~ t I I ~i' / /~ V ~ s 6x/ ~ ~ F ~\ 8E d]D J7 SILT FENCE - 9rnox ' n ' ~ ~. ~~ / x/ ~/ \ ! d. ~ ( ;~ rAr. _"_~~1.--_ ---~~ 480.14 ~ Is,zs -sz>x L- Ira ~~, ti~~ .i,~ ss+, I 1 ~n J~ Asa / t I /~ i l i loan o ~~~~*~AI / ~/~~ i ~t asal.~~`, / J„ ( I a / /m ~ e /.,. tIJ ~ ~ , N89 10 46"E 513.14 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ /?~ ~ g~ 1 ~ z~, <~o ii m ~ /sAe ~ I I I T/ / o psraax ~ / v~s~ } I ~_~lA.;"'..rl~.~_;.~t ' J, l._1_ti ='. vT~%~ ~ti /~ ~ a ~ i~~• erw ~ / A Q~ ~ ~s+° ~'~ ~ ~ I ~4~~t tl s~ // s- N-p. w-La 9vs ~ 6.670 ~ a1 c9 \ I ~ rl m/ m ~ P ~ ~ praae I a'.z` ~~~~ o I h~ sot. snD,~ ~ ee LDT4 nT, ego I I ~/~/,~ sa% a !'s / ~~ ~ c_ I ,r.ss 9TZSe ~ I I ~ I „^ °^ ~~ ~ SG 00 G I I ec6 // ~, ~ A j .,,1 I ~`~,. rn I I ~e i .I Israi ``~~ ~ m A ~ I ~ MHP / ~%~,r o h c~:: arz~ I I ~~ ,. ,,., \ ~ / c,~ ~~/ I ` seTCa~es / '~ / e'9~ "ll i .~ e ~' T I O ~ ~ ~ I I ~! s ,~na n o° °. ~ `, ° t ~ rz s4 / e qq ~ - ~ eF WI ?'~i .~\ ~ ~`se ale ~. .6 G, ~ IW-eszl ,/" ,d / „F, pl T~ I w I I JI,, '~ i ~ a. ~~ ( ~1 ~ ____ 6035 ~ ~ ~ a s ~s~ n se , ~ ~s ~P °4 8 ~ Ass sa, ~ ~~ /~ / ~~ M~ ~ ~~ ~,s d I ~~d m, ~ ~ ass y s zav ~, ~ ~ ~ ah~ 0 ~, ~~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 2a, ~ ~ ° 1 L ~, ~ ~. ~ B4e ,.. s s ~ ~a ~ ~AS~ ~ ,bp~l . ~ / PID: 321t]-233d{vN0 p ~e ff 1 1 I B.5'k ~pTC 75.0 MHy ~ MH3 s p, 9 ~~ L JJr~ r ~~ I noaEAmwrrv I 1 9~1~~1 L m ~ ~=~~~- A, rcers ~ aV~i°lv 2.07 aCre3 0 ~a ~prvaraa TcBY<.T 1uv~es I 6m~carycaftroft I ( ~ a I o: I\ "~, ,,,~° ~,~ ~' / J / /" ~ IBS I6.6~ Sr3ax ~ ~ ~ Fs, / ``~ ,,, s Inv~3s.q .~ a ^/ / _r ~/ ~ _ 9 ~- I------~---'~ r---~ ~ o I \\\ ~ `\ ~~! y Ass ~x,. ~T i, .~ res!1~ ' , ~\ca` N west ~ e,en s a /// a. r rl ~\ / / I I r 1 A ~ r a ry s~Lr ONCE y y~ / - ~' ¢J ~ 't,~\, m r'~ ` / ~ 53a3x P ,~'~ // ~3/ /`~ ~G C~ ~ 'ri1 `_--J F01 T OPEN ~_____ __ __- _a 'a o nyy rl N 0: /W'Ow _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ..N 01~ 1-4; ,s a"P T ~ mce ~.. - _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ - J R~ :('s C l ~ / 33 33 ( - - - - ~ ~ ~u1a~w~~ N89°10~46~~E 539.71 et pros, nA ~ Hvl`I~ ~J j' / ~~ ~ 1 r--_, J r I t~ 9I2 0.3/Y7•R2 J /'(J~ ~fj%i / a ~ _ 1 .~ 41t„ x ~ .- I I F\ i L~ L- I ~ I \ I/ `. I I' \ L _ L_ \ / tx ~ I / ~ ~ a< / _~ ^ r---__-, I I ~ EXEi1NC CONTWR wA n ^, \: /g - - - ~ i i 6065 ~ I __ I /^v „ ~ r ~NH" PID-32-IR-233a~ro51 I / V \ DGB ED LE GAULi f L--J 6(YS C0.TNCART CH L_-J /N \\ -. L ~ r ~ ~' < / 1 Pmsn~r~ax+xue ~ / iHx (~ ~.> (roaojw ~al ~ ~ANDAC~I~cNARDS \ ~- / VVV / j/~.~ \\ ~ /•'/ ~ Y ~ ~~ . sows rsjHC~Rr DR ~ AV // PID. a2-I na:wnmu ~r ~ ~ Rs: - - - - - - JA&AM TlfRNOUIST L-L-- A / 6GJ6'CATHG~Rr DR ('---.~ ~ ~ v / Vacant Lot r---~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ 6085 i ~ ~ ~ ~ i i 6075 i , ( I r~ ~ L _.-L PiDaz.nr.23.xanf L_-J I ~ ~ L-J (c%.-„ FD i' aPa ~N.D.D,~.qz-------------1--------~---------~ ~~ - _ . STRAWBERRY CIRCLE (25' Outlot, Gravel Surface) / . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . _J 7ts.i 6135 Nolan: POND 10:1 aENCH (I.VJ THEN 3:1 MAX (4,73aCreS~ 1.sbearaampmralaalaaedam~alarposaamr. 2. Homeslfoa still be nislam graded [esedmlho ID,SEWO,'ND PAD63'.11AAx I house eNlearld lxagon, AIL OTNER SLDPES3~.I MAX NNLESE NOTE) 3. Trealenwshail be lnsialled pimbanY Silo gadirg,beefence bcallons will bedeleiminM in dle SILT fENCE~2,6201F EXISTING UTILITIESSHOWN ARE SHOWN INANAPPROXIMATEWAY ONLY.THE - bam, Tna oevelaperm~slapnmve aasllkoce and CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY ANDALL EXISTING beems:e pdm loony ~nswcgan. RESrowtnoN ~1.SO ADREs UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. hIE AGREES T08E FULLY RESPONSIBLE FORANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. /g / / / Developer: / Synergy Lantl Company, LLC PO Box 479 eneees HVd ~aa~ veerylSP,l La..aaban Chanhassen, MN 65377 Notes: Zoning ~ R-1A Cpnlaci: Brent Hislop Mlnimgm Lof Aree-49,909 s( Cell:fill-5990811 Minimum Lof Width-129 feet Email: drenLhislop@SynergyLand Company.oom Mlnlmum Lat Depth-1Wieo1 Getbecks Land SurveyorlCNl Engineer: Fron1~56 feet Sathre•Bergquisl, Ne Rear ~ 59 feat 150 South Broadway Slde -19 feet Wayzata, MN 55391 Slde ehutling R' Phone: 952-4766000 tAaximum Heigl $DNeypr: DBVId PemderfOn, PL$ ipemdeffgn@9afhfe.wm) Engineer: Reded Molsfad, PE (mpisld@salhrecoml 'LX~~16 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIF ICATION WAS DIRECTSUPERVISIONANDTHATIAMADULYREGISTEREDPI PRELIMINARY GI THE LA W S O F THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. S/ j/ t v ' ~..... ` ~ ~~ IIATF IO~iO ~C q. p O O..o/ O !D ~~ ~a N yN ((~/ ~ ~1 ~ N ~I~ ~, SHOREWOC~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Conunission, Mayor, and City Council Brian Heck City Administrator Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer ~ - DATE: November i 3, 2008 RE: Grading, Drainage, Utilities Brockwood Development I have reviewed; plans for the Brockwood Development, prepared by Sathre- Bergquist, Inc.. dated 08/25/08, and 11/13/08; and watermain extension cost estimate dated 11/13/08. I offer comments on the information presented. The watennain extension cost estimate demonstrates that it is not financially feasible to extend the watermain for the two lot subdivision. For the Proposed two lot subdivision I offer the following conditions for approval: ^ The property lacks elevation change and warrants one foot contours be displayed on the lot survey for building permit applications. ^ The driveway of lot 2 impedes the runoff from the railroad property to the south. The developer will have to work with staff on a solution to the drainage. The solution will need to be demonstrated on a plan for the building permit application. For the ghost preliminary plat, I offer these comments for future approval: ^ Stormwater Management calculations will be required. ^ Storm utility inverts will be required for future approval. ^ The proposed option 2 pond will require. permission from the neighbor. ^ The proposed future road impedes the runoff from the railroad property to the south. T11ere are existing drainage concerns surrounding the railroad and what little drainage exists needs to be protected. ^ The existing draintiles; one along Strawberry Lane; another that crosses the middle of the property needs to be located, exhibited on the plans and s. ~®K® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER protected during construction. The middle draintile pipe may conflict with Ponding Option # 1. Shorewood Standard Plates for the road section will require draintile installation tinder the roadway. Recommendation Staff recommends conditional approval of the simple subdivision to two lots. The conditions are listed above. CITY' OF -~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator f~ s DATE: November 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Property Staff brought this issue to Council on November 10, 2008 for consideration. At the meeting, Council requested answers to a few questions before taking action. I contacted Hennepin County Property Tax Services and received the following information. 1) Current outstanding tax, fees, and penalties run from 2001 to 2008. The amount due is approximately $4,800. I was told there are additional fees due from as far back as 1996, but have not heard back from the County on the amount. 2) The current assessed market value is $50,000. 3) The minimum bid is established by the County and is based on an appraisal done by the County assessor. If the prior owner wants to repurchase the property, the price is the current outstanding back taxes, fees and penalties or appraised value, which ever is higher. 4) The city does not have the ability to establish the minimum bid amount. 5) The next land sale will take place in the spring. The County generally holds two land sales, one in the spring and one in the fall. Staff still recommends the Council pass the attached resolution offering the parcel for sale to adjacent land owners through auction. This recommendation is made as staff does not believe there is a public purpose for this parcel, the lot is unbuildable, and will benefit either adjacent property owner as both lots are non-conforming. v~ ~®~0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #qg CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CONCERNING A CERTAIN TAX-FORFEITED PARCEL LYING WITHIN THE CITY AND APPROVING IT FOR SALE TO AN ABUTTING OWNER WHEREAS, The City Council is the official governing body of the City of Shorewood, and WHEREAS, the County of Hennepin has sent to the City a Conservation/Non- Conservation Classification List 1450 C/NC containing one parcel which has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of property taxes: PID # 31-117-23-11-0004 WHEREAS, the County of Hennepin has requested the City to affirm the nonconservation classification of the lands; to either request a conveyance of said lands to the City for public use, approve the sale of the lands to abutting owners, or approve the public auction of the lands; and to provide other certification with respect to the property; and WHEREAS, the subject parcei is not required by the City for public use; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel is a vacant Lakeshore parcel, the substandard shape and dimensions of which make it unbuildable as a separate parcel; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1) The nonconservation status of the above parcels is affirmed. 2) The City does hereby approve the parcel at PID # 31-117-23-11-0004 for sale to the adjoining property owner(s); and 3) The above-described parcel is not, to the City's knowledge, a) land designated as a mining unit or subject to a mining permit or lease; b) land located within the boundaries of a state park; c) land containing substantial deposits of peat; or d) non-forested marginal land or wetland. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of November, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk °T SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer - - DATE: November 19, 2008 RE: Illicit Discharge ordinance discussion 2"a read As part of the Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the City of Shorewood the Illicit Discharge ordinance was listed for adoptionby 12/31/2008. The Council first reviewed the model ordinance on October 13, 2008. The SWPPP requires the pennittee to develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges. The permit states "You must, to the extent allowable under law, effectively prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, non-storm water discharges into your storm sewer system and implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions." Examples of illicit discharges are dumping oil or paint in a catch basin, having a septic field drain to a roadside ditch, etc. Tim Keane, City Attorney has not reviewed the 2"d draft ordinance and his comments will be incorporated into the final draft. The attached 2"d draft ordinance is based off a model ordinance and modified by Council Member Wellens and staff. Staff added carlcrete washout to the list of pollutants and the appeal timefiame was reduced to 10 (ten) days to be consistent with Zoning Violation Appeals. Recommendation Staff recommends discussing this 2"`~ draft ordinance at the City Council meeting November 24, 2008. Staff will revise the draft to include Council comments and present the final ordinance to Council in December for adoption. s~ s®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -~--" 7Jfi" _~ Illicit Discharge into Stormwater System ORDINANCE NO. 08- SECTION 1. PURPOSE/INTENT. The purpose of this ordinance or of any ordinance is to respect the rights of the citizens and their control of their property from encroachment by government. This regulation delineates what is prohibited, not what is allowed. To maximize citizen freedom anything not explicitly prohibited, is allowed. The burden is on the government to identify and prove hazards, then regulate. This regulation seeks to reduce non-storm water discharges to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. The objectives of this ordinance are: (1) To minimize pollutants into the MS4 (2) To prohibit Illicit Connections and Discharges to the MS4 (3) To establish legal authority to carry out compliance with this ordinance SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following shall mean: Authorized Enforcement Agency employees of the city designated to enforce this ordinance. Best Management Practices (BMPs~ Pollution prevention practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm water, receiving waters, or storm water conveyance systems. BMPs also include treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. Clean Water Act. The federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto. Hazardous Materials. Those materials which because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics are a hazard to human health, safety and property when improperly disposed of. Illegal Discharge. Any direct non-storm water discharge to the storm drain system of pollutants or hazardous materials. Illicit Connections. An illicit connection is any drain or conveyance causing an illegal discharge to enter the storm drain system or connected to the storm drain system which has not been approved by an authorized enforcement agency. Industrial Activity. Activities subject to NPDES Industrial Permits as defined in 40 CFR, Section 122.26 (b)(14). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge Permit. means a permit issued by EPA (or by a State under authority delegated pursuant to 33 USC § 1342(b)) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area-wide basis. Non-Storm Water Discharge. A discharge into the storm drain system that is not normal storm water. Pollutant. Pollutants are: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; hazardous substances, concrete washout, and wastes. t :;~ to ~ M 3+ Storm Drainage S, stem. Publicly-owned facilities by which storm water is collected and/or conveyed, including but not limited to any roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, gutters, curbs, inlets, piped storm drains, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures. Storm Water. Any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting of natural precipitation and resulting from such precipitation. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A document which describes the Best Management Practices and activities to be implemented by government to reduce pollutant discharges to Stormwater, Stormwater Conveyance Systems, and/or Receiving Waters. SECTION 3. APPLICABILITY. This ordinance shall apply to all run-off entering the storm drain system. SECTION4. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION. The Authorized Enforcement Agency shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Any powers granted or duties imposed upon the authorized enforcement agency may be delegated in writing by the Director of the authorized enforcement agency to persons or entities acting in the beneficial interest of or in the employ of the agency. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS. Prohibition of Illegal Discharges. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses any pollutants or waters containing any pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards, other than storm water. Existing situations that are today deemed a violation shall be documented and grandfathered until the sale of the subject property. Such documentation shall be attached to County Property records to ensure prospective buyers are informed of clean-up and remedy costs. SECTION 7. REDUCE STORM WATER POLLUTANTS BY THE USE OF BMP. The Authorized Enforcement Agency will adopt requirements identifying Best Management Practices for any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to pollution or contamination of storm water, the storm drain system, or waters of the U.S. SECTION 8. NOTIFICATION OF SPILLS. Any person having information of any known or suspected illegal discharges shall notify the Authorized Enforcement Agency as soon as practical. SECTION 9. ENFORCEMENT. ~~ Whenever the Authorized Enforcement Agency finds that a person has violated a prohibition of this Ordinance, it may order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require reasonable monitoring, analysis and remediation by a specified deadline. SECTION 10. APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION Any person receiving a Notice of Violation may appeal the determination of the authorized enforcement agency. The notice of appeal must be received within ten (10) days from the date of the Notice of Violation. Hearing on the appeal before the appropriate authority or his/her designee shall take place within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. The good citizens of Authorized Enforcement Agency retain all legal rights guaranteed by our Constitution to pursue an appeal through the court system, to include a jury trial. SECTION 11. COST OF ABATEMENT OF THE VIOLATION The property owner shall incur all costs to cease violating the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 12. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE The remedies listed in this ordinance are not exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within the discretion of the authorized enforcement agency to seek cumulative remedies. SECTION 13. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication. All prior ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December, 2008, by the following vote: ~~