Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
072709 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF ~_L 1) CITY CC _T- __AI_ _ ~LNG MONDAY, J 7L ' 27, 2009 AGENDA 579 ® 7 _P_1_1Y CLUB ROAD CC -J- _ -AMBERS 7:00 F.? 1. CONVENE CITE' COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Mayor Lizec Bailey Turgeon Woodruff Zerby B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 minutes 7:00 p.m. A. City Council Executive Session Minutes, 7/13/09 Minutes B. City Council Work Session Minutes, 7/13/09 Minutes C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, 7/13/09 Minutes D. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, 7/20/09 Minutes E. City Council Work Session Minutes, 7/20/09 Minutes 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on 5 minutes 7:05 p.m. 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 Claims List B. TTM Lease Amendment Planning Director's CAF C. Adopt the 2009 S-4 Supplement to the Code of Deputy Clerk's Ordinances for the City of Shorewood CAF, Ordinance, Resolution D. Ordinance Amending Chapter 503.09 of the Administrator's Shorewood City Code relating to Curbside Pickup CAF, Ordinance TTY C UNt ` )A -,JULY Page 2 of 3 E. Authorize Expenditure of - ' ; for Safe Assure Director of Consultants Public Works' CAF . MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 10 minutes 7:10 p.m. (No Council action will be taken) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. City Hall Landscaping Update 5 minutes 7:20 p.m. B. City Hall Project Update Administrator's 10 minutes 7:25 p.m. CAF C. SouthShore Center Wrap Up Administrator's 10 minutes 7:35 p.m. CAF 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS - Report by Representative 10 minutes 7:45 p.m. A. Donor Policy and Request Form updates Park Dept CAF 10 minutes 7:55 p.m. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative 10 minutes 8:05 p.m. A. Site Plan Review (Subway Restaurant) Planning 10 minutes 8:15 p.m. Applicant: Brian Carney Director's CAF Location: 5660 County Road 19 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. County Road 19 / Smithtown Road Request Director of 15 minutes 8:25 p.m. for Advance Funds Municipal State Aid Fund Public Works' CAF, Resolution B. Smithtown Lane Right-of-Way Acquisition Engineer's 10 minutes 8:40 p.m. CAF, Resolution C. Award Feasibility Study for Nelsine Drive Engineer's 10 minutes 8:50 p.m. CAF D. Award Feasibility Study for Meadowview Road Engineer's 10 minutes 9:00 P.M. CAF 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Council Policies and Procedures Administrator's 15 minutes 9:10 P.M. CAF ct' 11 T 'q . r B. Gideon Glen Memorial Bench C. Planning Commissioner Appointment - IL Y 27, 2009 5 minutes 9:45 p.m. 5 minutes 9:50 p.m. 1 minute 9:55 p.m. Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 27 July, 2009 A 5:00 P.M. Council Budget Work Session is scheduled this evening. An EDA Meeting will follow the Regular Council meeting Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #313: TTM has requested an amendment to its lease agreement relative to installation of telecommunication at the west end water tower site. They simply ask that the lease payment be credited to start with the installation of the equipment, which has been delayed due to maintenance/restoration issues on the water tower. Staff recommends approval of the draft amendment included in the packet. Agenda Item #3C: Approval of the fourth supplement (S-4) to the City Code Book, which includes all Ordinances through No. 456, is technically needed to formalize their codification. American Legal Publishing has provided the replacement pages to the City Code Book for this fourth supplement. Council action includes Adoption of an Ordinance to enact and adopt the 2009 S-4 Supplement to the Shorewood City Code Book, provided by American Legal Publishing Corporation; and Adoption of a Resolution approving a summary publication of said Ordinance. Agenda Item #31): At its November 13, 2006, enterprise budget work session, Council discussed the city's spring clean-up program, and agreed to discontinue the curbside collection service starting in 2007. With this decision, Section 503.09 of the Code Book needs a minor edit. The code book reads that `the City "will" provide a curbside pickup service...' Staff recommends changing "will" to "may" to make it permissive for the city to conduct curbside pick-up, should it ever be determined to reinstate the program in the future. Approval of an ordinance making this change is recommended. Agenda Item #3E: This item considers the authorization for the expenditure of funds for safety training, safety inspections, safety policy documentation, documentation updates and consultation. Agenda Item #5A: Planning Director Brad Nielsen will provide a verbal update on the City Hall landscaping project. Agenda Item #513: Update on the progress and costs associated with the City Hall remodel and expansion project. m City C- 2!, 21, 2009 Agenda Item #5C: Report on the revenue and expenses for the SouthShore Community Center operations for the period March 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009. Agenda Item #6A: No public hearings this evening. Agenda Item #7: Commissioner Jeremy Norman will provide an update on recent Park Commission activities. Agenda Item #7A: The Park Commission reviewed the Donor Policy and Forms and is forwarding recommending changes for Council consideration. Agenda Item #8A: Brian Carney has submitted plans to locate a Subway restaurant in the old carpet store building at 5660 County Road 19. Staff has been working with the applicant and his consultants to resolve issues raised in initial staff reports. To date, the landscape deficiencies noted have been resolved, but drainage issues have not. The Planning Commission has recommended only concept approval of the plans, subject to the applicant satisfying the City Engineers concerns. If the applicant is unable to adequately address the drainage issues prior to Monday night's meeting, it is recommended that Council approval be limited to concept only. If the applicant's consultants come through with revised plans, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution for the next meeting, approving the site plan. Agenda Item #9A: This item considers the request to the Department of State Aid for an advance of funds from the Municipal State Aid Account for close out of the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road Intersection Project. Staff recommends approval of the resolution that formally makes that request to the State. Agenda Item #913: Construction plans for the Smithtown Lane Reclamation project identify the need for Right-of-Way. Staff recommends Council approve a resolution directing staff to acquire the Right-of-Way necessary to proceed with the project. Agenda Item #9C: Four firms submitted proposals for a feasibility study and surveying for the proposed Nelsine Drive street project. Staff recommends approval of the proposal from TKDA and authorize staff to order a soils report. Agenda Item #91): Four firms submitted proposals for a feasibility study and surveying for the proposed Meadowview Road street project. Staff recommends approval of the proposal from TKDA and authorize staff to order a soils report. Agenda Item #10A: Revised Council Policy and Procedures for consideration and adoption. Agenda Item #1 OB: Miles DelBusso has received formal approval from his board for his Eagle Scout project to install a memorial bench on the Gideon Glen conservation open space site. Staff has suggested a location for the bench, and Mr. DelBusso would like to start work (approximately three days) the first week of August. Staff recommends that the work be authorized by Council. Agenda Item #IOC: Consider the appointment to the Planning Commission. CITY OF HOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 2009 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION 5755 COLT-- ' " CLUB OA COUNCIL, C, <,ZP _ ERS 5:45 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 5:55 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; and Administrator Heck Absent: None B. Review Agenda Without objection from Council, Mayor Lizee proceeded with the Agenda for the meeting. 2. CITY ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE R E V IEW The purpose of the executive session was to discuss the City Administrator's performance review. Council discussed the City Administrator's performance. Mayor Lizee, Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby and Administrator heck were present. 3. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of July 13, 2009, at 6:20 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Christine Lizee, Mayor #Za CITY OF SF-] -7'OOI CITY COUNC. , WORK SESSION MONDAY, L 13, 2009 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WO SESSION 57-7-7 -'OUNTRY CLUB ROAD CC JNCIL CHAMBERS Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:22 P.M. A. Roll. Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councihnembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B4 Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS Administrator Heck stated Council has discussed a mission statement for the City at two previous work sessions. It was scheduled to discuss it during the June 22, 2009, but time did not allow for that to happen. The meeting packet for this meeting contained a copy of another iteration of the statement as well as a few broad goals for 2010. I-IC suggested Council focus on finalizing the mission statement this evening. The most recent iteration of the mission statement is: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial nnaaagement through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Councilmember Bailey stated the last iteration of the mission is adequate for discussion purposes. He suggested Council move past the mission statement and focus on defining the broad goals. The statement can be refined at a later date. He stated for the May 26, 2009, work session Administrator Heck had prepared a document (dated April 17, 2009) that contained definitions for goals, objectives and tactics and examples of each. He found that document to be helpful and applicable to this process. He also found it easier for him to identify goals if they were broken down by function. Functions could include infrastructure - roadways, infrastructure - sewer, infrastructure - storm water, infrastructure - water, parks, planning, public safety - fire, public safety - police, subcategories of finance, and citizen communication/participation. An example of a goal under parks could be to maintain and enhance the City's park system. An example of an objective under that goal could be to construct and refurbish shelters in City parks. Examples of tactics under that objective could be to prioritize the shelters, select an architect, put construction plans out for bids, select a contractor and then perform the construction work. A second objective for the goal could be to purchase and install attractive and similar signage in the City parks. He thought by identifying goals by function the process could be completed relatively quickly. He found it difficult to identify objects for a goal as broad as the example of preserve the City's infrastructure investment. #2B CITE July 1 Page 2 of 3 Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought Councilmember Bailey made some good points, and he agreed the mission statement was pretty good. He suggested that every commitment made in the mission statement should have at least one goal associated with it. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the current iteration of the mission statement was adequate for discussion. Administrator Heck explained that the examples of goals identified by Councilmember Bailey have a monetary impact. Goals will have to be prioritized as part of the budget process. Some goals may be the same for multiple years, but the objectives and/or tactics will likely change from year to year. In response to a comment from Councilmember Bailey, Administrator Heck clarified that Staff had prepared a 2009 work plan earlier this year. The current discussion is about defining a broader list of goals and then objectives for 2010. Councilmember Bailey cautioned against adding something about every goal into the mission statement; it should be very broad and may not touch on every goal that is dctined. He did not think all goals had to directly tie to the mission statement, but they have to tie to a specific function. Councilmember Turgeon stated she agreed with Councilmember Bailey's perspective. She asked who should be charged with defining the goals - Administrator Neck, the Councilmembers or the department heads. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the following changes be made to the sample goals included in the meeting packet. They are as follows. 1. Change "Maintain and improve. the City's park system by offering amenities for all ages." to "Maintain and improve the City's park system, offering amenities for all ages." 2. Change "Preserve the Cit},'s infrastructure investment." to "Enhance and preserve the City's infrastructure investment." 3. He did not think "Ensure compliance with storm water treatment and control rules and regulations." was agoal. 4. A goal should be added to "Achieve the objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan." There was another perspective that an objective under maintaining the City's park system would be to achieve the park related objectives identified in the Comp Plan. Administrator Heck stated he thought the outcome of defining the goals, objectives and tactics for 2010 could then be used to feed some of the budget process. The objectives would replace the need for including service indicators in the budget materials. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was struggling with the process because he did not think there is agreement as to what constitutes a goal. He expressed that too many goals may be identified. The number has to be reasonable; for example, 10 - 12. Councilmember Bailey stated that with regard to the four types of infrastructures in the City, a goal is to maintain and enhance the infrastructure; the City was not building more infrastructures. He thought he could easily identify 10 goals that tied back to functions. C I. _ - - 3 MINUTES July I Page of Councilmember Zerby stated lie viewed goals as being things Council wanted to do from a policy perspective that would have a positive impact on the City. He did not think ensuring state and federal mandates were adhered should be considered goals. Councilmember Bailey stated maintaining and enhancing the roadway infrastructure was a goal, and one objective of that goal is to determine how that will be financed. Councilmember Bailey offered to work with Administrator Heck to define goals. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would forward Councilmember Bailey and Administrator Heck a preview copy of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation Districts' newly defined goals and objectives. He's pleased with what was defined and he would like to see something similar for the City. Mayor Lizee stated she would like to have a small change made to the mission statement. She wanted to change "quality public services" to "quality public safety and municipal services". Councilmember Woodruff stated he also wanted to have public safety separated out. Councilmember Bailey stated Council had been provided with a document reflecting the status of the 2009 work program. He stated the list did not include the,utility rate study that is supposed to be done this year. Administrator Heck stated he inadvertently forgot to include it in the status document. He stated the rate study report will be reviewed with Council during its August 24, 2009, Council meeting. 3. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Bailey seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of July 13, 2009, at 6:47 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHH~ 57°" Y R® " °-L€JB ROAD 17C J.. I1' C-"N.- ERS 7:-- -,r-, Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembets Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Tietjen; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Administrator Heck stated under Item 9.A, County Road 19 Smithtown Road Intersection Close Out, Council can review the cost summary information prepared by Director Brown. Brown had not received the necessary information to prepare the resolution asking for advance funding out of the City's Municipal State Aid Account in time to prepare the resolution for the meeting. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 22, 2009 Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of June 22, 2009, as amended in Item 2, Page 3, Paragraph 2, Bullet 10, delete the sentence "If the tax levy is comparable to 2009 the City should receive approximately $0.25 on every $1.00 collected on property taxes." and delete the sentence "It was noted that even a 1% decline would result in the loss of a sizable amount of revenue from property taxes." Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 22, 2009 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2009, as amended in Item 6.A, Page 3, Paragraph 8, Sentence 2 change "then 57 percent" to "then 67 percent" and in Item 10.B, Page 11, Paragraph 9, Sentence 1, change "the five participants" to "the four participants". Motion passed 510. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. #Zc CI`I'1 t )U F S Pa- t of 22 A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Accepting Lo Quote and Awarding Contract for 2009 Pavement Markings (This item was moved to Item 9.1) under Engineering/Public Works.) Councilmember Woodruff stated the verified claims list contains two claims for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) for forfeitures. He did not recollect ever seeing a claim like that before. Director Burton explained when the SLMPD confiscates a vehicle for forfeiture, by State statute the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle are split with the SLMPD receiving 70 percent and the City receiving the remainder. She noted the City acts as the fiscal agent and gives the SLMPD the share it is due. The 30 percent the City gets to keep is to offset fees for legal services. Motion passed 510. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Prairie Grass Presentation by Joe Pazandak Mayor Liz6e stated Joe Pazandak, the City's Building Inspector, was present this evening to provide an update on the City's prairie grass pilot project. Mr. Pazandak stated he would cover four areas. Thcy are:'an evaluation of current conditions; the rejection of prairie development; recommendations, and what he learned from the City project to date. He stated some of the planted areas are exceeding expectation, some are as expected, and some were damaged by either work on the SF`, Area Water 'lower or the dry conditions. There is some unplanned vegetation (weeds) in certain areas, but over time they will be managed. He explained the particularly dry conditions last summer and this spring and summer have slowed the growth. He indicated he appreciates hearing the feedback from residents, and he thinks the residents have been very considerate and patient. The cost for the project is on target, and it is close to payback after labor and equipment savings are taken into account. At this point the project is not costing the City anything. Mr. Pazandak showed four photographs of a prairie grass restoration site. The first was a photo of his prairie development after the spring mow, and it shows some green vegetation starting to develop. He explained the grass looks as bad as it's going to look and that look lasts about three weeks. He explained there is a section of prairie grass not shown in the photo that is anywhere from 30 inches tall to 6 feet tall; the grass is a rich tan color. He mows his grass once in the spring and that allows him access to treat the area with a pre-emergent weed control or a herbicide such as Roundup. He then showed three photos of the prairie grass taken in early fall. Prairies are known for their fall vegetation. One showed blue-stem grass which grows about three feet high. Its color is a bluish-green during the summer and is a very attractive looking grass. It's the most durable for dry conditions. The next photo was a typical seed head grass. Its color can turn red or yellow. The fourth photo was of a larger prairie area of the previous grass. It depicts what he was trying to achieve with the City project. The snow builds up on this grass and insulates the ground, and when the snow melts in the spring it soaks into the ground and waters the grass for the season. Mr. Pazandak recommended staff continue to monitor the prairies, and to allow them to develop with minimal mowing. He would like to have fall color start to develop so residents can see their beauty. The prairie will be mowed each spring prior to the plants coming out of dormancy. The area will be treated with a pre-emergent and Roundup to help the prairie grass takes over where the weeds are. Some areas will need to be repaired. If the damaged areas aren't too large, hydroseeding may be an option. He could possibly bring mulch cover from home to help with the seeding. The repair areas could have a nurse crop planted; it would provide some cover and help with weed control. Alternative vegetation could also be considered for planting. Mr. Pazandak commented there may have been some areas where prairie grass was planted that he was overly optimistic about. For example, the area near the SE Area \Vater Tower where the trees come close to the road (a strip 8 - 10 feet wide and approximately 40 feet long). He suggested a different type of low- maintenance vegetation be planted there. Mr. Pazandak learned that he should not have tried to do the project too cheaply. He should have planted a nurse crop but didn't because of some dead vegetation there. He should have spent another $50 and planted some oats the first year so there would have been some type of ground vegetation. One of the prairie areas had been mowed short for a number of years and there was a heavy infestation of weeds. He should have treated the area with a pre-emergent for a couple of years before planting the prairie grass. He thought he should have been more responsive to residents' concerns. Mayor Lizee stated Council appreciated his expertise and dedication to the project. This prairie project did have a high learning curve with it, and the public did not know what to except from prairie plantings. She commended him for seeing the project through. Councilmember Bailey stated he thought Mr. Pazandak was asking people to be patient with the prairies. He asked if the planting near the lower is considered a success or a future success. Mr. Pazandak stated if a nurse crop would have been planted the prairie plants would be much larger. He had expected the bank area under the Tower to develop better. The prairie plants are there, but a number of weeds also exist. The time to develop is going to be longer than originally thought because of the dry conditions. In four years it should be the dominant plant. Councilmember Bailey stated the area by the Tower is an eyesore. Mr. Pazandak stated the area near the fire hydrant is meeting expectations. The area on the west end is a fairly normal development. The bank area is challenged. Councilmember Bailey expressed concern that it would continue to look bad until it was relatively developed in 4 years. Mr. Pazandak commented that the City has received complaints about the area, but when he was removing weeds from the area the City also received a call from a resident who thought someone was stealing the plants. Public Works doesn't like to mow the slope area because it's challenging to drive the equipment there. He suggested a nurse crop be planted for a couple of years to help with aesthetics while the prairie plants establish themselves. Mayor Lizee stated it was important to educate people about the project. She thanked Mr. Pazandak for his efforts. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS No report was given. The next Park Commission meeting is sclheduled for July 14, 2009. 8. PLANNING Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 2009, was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum. A. Front Yard Setback Variance Request Applicant: Mark Theinig and Bradley Heppner Location: 21780 Lilac Lane Director Nielsen stated that Mark Tlhemig and Brad Heppner own the property located at 21780 Lilac Lane. They propose a substantial addition and remodeling of the existing home that require setback variances and a variance to expand the nonconformity of a nonconforming structure (the owners' house). The property is located in the R- IA, Single Family Residential zoning district. This district requires lots to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet of area, and the front and rear yard setback requirements are 50 feet. Nielsen explained the property contains 56,180 square feet of area, and it is occupied by the owners' house and attached garage. The house is currently situated back from the Lilac Lane right-of-way approximately 34.4 feet, encroaching 16 feet into the required front setback area. The property is substantially wooded. There is a steep ravine that extends north and south on the west side. It slopes from south to north into a wetland area on the north side. The existing house sits on the high portion of the lot. Nielsen then explained the applicants propose to demolish the garage on the east end of the house and replace it with a larger garage with a second story addition above it. The first floor will be extended to the west by 20 feet with a second story being added to the entire structure. A small dormer addition currently exists above the main part of the house. The initial report included a porch, five to eight feet in depth, which would wrap the entire first level. The applicant has clarified that the porch on the south side, which is where the setback issue exists, would be six feet in depth. CITY _ S ,July I Page t5 of Nielsen went on to explain the existing home contains 1071 square feet on the main level, plus approximately 240 in the dormer for a total of 1311 square feet. 'The existing garage contains 280 square feet. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the City's Zoning Code addresses nonconformities. A number of years ago the Code stipulated nonconforming structures could not be expanded. The City relaxed the Code to allow for the expansion of nonconforming, single-family structures as long as the addition meets the setback requirements. That is not the case in this request; therefore, the applicants are asking for a 22-foot variance from that requirement. With regard to variance requests, Nielsen explained the first thing Staff considers is whether or not the property can be put to reasonable use without the variance. In this case Staff suggests there is room within the buildable area of the lot to easily accommodate an expansion of the structure. There is ample room to the northwest of the existing house that is relatively flat; the site would not have to be drastically altered. Nielsen highlighted the drawings showing the building elevations of the proposed expanded structure, including the new garage. He noted some of the drawings were submitted after the public hearing was held. He explained the structure will be substantially larger then the existing- structure that is already too close to the street. The footprint would be increased by the expansion to the west and the wrap-around deck and porch system. Nielsen stated during the public hearing for this request there was discussion about building mass not being a criterion for variances. He explained it is an important factor in this case because the nonconformity itself would be expanded; there would be more building that would be nonconforming. He stated there was also discussion about changing statutes for variances. He explained there is a different standard at the county level. The county goes by something called practical difficulties. The language for cities remains undue hardship, and this gets into reasonable use. He stated Staff suggests very reasonable use can be made of this property. The applicants can easily maintain what they have today and still expand to the northwest. Nielsen stated Staff recommends not to Lpp]'Ove the variance. The Planning Commission was split on this case on a 2/2 vote. Nielsen stated Mark Themig, one of the applicants, was present this evening Mr. Themig stated Brad Heppner, the other applicant, could not be in attendance this evening. He commented earlier in this meeting there was a presentation about a City project for developing a prairie that probably existed in the City at one time. He stated as part of their proposed project they are trying to conserve what already exists on their property rather than disturb it. Mr. Themig provided Council with a copy of a PowerPoint presentation he had prepared (a copy of which is on file). Mr. Themig highlighted his presentation as follows: Mr. Themig stated their current structure was built in 1934, noting it was one of the original homes in the area. Their lot is the reason they are asking for a variance request. They are trying to conserve the existing natural resources on their property by building within the disturbed area. He noted that a few years ago as part of the Apple Ridge development the City required the developer to put a conservation easement on the property directly west of their property. He noted the area they are trying to protect in their variance application has topography very similar to that of conservation easement. He displayed an aerial C1 ` I I . S ,July I Page 6 of 22 photograph showing the houses in the surrounding area. He displayed a survey of the property showing the dimensions of the proposed porch, the expansion, and an area of nonconformity that will be removed. Mr. Themig stated they thought they satisfied all of the variance criteria identified in the City's Zoning Code. They thought there are special circumstances that make their proposed project unique when compared to other projects in the City. Their house was built prior to current zoning regulations. It was there when they purchased the property. To build in the buildable area property will require significant disruption of natural resources. The City is looking at doing things different in the future; therefore, this project would be a great opportunity to preserve resources rather than destroy them and then try to recreate them in the future. Their property has a significant number of trees. To build in the buildable area would result in more trees being lost then what would occur with their proposal. They consulted with an arborist about different layouts for an expanded house. If they changed the direction for the house to go north and south versus east and west, not only will trees located around the house be impacted there will also be trees impacted to the north of the house. Mr. Themig stated he agreed that they did have room to expand on their property. Their situation is not an economic one. It would cost more to expand their existing structure than it would to tear the structure down and build a new one. To expand into the buildable portion of their property would have an impact on the topography, the land forms, the trees and the natural resources there. They believe it makes a great deal more sense to utilize the already disturbed area of their property for them and for the City long term. With regard to massing, Mr. Themig explained Lilac Lanc is a dead-end road that will never be extended. Their property is located at the dead-end of Lilac Lanc. Massing is not addressed in the City Code. The massing of other homes on Lilac Lane and in the neighborhood is substantially greater than what would occur with their proposed addition. He displayed t\-\,o examples of such in their neighborhood. He explained their expanded house would not be a huge structure, but it would be larger than what it is. There are seven houses on what they call their block. Of the four closet homes, two comply with the front-year setback and two do not (one being theirs). On the south side of Lilac Lane there are very large homes on relatively small lots with no trees to soften the massing. Because moving the house to north and west will result in additional loss of trees. they believe that would alter the character of neighborhood. Mr. Themig stated that during the public hearing for their request they did not have enough detail about their proposed six-foot-wide porch. The proposed porch would not extend any further from the house then the existing concrete stoop leading into an old entry way into the existing house. There will not be any pillars on the porch. The porch will be suspended from the structure. The grade will be raised slightly to help provide a stable base. The visual impact of the porch will be minimal. He displayed two examples of porches that are similar to what they would like to have. Mr. Themig highlighted a few items the Planning Commission discussed during the public hearing. The Commission asked if they were going to reuse much of the existing house. They plan to restore and reuse as much of the house as possible. The Commission had a significant amount of discussion about Lilac Lane being a dead-end road and that impact on emergency vehicles. That situation exists whether or not the variance is granted. He explained when a visitor at their home had a medical emergency, two fire trucks, a police car and an ambulance came to their home. There was discussion about their neighbor's visibility of the structure. At this time of the year very little of the structure is visible from the neighbor's house. There was also discussion about whether or not they would be amenable to placing a conservation easement over what is being called the buildable portion of the lot in exchange for the variance. They would be willing to do so; it would match the easement adjacent to their property. The Chair of the Planning Commission indicated the Commission was constrained by the existing policy about not increasing the amount on nonconformity and noted that Council has the authority to consider the request. kge 7 of, Some of the Commissioners indicated their project was a forward thinking project. It was a project where a concerted effort was being made to conserve natural resources rather than destroy them. Mr. Themig noted all of their neighbors on Lilac Lane either spoke at the public hearing or conveyed via e-mail that they are in support of their proposed project. Their neighbor located in the City of Chanhassen indicated that anything they would do to their house would help improve the overall character of the neighborhood. In summary, Mr. Themig stated he and Mr. Heppner want to reuse the existing structure and the existing disturbed areas of land. They want to respect the current natural resources and incorporate them into the design. They believe they have a demonstrable hardship in that they would avoid the need for additional excavation, fill and changes in the landform by expanding to the area they proposed. They would avoid additional tree removal and disruption of natural resources and native plant species. They would protect land similar to land the City required be protected a few years ago. They have a strong desire to invest in the City and their neighborhood. Mr. Themig thanked Council for its time and consideration. Councilmember Bailey stated he appreciated Mr. Themig's presentation <!„d thought it was well done. He explained that he had been a member of the Planning Commission for nine years. During that time the Commission considered many requests that appeared to be reasonable on the surface and were difficult to say no to, but the Commission did. All requests to expand a house, either vertically or horizontally, in the setback area were denied unless the entire house was located in the setback area. Quite often they were denied because there was an option to expand into the non-setback area. Many times the applicants indicated that would be unreasonable, and what they were really saying was the hardship was economic because it was expensive to do the alternative. That was not an acceptable reason for the variance. He appreciates the applicants' desire to minimize tree loss and the disruption of natural resources. Unfortunately, the City Code does not factor in conscryation issues when considering a setback variance. He would be willing to discuss a possible amendment to the City Code so that conservation issues are considered at another time. He understands that will not help the applicants right now, but if that is a reasonable tradeoff to have then it should be considered. In the current Code conservation is not a hardship; it's not a reason fora variance. Councilmember Bailey then stated the fact that all of the neighbors are in support of the applicants' proposed project should not factor into the decision. The decision must be made on whether or not it satisfies the criteria for granting a variance. The location of the structure at the end of a dead-end street is not a criterion unless it would cause a problem for other residents in the area. He then stated he finds it difficult to find a true hardship that would allow Council to take the variance ordinance and apply it in a different way then the Planning Commission and Council have done for many other similar variance requests. He explained there are changes that could be made to the Code that could affect this case in the future. Unfortunately, the way the Code is written today this is a relatively straight forward application of the variance ordinance and it would be a disservice to all of the similar applicants that have been denied in the past. He stated it would also make it very difficult for the Planning Commission going forward because they would basically be without any guidance. Approving this variance request would be similar to saying Council does not care what the variance criteria are and they are going to grant a variance in this one situation. The Planning Commission has acted consistently with how it applies the variance ordinance. He then stated he cannot support the request. CITY J )UNCI July t Page b of Councilmember Zerby clarified if Council granted the variance it would not be going against the Planning Commission's recommendation; the Commission was split on its recommendation with two in favor and two against. Granting the request would not make it difficult for the Commission. He stated he did not think it was as black and white as protecting the variance ordinance and following through on how variances have been handled in the past. The variance process allows for Council to consider a number of things when considering the variance. He agreed that the City Ordinance may not take things into consideration, such as conservation, that it should. He recollected from his previous Council tenure when he was a liaison to Commission where exceptions were made to protect natural resources, noting one of the situations was with a lakefront property. The applicants' proposal would be better for the community as a whole as well as for the character of the neighborhood. The residents in the neighborhood all think it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. The area Staff recommends the structure be expanded into appears to be the majority, if not all, of the applicants' level space on their property that could be used as recreational space. The style of the house is in character with the area. He did not think there would be a negative impact of allowing the expansion as proposed. Also, the house is an anchor at the end of a dead-end road. He did not think it would be fair and applicable to only consider the ordinance when considering this request. He expressed his support for granting the variance request. Councilmember Turgeon stated she understood Director Nielsen to have stated the City's Code and the city's statute deal with undue hardship which is different from the county's statute. She also understood that the Planning Commission had not been provided with detail information about the proposed porch. Nielsen indicated both of those things were correct, noting there h.ad been a recent legal ruling upholding the county's statute on practical difficulties. She then stated Councilmember Zerby's rationale for supporting this variance has anything to do with the ordinances in effect. She asked why Zerby thinks this request should be granted based on the current ordinance relating to variances, nonconformance and so forth. Zerby stated if the process was as simple as going down a list without consideration of anything else, then Director Nielsen may as well fill out a form and give it to Council. Turgeon stated that from her vantage point, the Planning Commission denied the variance. Zerby clarified the Commission did not approve it, but it also did not deny it. Turgeon then stated it may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the Code that would take things such as natural resource conservation into consideration. Unfortunately, that does not exist today and based on the current ordinance this does not satisfy the variance criteria. Turgeon stated that the footprint of the proposed structure will be larger than the footprint of the existing structure. The applicants do have a very buildable area on the back of their property where the house could be expanded with the expansion being in conformance. There are two large oak trees on the back of the property and one in the front near the house that will have to be removed. The one in the front is very close to the existing house and garage and should probably be taken down before it falls on the structures. She finds it difficult to find an issue of hardship, other than there being an economic one because it would be cheaper to expand the way the applicants propose and an economic hardship cannot be considered. From her vantage point, to expand the way Staff recommends would require a little more foundation and no less trees being removed. Mayor Lizee clarified the applicants did not make any economic argument when presenting their request. She stated it costs more to extensively refurbish and expand than to rebuild. Mayor Lizee asked Councilmember Woodruff if he had any further comments. Woodruff responded Councihnembers Bailey, Turgeon and Zerby have covered anything he would have had to say. Mayor Lizee stated the applicants have asked for the variance because Council has the opportunity to make a judgment call. She thought Mr. Themig had addressed a number of things. She also thought there _ 3ULAR COUNCI S are some things that are unique to this property and are suffice for a variance approval. The buildable space to the north and noel ( is accessible. But, the impact to the natural habitat and natural resources, the use of fill, the damage to the trees and the possible damage to the wetland below the property have to considered. Each property is unique. The subject property is at the very end of a dead-end road. The area next to the property has a large conservation easement on it and a ditch on it that water flows through, so it is not a buildable lot. She commended the applicants for their plans and thoughtfulness about reusing components of the existing structure, and for not enlarging the footprint too much in order to make it a more usable space. She thought the applicants made a good argument in support granting the variance. She asked Council to consider granting the request. She stated there is more emphasis being placed on respecting the environment, reusing construction materials and so forth. She thought the City code and ordinances should reflect that. Councilmember Zerby highlighted the following components of the current variance ordinance. b) A variance from the terms of this chapter shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: (1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land...: (a) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record narrowness, shallowness or shape of the property; Zerby stated the way he interprets the above statements it would defend the granting of the variance Councilmember Turgeon stated nonconformity, reasonable use and hardship must also be considered. The request must satisfy all variance criterion not just select criterion. Although the property was beautiful and unique, she did not think it was any more unique than many other properties in the City. The variance should not be granted because they can make reasonable use of the property without granting a variance and there is no hardship. Councilmember Bailey stated the applicants have to satisfy all variance criteria. He noted Subd.l.b in the ordinance which is "Variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and to grant the variances only when it is demonstrated that the actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter." The request has to satisfy this hardship feature. There is always the option to do nothing to the structure. There is no inherent right in the Code to expand the property when it doesn't satisfy all the provisions. Two people are living on the property now; therefore, it can be put to reasonable use. The expansion would make it better structure. It's also difficult to prove there would be a hardship by denying the request. Over the years the Planning Commission has had a relatively consistent set of criteria and exceptions for granting variances. He commented that the Commission has always operated under the principal that having a one car garage is a hardship. He stated Council should exercise caution if it's going to establish another precedent. Unfortunately, he did not think this situation was unique enough to warrant setting a precedent. Mr. Themig stated they currently have a tiny one-car garage. He then stated he and Mr. Heppner have been very careful not to go down the road of what the City done in the past because they thought every variance application has to be viewed on its own merits. They believe they have demonstrated its merits, and they are not comparing it to what has happened in the past. He expressed his disappointment that is what is being discussed by Council. He stated the Planning Commission stayed clear of that; it wanted Council to make the policy decision. He then corrected some of the comments made by Councilmember Turgeon. Regarding the financial implications, he explained it would cost them more to refurbish and CT - -,A COUNCIL EE' PF- - expand, noting they have to make improvements to the foundation and they have to demolish parts of the house and save parts of it. Regarding the loss of trees, an arborist indicated that by expanding to the north there would be an additional loss of trees. The arborist is confident the trees on the north side of the house will be preserved under their proposal because the canopy is outside of the construction limits of where the expansion would be. They are basing their variance request on the criteria Councilmember Zerby pointed out. He thought this was a great opportunity for the City to have a conservation project. If Council was not going to consider variance requests on a case-by-case basis, he questioned why they would consider them at all. He noted the City is trying to restore a prairie. He questioned why Council would not want to try and preserve what already exists, rather than recreate something. Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not disagree with Mr. Themig. She explained there are two parts to this issue; a nonconformance and a variance. The City Code contains an ordinance on conformity. She stated it would be easier for her to consider the request if there was not any expansion on the front side of the house; the amount of nonconformity would not be increased then. The proposal is to expand in all directions. She cited an example of when she was on the Planning Commission when the Commission denied a request because of an eighteen inch nonconformance issue on a second story expansion. She stated she would not have a problem with having the Planning Commission reconsider this request which now includes specifications about the porch. She cannot approve lie proposal as submitted. Councilmember Zerby asked what Council's options are. Director Nielsen explained if the Planning Commission were to reconsider this then another public hearing would have to be held. The City would also need a waiver for the 60-day/120-day rule, noting Nit,. Themig had already authorized the extension to the 60-day rule. Mayor Lizee asked if Mr. Themig would like to bring this back before the Planning Commission for a recommendation from the full Commission. Mr. Themig stated they would be willing to go back before the Planning Commission, and maybe this request could be used as an example of where it may be appropriate to consider changes to the City Code in order to make projects like theirs doable. It would be contingent on the Council being willing to connsider revisions to the ordinance. He commented that any construction would likely occur in 2010. Ile thought requests similar to theirs will become more common as properties start to age. if Co,,incil is going to adhere strictly to the current ordinance and not consider conservation issues, he did not think there was any benefit in going back before the Commission. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, denying the request for a setback variance and a variance to expand a nonconforming structure for Mark Themig and Brad Heppner, 21780 Lilac Lane. Councilmember Bailey stated he thought it was appropriate to deny the request. He explained there is nothing that prohibits the applicants for going before the Planning Commission with a request to amend the City Ordinance. Councilmember Woodruff stated the proposal submitted is not acceptable. The applicants can submit a revised plan to the Planning Commission for consideration. He thought the Planning Commission would be very confused if Council asked the applicants to go back before the Commission with the same proposal. That is one of the reasons he made his motion. Councilmember Zerby stated the City Ordinance is subject to interpretation. Sending it back without a vote should convey the message that Council is unclear about the Planning Commission's position. Motion passed 3/2 with Lizee and Zerby dissenting. CITY IC Mirk. .Ia Page f° 22 Mr. Themig expressed extreme disappointment that the City does not have the tools to look at creative ways to do business different in the City than it has done in the past. He suggested Council give the Planning Commission clear direction to look at those opportunities. He stated they would love to resubmit their plan if Council gave the Commission the flexibility to look at things differently than they have been done in the past. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would have no problem with Director Nielsen bringing this up at the next Planning Commission meeting when there hopefully will be a quorum present. Director Nielsen stated a few years ago the Planning Commission did consider if a criterion could be added where there could be tradeoffs rather than just undue hardship. The Planning Commission was not in support of that, but maybe it could be re-examined again. He explained the setback requirements are to establish a minimum amount of open space on each lot. Councilmember Zerby stated setback requirements on property that was developed 70 - 80 years ago are different. He recommended the Commission discuss the county variance statute and maybe consider adopting similar language. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. County Road 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Close Out and Resoli ' vua, Out II liV 11 Requesting Advanced Funding from State Aid Administrator Heck stated Director Brown had prepared a mcmorandu n for Council regarding the close out of the Country Road 19 and Smithtown Road Intersection project. It describes the proportional cost for the City of Shorewood, the City of Tonka I3ay and Iennepin County based on the cooperative agreement. It identifies what costs are eligible for Municipal State Aid reimbursement, with the total amount being slightly more than $1.6 million for Shorewood. In 2007 the then Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City to request an advance in MSA funding for an amount of close to $900,000. During its next meeting Council will be asked to consider a resolution authorizing the City to ask for another advance in the approximate amount of $d11,000. That would be the projected amount of MSA funding the City would hopefully, receive over a three year period based on its current allocation of MSA. He explained MSA is funded by the state gas tax. Because gas consumption is down there may be less MSA funds available. The City has received payment from Hennepin County for the amount it owed the City. Tonka Bay has been invoiced for what it owes the City. The City has received a payment from Tonka Bay for approximately 50 percent of the amount due. The City owes Hennepin County for Shorewood's costs. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Heck stated the Council had adopted a resolution authorizing a City Requested Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) of $79,500 to pay for most of the City's $84,500 portion of the electrical undergrounding costs. The City still has $5,000 of that expense to pay. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Administrator Heck explained the City has an outstanding invoice payable to Hennepin County. Director Burton explained the City needs the MSA advance to pay the invoice. Heck stated according to Director Brown's reconciliation information the City owes Hennepin County more than $438,000. Bailey questioned how the City was going to pay that amount if it was only asking for a MSA advance of $411,000. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Heck explained the resolution adopted in 2007 asking for the original MSA advance would use up the City's MSA funding through 2011 and the new request would use it up for another three years beyond that. C_ " _-AR CC - , iEETINC MINUTES P, I Coy. fie -fiber Woodruff requested Staff prepare a chart that depicts who the City owes what to, who owes what to the City and where the funds are going to come from to pay what the City owes. There was consensus to continue this to the next meeting. B. Authorize Ad for Bid for Harding Lane, )Harding Avenue and Smithtown Lane Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet for this evening includes a resolution ordering the reconstruction of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane and the reclamation of Smithtown Lane. The resolution also approves the plans, specifications and Engineer's estimate for the projects as well as authorizes the advertisement for bid for the projects. The projects have been combined to take advantage of the economies of scale. Councilmember Turgeon stated the bids will not be opened until August 19`x'. She asked when the projects would be started. Engineer Landini explained the City would accept the bid during its August 24`x' meeting and the work would begin in September. Landini stated the City has to advertise for a specified number of weeks and the public hearing for this project was held during the June 22, 2009, Council meeting. Turgeon questioned if it would be better to postpone the reconstruction of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane until 2010, noting the Councilmember Zerby has recommendcd'the upfront project work for roadway improvements be done in one calendar year and the actual construction work in another. Landini stated watermain is not going to be extended as part of the reconstruction effort; therefore, the depth of excavation will probably only be three feet versus eight to ten feet deep if watermain were installed. This reconstruction project should be much quicker, and less of the very bad soils that exist six feet down will be exposed. The first level bituminous overlay should be down before the bituminous plants close either after the first snow fall for the season or around Thanksgiving Day. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Engineer Landini explained the reconstruction and reclamation projects have to be hid as one project. Councilmember Woodruff stated during the neighborhood meeting held about the project four weeks ago there were a number of comments made. The project includes the creation of a cul-de-sac at the end of Smithtown Lane. He asked if the City had obtained the necessary land. Engineer Landini stated the affected property owner has been in support of the creation of a cul-de-sac from the very beginning of project discussions, and verbally agreed to grant the necessary easement. Landini then stated the surveyors are drawing up the easement specifications, and that should be completed before bids are opened. Woodruff stated during the meeting residents made comments about a culvert that didn't seem to be working correctly. Landini explained the plans specify a new culvert will be installed under Smithtown Lane. Woodruff stated a resident on Harding Lane asked about drainage on the east side of the road. He related the resident had indicated there is only one storm water pickup, and the resident thought there should be more. He stated the plan only reflects one. Landini stated there is only going to be one. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought projects should be planned over an 18-month timeframe. He asked which two roads were next highest on the 20-year Pavement Improvement Plan for improvements. Engineer Landini stated Nelsine Drive and Meadowview Lane. Requests for proposals for the feasibility study were sent out the previous week to firms in the City's engineering pool. He hoped to the have the RFPs for Council at its next meeting. Landini noted that based on the decision tree diagram both of these roadways should be candidates for reclamation. Zerby asked when the first public meetings would be held about the projects, to which Landini stated after the feasibility study is complete. He would not have cost information for residents prior to that. CITY Of -LAR COUNCI, IC MINUTES J1 ? 13 of 7" C. Authorize Request for Proposal for the Lake Mary Outlet Project Feasibility Study Engineer Landini stated Staff would like direction from Council regarding the 2009 Capital Improvement Program Lake Mary Outlet Drainage Improvement Project feasibility study. He noted that during the 2009 Budget process Council commented it would like to discuss this project before starting any work. He explained the 2009 budget has $457,000 earmarked for this project. This project would require a loan from another fund, and the current plan is to have the SewerFund be the lending fund. Landini explained there are five drainage problem areas associated with the high water elevation of outlet. The Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood report indicates the area numbers are 24, 25, 30, 37 and 39. The conditions stated in report list an emergency overflow elevation of the Lake Mary Outlet of 957.1 with a low floor opening elevation of an adjacent home at 957.5; this provide four- tenths of a foot of buffer. There are 87 properties located in the contributing drainage area. Landini stated Staff recommends Council direct Staff to collect proposals for the Lake Mary Drainage Improvement project feasibility study. Councilmember Bailey stated he is not convinced it's a worthwhile project because the cost per property in the area is extremely large. He suggested other alternatives be considered. He is not in support of doing anything with this project this year. Councilmember Turgeon concurred with Bailey's comments. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council would only be approving the feasibility study. He asked what the cost of the study would be. That will influence his decision. Landini stated the cost for the study is estimated to be approximately $30,000 - $40,000 because of the project's size and complexity. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought there was a lot of feasibility type information available. Mayor Lizee stated there is some property identification information available. Engineer Landini stated there are five pages in the Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood report explaining the drainage issues, but they do not go into the depth of the outlet pipe. Landini stated Director Brown would have the location of all the pipes and hoses. Councilmember Woodruff asked what it would cost to mitigate the problem today. He stated the City could pump the outlet many times for the cost to correct the problem. Engineer Landini stated the City owns the pump to pump the outlet. Councilmember Bailey stated he is not confident Staff has explored all of the options. He thought at one time the outlet was basically draining itself because the City punched a hole in the bottom of the outlet. This was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Turgeon's request Councilmember Turgeon asked how often the roadways had to be striped. Engineer Landini stated Smithtown Road and Yellowstone Trail need it more than once a year. Landini noted the roadways were re-striped in 2008. He explained if Council wants striping that lasts longer then it will cost three times as much and last twice as long. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded; Adopting RESOLUTjON NO. 09.036; "A_ Resolution Accepting Quote and Awarding Contract for 2009 Pavement Marking Project." Motion passed 510. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Support of Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Optic Stimulus Grant Application Councilmember Woodruff stated the'tiake Minnetonka Communications Commission (the LMCC) has been discussing enhanced communications for its seventeen member cities. It began discussing fiber optics to the home about one year ago. I Ic is the chair of a LMCC committee that has been investigating fiber to the home (FTTH). "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides for $7.2 billion in funding to further broadband communications throughout the United States. The LMCC is trying to determine if it's possible to develop a broadband network throughout its seventeen member cities and the City of Mound. Woodruff gave a presentation about the LMCC's FTTH grant application for a stimulus grant. The highlights of the presentation are as follows. ➢ A fiber optic network is a network that provides data, television and telephone services. The network would have virtually unlimited capacity and speed. The network would be available to all residents, businesses and organizations within the eighteen cities. The network would be a physical infrastructure. The network would be operated for the public benefit; it would be a non-profit organization. The network would be an investment in the communities' futures. ➢ Studies have shown the United States is currently ranked as number seventeen in the world with regard to its broadband capabilities. ➢ There are a lot of communities in Minnesota and the US that either have built or are building FTTH networks. Some examples are Monticello, Minnesota; Northfield, Minnesota; Dalton, Georgia; Lafayette, Louisiana; and Lake Forest, Illinois. Most of the FTTH efforts to date have been highly successful, in part due to good planning and execution. CITY ) RE( -ES Ady 13, Page " , A wide variety of financing methods and operating models are being used. The LMCC's plan is to use federal grant funding and revenue bonds. There are federal stimulus grants totaling $7.2 billion. Of that, ARRA provides at least $4.35 billion in funding for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce to distribute under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) for broadband deployment. The first grant application window closes August 14, 2009. It's anticipated that the first grants will be awarded November 7, 2009. There are supposed to be two more rounds of grant awards. All the funds are supposed to be issued by September 2010. 9 The grants are to fund construction and capital costs. The federal share of a project's cost can't exceed 80 percent, but applicants can petition for a waiver of their required 20 percent. ➢ LMCC's intent is to request 100 percent funding, or $47 million, for these costs. The remaining portion of the $60 million project cost ($13 million) will come from LMCC issued revenue bonds. There would not be any obligation to the cities. Tile $13 million is needed for operations until the FTTH network becomes cash flow positive; that is expected to occur by the end of the second year of operating. ➢ The grant application rules were released Jule 1, 2009. The document was 121 pages long. ➢ The LMCC retained two consultants to prepare information for the grant application. Their report was completed by the end 01'.11-111e. ➢ The LMCC Executive Committee will discuss the grant application process during it July 21" meeting. Woodruff explained the LMCC asks each of the cities to adopt a resolution that indicates it's committed to supporting the process. A copy of the resolution was included in the meeting packet for this meeting. The resolution basically states the LMCC is intending to ask for federal stimulus money and if it is awarded a federal grant the City will cooperate per the City's regulations for granting right-of-way access, and that the City understands the project will be done by the LMCC using funding from a federal grant and revenue bonds and that there will be no obligation to the City. It was clarified that the grant appl ication is to fund the development of a FTTH network. Councilmember Zerby stated the City would be giving away right-of-way access. He asked if there would be any cost to the City. Councilmember Woodruff stated the current plans assume the network will be entirely undergrounded. He also stated the City has its process for granting right-of-way access, and that process has to be followed. If there are any fees the LMCC would have to pay them. The LMCC would also have to pay any expenses to restore the right-of-way. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-039 "A Resolution to Support the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) in its Application for Federal Stimulus Funding for Construction of a Fibre-to-the-Home Network." Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Liz& stated this is exciting. B. City Hall Landscape Preliminary Concept Plan Director Nielsen stated the City has received a preliminary concept plan for landscaping around City Hall. The focus has been on the foundation plantings around the building. His memorandum contained in the meeting packet details the types of plantings being proposed. Staff continues to work with the consultant _A COUNC - _ I IG MINUTES July I Pager 16 o_ " to identify some type of a low blooming plant alternative to grass on the west side of the building adjacent to Country Club road as well as down the slope in the front of the building. The majority of the plantings are native to Minnesota. There has been discussion about the berm area on the north side of the parking lot. The landscape architect will identify a location for the sign in the berm, and it's proposed that a garden be placed around the sign and have it be maintained by the local gardeners. He noted Staff continues to work with Metro Bloom on the rain garden proposed for the City-owned property next to City Hall. Director Nielsen asked if any of the CounciImembers would like to meet with the consultant about the plantings. Mayor Lizee stated she would like to have that opportunity. Councilmember Turgeon stated the plan indicates Techny Arborvitae will be planted in places. She suggested something else be planted as deer like eat her Arborvitae. Director Nielsen stated to date the City has not had that problem. Councilmember Woodruff stated when Council discussed landscaping a'year ago it talked about wanting landscaping that was sustainable, low maintenance, demonstrated Green concepts and so forth. The concept plan does not reflect much of that. He expressed the landscaping is not in sync with the direction provided by Council. Council wanted to demonstrate to residents that the City is doing what Council preaches, and that there are examples for residents to come and look at. He then stated the majority of the proposed plantings are not native to Minnesota. Theyare commonly used and available in Minnesota. If the objective is to show residents how to use plants native to Minnesota, the current recommendation for plants will not accomplish that. He explained the recommended plant of Walkers Low Nepeta is an invasive plant, but it may not be a problem based on where it will be located. He stated no information has been provided about how the plantings will be watered, or what maintenance or drainage will be required. He thought the City was a long way from havmg- a plan it should implement. He commented the plan does recommend very reasonably priced plants. Director Nielsen stated if Council wants a demonstration project where residents can come and look at plantings they can plant in their yards, this is not the plan. It's not an innovative plan. The consultant was told to focus on low maintenance plantings. The consultant claimed the recommended plantings were primarily native plants. Mayor Lizee stated she would like to meet with Director Nielsen and the landscape designers to get more information. She expressed concert about drainage. She stated she would prefer to use native plants that are a little more creative. One of Council's objectives was to show people how to have a low maintenance, sustainable garden. Although the plan does that, it's not very exciting. She recommended the plan be phased in because of the cost. Director Nielsen stated whatever plan is agreed to will be one that can be phased in. Director Nielsen stated the focus has been on landscaping for the entry area, the berm on the north side of the parking lot and the west side of the building. Councilmember Zerby asked if the volunteer gardeners could help with the actual planting activities C. Council Procedures and Policies Administrator Heck stated this item was continued from the June 22, 2009, Council meeting agenda. 01 4 - - ~t1 Ct r __ES P,® ~0q `2 Councilmember Woodruff stated he is very enthusiastic about having the policies and procedures for council operations complete. He then reviewed the changes he recommended be made to the document included in the meeting packet for this meeting. The recommended changes are as follows. Item 3.1 Agenda - change unanimous vote to majority vote. Item 3.3 Delivery of Agenda - change Friday to Thursday. Item 3.5 Varying Order - after discussion there was agreement to change it to better reflect when public hearings are started. Item 3.7 Consent Agenda - change may abstain to may abstain or recuse. Item 4.1 Presiding Officer - add something to indicate how many council members must vote to approve an alternate. Item 4.3 Maintenance of Order - after discussion about the protocol for asking questions there was agreement to leave it the way it is. ➢ Item 4.4 Powers - the statement about appealing to the council should be expanded to include a reference to the specific appeal process that would be followed. ➢ Item 5.9 Limitation of Debate - insert the word member after council. ➢ Item 6.3 Limitations regarding Public comments and Reports - in the sentence about an appeal procedure being available clarify what authority the mayor has to not allow oral communication outside of that procedure. ➢ Something needs to be added about the City's policy for video recording of meetings and their availability on Cable television. ➢ Item 10.1 Ordinances/Introduction - after discussion there was consensus to leave it the way it is. ➢ Item 11.1 Committee Designated expand it to explain how committee members are chosen and eliminate the reference to speei lic committees. ➢ Item 11.2 Referrals and Reports - add conunission when there is a reference to committee. Woodruff stated he thought the policies and procedures document is wonderful. Couneilmember Zerby state he thought this was a great step forward. The policies and procedures add a lot of clarity. He then stated he could support Couneilmember Woodruffs recommended changes. He noted Council can modify this document if it decides it's necessary. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, adopting the policies and procedures for council operations subject to the changes recommended above. Couneilmember Bailey reviewed changes he recommends be made to the policies and procedures document. ➢ Item 3.6 Public Comments - in addition to the mayor the majority of the council should be able to recognize someone from the public. Clarify the second paragraph to indicate it's about matters from the floor. ➢ Item 6.2 Addressing the Council after Motion is Made - in addition to the mayor the majority of the council should be able to grant permission. ➢ Items 5.13 Amendment of Rules and Item 7.7 Motion to Suspend Rules - both refer to two-thirds of the actual council membership; four-fifths may more accurately reflect the super-majority of the council. ➢ Item 6.3 Limitations Regarding Public Comments and Reports - in addition to the mayor the majority of the council should be able to not allow oral communication. Cl W II,AR COON -TING MINUTES Ira 6 Item 7.6 Motion to Fix Hour of Adjournment - having midnight as the time a meeting must end is too late. Item 7.10 Motion to Amend - the intent of this is unclear. It was clarified this is indemnification language. Item 11.1 Committees Designated - eliminate the reference to specific committees. Without objection by the seconded, the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. There was Council consensus to change the time by which a meeting must end from midnight to 11:00 P.M. There was Council consensus to consider adopting the rules after it has been provided the opportunity to review the modified document. D. Southshore Community Center Improvement Funding Request Kristi Anderson, Managing Director of the Southshore Community Center (the Center), stated she has been in her role for slightly less than two weeks. This past week she has taken the time to assess the needs of the Center, She noted CRR's original RFP response identified a few immediate needs that should be addressed in the relatively near future. She explained there are places where the wallpaper in the Center is taped together. There are many large stains in the carpet, particutarly in the dining area, that cannot be removed with cleaning. The environment in the Center is very sterile. To be competitive against other facilities the Center has to be marketed against it needs a facelift. She displayed photographs she took of other facilities she visited. She visited the Minnetonka Community Center, the Chanhassen Legion, the Chanhassen Recreation Center, the Plymouth Creek Center and the Maple Grove Community Center. Director Anderson stated she thou?-}ht it prudent to make an investment in the Center. It would demonstrate to the community that the City is committed to making the Center a success. She has received a professional estimate in the amount of approximately $8,000 to paint the entire Center including the metal doors and to remove the wallpaper. She also received an estimate to replace the carpet and install a wood dance floor for an amount of approximately $18,000. She thought it would be difficult to justify a higher rental rate structure without making any improvements. Director Anderson requested Council authorize her to obtain more detailed quotes from contractors to repaint and re-carpet the Center and install a wood dance floor in the Center. Councilmember Bailey stated lie appreciated Director Anderson's perspective. But, he wants to be assured that Director Anderson is committed to running the Center as a solid business. He wants the Center to be profitable enough to pay back the funds. Anderson stated in the scope of services she identified in the CRR proposal it stated her number one objective is to successfully market and rent the Center. She recommended the improvements be made before she prepares marketing materials which will contain photographs of the Center. Councilmember Turgeon commented that she was responsible for renting the Center for one year a few years ago. She stated she agreed the Center needs new carpet and it needs to be painted, but she is not sure it needs to be done right now. She stated during her tenure as the rental agent she did not receive complaints about the look of the Center. The most significant problem in trying to market the Center is its size; it can only accommodate approximately 150 people. Director Anderson stated it can accommodate 175 people seated at tables. Turgeon stated only three parties had wanted a dance floor when she was renting the Center, and she noted the Friends had discussed possibly installing a wood dance floor when C 'T'S' F R W _r ~tJI A v v v:: - m. a a.. .✓III v ~v JU , Mayor Lizee stated that although she appreciated Councilmember Turgeon's comments Turgeon had not been the rental agent for a few years. She stated the market conditions for facilities like this have changed over the years, and the Center is three or more years older then when Turgeon was the rental agent. She thought the Center looked tired and it needs to be updated. She stated the Center has to be competitive against other facilities. She noted that Council had indicated that it wanted to make the necessary investments in the Center so it could be a success. She acknowledged it would be nice to add other amenities, but she thought the appearance of the interior needs to be improved first. She thought it prudent to get more detailed information about the costs to make Director Anderson's recommended improvements. Councihnember Zerby stated if improvements aren't made toe>he Center the number of rentals will be negatively impacted. He explained the market conditions havo changed; there are more facilities for rent then there were when Councilmember Turgeon was the rental agent. He stated lie would support having Director Anderson obtain more detailed estimates. Councilmember Turgeon asked if the oversight committee for the Center operations has prepared a prioritized list of all of the things that should be done or added to the Center and the cost to do so, along with a list of what the competition is. Councilmember Zerby stated the committee toured the facility, and it discussed the keyless entry system and the need for Internet access which Administrator Heck is working on. He thought the projection screen and white boards are not priorities, with which Director Anderson agreed. He did not think the list of whatneeds to be done in the next twelve months is complete. Councihnember Woodruff stated the committee discussed the longer list that Anderson has. He and Councilmember Zerby did give Administrator Heck direction to pursue getting an internet connection installed along with a prirntei ; that along witb the keyless entry system is a cost of doing business. Councilmember Woodruff stated he supports having Director Anderson obtain detailed quotes. Council needs to have a serious discussion about ]now to pay for the improvements. He requested Administrator Heck and Director Anderson prepare a proforma on the Center for the rest of 2009. Tine City has resources to cover the costs, but it's prudent to know what the City's committing to. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Southshore Community Center Managing Director Anderson to obtain quotes for the installation of new carpet and flooring, as well as the interior painting of the facility. Motion passed 5/0. Director Anderson encouraged Council to strongly consider authorizing the recommended improvements. She informed the Southshore Center working group who considered her RFP of the need to replace the carpet, install wood flooring, paint the interior, provide internet access and a printer, and possibly install shelving and improve the sound system. Now that she has had the opportunity to look at the Center more closely she is even more convinced of the need to make the much needed improvements. E. Planning Commission Vacancy CITY v .)D REC - W C UNCI'- July 13, Rage 20 a " Administrator Heck stated the City had received notice from two individuals interested in the open Planning Commission position, and earlier that day he also received a phone call and notice of interest from another interested person. He noted Council had previously interviewed one of the interested individuals to be the City's representative on the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission. He asked Council how it would like to approach filling the vacancy. Director Nielsen indicated that because of the vacancy the Planning Commission has experienced a few situations where there has been a lack of a quorum. Councilmember Bailey stated if Council was going to have to meet on June 20, 2009, to interview the candidates he suggested Council have a budget work session to discuss some of the recommendations Councilmember Woodruff had made about the 2010 draft budget. Councilmember Woodruff stated he has a commitment at the Deephaven Council meeting that evening but he will try and work around the commitment. Mayor Lizee stated she did not want to have a work session on July 20`x' unless Council was committed to addressing most of their operating budget concerns. She then stated the combined time for the special meeting and the budget work session should be no more than `two hours. There was Council consensus to interview the candidates during a special session on July 20, 2009, and to have a budget work session immediately following the special meeting. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee. Director Nielsen stated even if a new Planning Commissioner were selected that evening it would not provide him with the time to orient the new Commissioner prior to the July 22, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion moved to Item 11.B.1 on the ll. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff - Administrator Heck stated lie hopes to have the final punch list for the City Hall renovation project prepared shortly. He and Director Burton have been working on closing out the operations of the Southshore Community Center for the period of March through June 2009. He has provided the Councilmembers with all the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) 2010 draft budget information that lie has received. He noted the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) has dropped down to 0.83 percent. He anticipates the cities will receive notice of what the certified IPD will be in the next three weeks. He explained if Shorewood were to take its share of the cost for police salaries and benefits out of its base levy and put them in a special levy its base levy has to be reduced by the same amount. He would not recommend Shorewood do that because that would reduce its base levy to provide other services. He stated the League of Minnesota Cities estimates the state budget shortfall to be anywhere from $4 billion to $7 billion for 2012 and 2013. He thought it prudent for Council to consider the long-term impact on decisions made about the City's budget. Director Nielsen stated the City has two good candidates for providing hearing officer services for administrative code enforcement appeals. He assumes Council will want to interview them. B. Mayor and City Council C_ -A v..✓ 1NUTES July I , Page 21 c '2 Councilmember Bailey requested SLMPD Chief Litsey provide more information on SLMPD general fund reserves and reserves in the designated funds. He would like to know what happens each budget year when revenues exceed expenses. Mayor Lizee stated the SLMPD auditor recommends the general find reserves be no less than 5 percent, and that level of reserves is not high enough to plan on using them to help offset shortfalls. Councilmember Turgeon commented there were approximately $118,000 in general fund reserves at the end of 2008 and there were approximately $180,000 in reserves of the designated funds. Mayor Lizee suggested Councilmembers schedule time with SLMPD Chief Litsey and have him address their questions. Councilmember Woodruff stated he attended a recent Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board meeting during which the idea of creating an exotics prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka was discussed. A number of other agencies participated in that discussion. The goal is to have the plan prepared by the end of the year with implementation beginning no later than March 2010. He noted an aquatic invasive species named flowering rush has been found in Smiths Bay and Browns Bay. The DNR is trying to determine how prevalent this species is in the Lake. He explained that people can buy this plant and put it in their ponds, but they must be careful of what they put in the Lake. Councilmember Turgeon sated she had spoken with Dircctor Nielsen about the Gideon Glen property which she thinks is an eyesore. She asked someone from the Watershed District, who happened to be at the site, what the cooperative agreement between the City and the Watershed District stipulates as the City's responsibilities for maintaining the area are. She asked Staff to work with the Watershed District on this. Mayor Lizee stated there is a City Hall open house scheduled for Wednesday, July 15`x', from 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. The Excelsior Fire Department annual firefighters fundraising dance is schedule for Friday, July 17`x', from 5:00 P.M. to midnight. Discussion moved to Item 12 on the agenda 1. Mayor Discuss Proposal for Joint County Road 19 Trail Meeting This was discussed after Item 10. E. Mayor Lizee stated there has been a group that has been meeting for the last two years regarding the possibility of connecting the Dakota Trail in Orono and the LRT Trail. The formation of the group was initiated by Orono Mayor White. She has met with Orono Mayor White and Tonka Bay Mayor LaBelle on this. There has been a lot of preliminary design work done by Hennepin County, the Three Rivers Park District, the Cities of Orono, Shorewood and Tonka Bay and the Metropolitan Council. A few weeks ago she was been contacted by Andrew Gillett at Hennepin County about having a joint meeting of the three Cities Councils at the Grey Freshwater Center to discuss this opportunity. The joint meeting of the Councils has to be called by the Mayors of the Cities. Mr. Gillett will work with the Cities' Administrators to schedule the meeting. Discussion returned to Item I LA on the agenda. Cl ' S 1, r IUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July I ' ' Page 22o 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of July 13, 2009, at 10®29 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY C . 0AD CITY C' 7 Cc _ MONDA ULY 20, 2009 5:30 - A- l~ anv .s Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey (arrived at 5:37 P.M.), Turgeon, and Woodruff; and Administrator Heck Absent: Councilmember Zerby B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 310. 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMF,NT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION The following candidates were interviewed for the consideration of appointment to the Planning Commission. A. Bethany Connelly, 6040 Oak View Court 5:30 p.m. B. Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail 5:45 p.m. C. Brian Kearns, 5080 Anthony Terrace 6:00 p.m. 3. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of July 20, 2009, at 6:42 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk #ZD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL, CHAMBERS Meeting to begin following the 5:3 P.M. Special Meeting MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORD SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:47 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Liz6e; Councihnembers Bailey, Turgeon, and Woodruff, Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: Councilmember Zerby B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. 2010 BUDGET Administrator Heck stated the meeting packet for this evening included a memorandum coauthored by Director Burton and him outlining recommended adjustments that could be made to draft 2010 general find budget. The draft budget was discussed during Council's June 22, 2009, work session. He explained the adjustments were identified after he and 13urtornagain met with the department heads about their budgets. They also took into consideration comments that were made during the work session. During the work session there was discussion as to v-vhether it was appropriate to allot $24,000 for merit pay increases and $5,000 for the appreciation event for Staff and volunteers, and about training and memberships. The majority of the adjustments were reductions in expenses. Additional resources are recommended to be allotted to streets and roadways ($12,000) as well as parks ($3,900). The net effect of the adjustments was a decrease of $25,376 in proposed expenses, not including personnel adjustments. The memorandum also identifies potential staffing related adjustments, noting that during the June 22°d work session Councilmember Zerby asked if any staffing reductions were being considered based on the current economic conditions. He clarified he has not made any specific recommeuldations about staffing adjustments. Heck explained the proposed transfers from the General Fund to the Streets and Roadway Fund and to the Parks and Recreation Fund are the same as the transfers budgeted for 2009. These are the priorities identified by Council. Consideration can be given to reducing the transfer from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund to $100,000 from $175,000 without it negatively impacting the equipment replacement schedule for the next three years. Heck then explained that most of the department budgets include an allocation for office supplies. Essentially all of the office supplies are purchased through the General Government budget. There is no need for each department to have an allocation for office supplies unless the supply is specific to an individual department (e.g., check stock for the Finance Department). Heck reviewed the potential 2010 budget adjustments, not including personnel, which are as follows. #2E - - - - - - 'ME--- - -IN a., P, ➢ Mayor and Council • Miscellaneous supplies - reduce the amount to $1,000 from $1,200. • Travel, conference and schools - reduce the amount to $1,000 from $2,000. Staff recommends Council consider attending the annual conference of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the legislative conference the LMC has with other organizations. These conferences are not that expensive to attend as they are held locally. • Appreciation event - reduce the amount to $2,500 from $5,000 so some type of event can be held at a location that would be less expensive than holding it at tine Minnetonka Country Club. ® Dues and subscription - reduce the amount to $42,673 from $43,100. Some of the subscriptions include the League of Minnesota Cities, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Association of Metro Cities, and the Chamber of Commerce July Fourth Celebration. • The place holder for the treatment program for Eurasian Watermilfoil has been placed in the Parks and Recreation budget. • Tine recommended reductions total $4,127. ➢ Administration • General supplies - reduce the amount to zero frorn $200. • Travel, conference and schools - redLicc the amount to $2,200 from $4,000. Staff suggests attendance at annual national conferences be scheduled for alternating years. • Contractual - reduce the amount to zero from $500. • The recommended reductions total $2.500. ➢ General Government • Part-time help --reduce the amount to $1,000 from $10,800. The City has hired temporary help to scan historical documents into the Laserfiche system. Much of this has been completed. It is the individual departments' responsibilities to scan new documents. The ,,mauling $1,000 is to fund other temporary needs. • Travel, conference and schools - reduce the amount to $2,950 from $3,950. The $1,000 reduction is for tuition reimbursement. The City has a tuition rcinnbursement.program, but the policy indicates that can occur if budgeted for. • The recommended reductions total $10,800. ➢ Elections Furniture :and fixtures - reduce the amount to $600 from $1,200. Two voting booths will be purchased instead of four. ➢ Finance • Travel, conference and schools - reduce the amount to $3,800 from $4,800. Attend the national conference alternating years. • Capital outlay - reduce the amount to zero from $1,500. The laser printer will be replaced in 2009. • The recommended reductions total $2,500. ➢ Professional Services • Miscellaneous services - reduce the amount to zero from $8,000. In tine past it has been the custom to budget $8,000 - $10,000 to fund the need for unexpected consulting services. Heck stated that is what reserves are for. ➢ Planning and Zoning • Office supplies - reduce the amount to zero from $200 • General supplies - reduce tine amount to $250 from $500. • Travel, conference and schools - reduce the amount to $1,900 from 4,000. Cl ..'00 E°ING Mt fr Pa Communication - reduce the amount to $1,000 from $2,000. Two analog lines will remain for the fire protection system. Utilities - reduce the amount to $9,000 from $12,000. Rental - reduce the amount to $1,000 from $1,500. o The recommended reductions total $4,500. ➢ Public Works General supplies - reduce the amount to $9,000 from $10,000. Utilities - reduce the amount to $15,000 from $18,400. Bailey noted the budget for fuel in 2009 was increased close to $10,000 because of the high cost of fuel. Woodruff stated there would not be huge increases in the cost of diesel fuel in 2010. Staff will ven ('N', the budget for fuel is accurate based on historical consumption. • The recommended reductions total $4.400. ➢ Streets and Roadways • General supplies - increase the amount to $85,000 from $73,000. The amount is based on the price of asphalt being, $65 per ton for 1,250 tons. ➢ Sanitation Personnel - reduce the amount to zero from $649. ➢ Parks • Maintenance, bt1ildinns - reduce the amount to $1,000 from $2,000. • General supplies increase the amount to $10,000 from $8,000 based on historical data. o Consulting reduce the amount to zero from $1,000. Contractual - increase the amount to $67,000 from $63,100. The amount reflects the costs for CRR to provide park scheduling and park coordination activities for the year. The contribution to the Southshore Center was eliminated and the $6,000 placeholder for the chemical treatment of Eurasian Watermilfoil was added. • The recommended adjustments total an increase of $3,900. Councilmember Woodruff stated it is his recollection that the City had made a decision to take over some of the maintenance responsibilities for the ball fields located in Freeman Park from the South Tonka Little League (STLL). Director Brown stated there was $3,600 in fence repairs that had to be made and the City should be responsible for the repairs because it's the City's backstop. That repair basically used up the budget allocation for Parks general supplies. The general supplies budget for Parks has already been used up this year. Woodruff asked Staff would recommend be budgeted for similar work at the ball fields in Freeman Park. Woodruff noted the concession stand near the fields needs to be re-roofed, and he thought it would be a maintenance expense not a capital expense. Director Brown stated there is usually a maintenance need that costs $2,000 - $4,000 each year. He noted that in the past STLL has typically repaired things such as the back stops. Woodruff suggested the budget include a place holder for need-to-have maintenance, noting the fence repair was borderline need-to-have maintenance. He stated the replacement of the roof CITY OF, MEETING MINUTE July 2 , Page 4 of on the concession stand is a need to have item. Councilmember Bailey stated it's not the City's responsibility to have state-of-the-art ball fields; it should provide adequate and safe fields. Mayor Lizee stated that historically STLL has partnered with the City on keeping the fields maintained. There was lengthy ensuing discussion about whether the City or SILL was responsible for replacing the roof on the small concession stand. STLL built the stand and the City owns it because it's on City property. STLL receives all the benefits from the stand. Councilmember Bailey questioned why the City should have to maintain the stand when it does not share in the benefits of it. He stated STLL keeps all the revenues generated at the stand, noting the purpose of the stand is to generate revenues. He explained he supported having sponsorship signs on the ball field fences in Freeman Park because it does not cost the City anything. Mayor Lizee stated the City owns the structure because it's on City property and she questioned why the City would treat this structure any differently. Bailey suggested Staff and the STLL discuss what each party's role should be in maintaining the structure. Director Brown explained the City has a Park Capital Improvement Program, and it is his recollection that the new roof would be funded out of the Park CIP. Every year a repair or maintenance issue at the ball fields arises that costs $2,000 - $3,000. He recommended' budgeting $3,000 for the small maintenance needs. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the budget have a place holder for small maintenance needs at the ball fields in Freeman Park. Councilmember Bailey stated he wanted Council to have a candid discussion about the concession stand before there is any consideration of the City funding a new roof for the stand. Administrator Heck explained the Public Works Department has been short one position since December 2008, and that has left the Department. with seven full-time personnel to maintain roads, parks, sewer, storm water, and equipment. He related it's Director Brown's goal to have all Lead Equipment Operators (LEOs) to have utility licenses; this would allow for more effective use of staff because more staff could be allocated to a project. Administrator Heck reviewed possible personnel time adjustments, noting he has not made any recommendation about these possibilities. ➢ The pool for merit wage increases could be reduced to zero form $24,000. ➢ The Planning Assistant for Planning and Zoning could be reduced by 0.1 hours. ➢ The Planning Assistant for Protective Inspections could be reduced by 0.1 hours; the work could be reallocated to the Planning Assistant for Planning and Zoning or the Administrative Assistant. If done, the description for this position should be changed to reflect website maintenance responsibilities only. ➢ The 0.5 hours the Park Secretary spends on protective inspections could instead be spent on parks related activities. ➢ LEO Public Works related activities could be reduced by 0.3 hours. ➢ LEO streets and roads related activities could be reduced by 0.45 hours. ➢ LEO snow and ice related activities could be reduced by 0.14 hours. ➢ LEO tree related activities could be reduced by 0.08 hours. Councilmember Woodruff stated he did not want to under staff Public Works. He questioned if there was an opportunity to make the open Public Works position a part-time, seasonal position. He thought there is more work in that Department in the summer. CITE' - 1. S A , a Page-, Administrator Heck stated Council has indicated it wants an aggressive program for roadway seal coating, and Public Works has to repair the roads for seal coating. The Department has to also keep up with all of the inspection and maintenance work for the sewer system. The Department also has to flush the hydrants, and maintain the wells. He and Director Brown have not discussed whether it would work to have a seasonal person to work on the roadways. Mayor Lizee stated the Public Works department has many activities it has to do in non summer months. She noted Council has talked about replacing Dennis Johnson, a former employee, with another full-time position. She commented the Public Works Department does hire part-time people during the summer. She stated Council has placed a high priority on streets and roadways and there needs to be sufficient staff to do the work. Also, there are many state and federal mandates that must be met for things such as NPDES, storm water management and so forth. Councilmember Turgeon stated that from her vantage point most of the mandates were engineering related. Director Brown explained that with the current crew of seven the, City will not meet its requirements. During his tenure with the City there has only been one year when roadways were not repaired before they were seal coated; he did not want to go through that again. He then cited an example of when a sanitary sewer backup occurred. The backup was not directly the fault of the City, but the first thing the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) asked to see was the City s maintenance records. This will be the first year the City will not be able to inform the LMC that it was able to. meet its goal of cleaning one- fifth of the City's sewer system; substantially less was cleaned. The LMC indicated the City should not let that happen again. He related that Councilmember Woodruff has in the past asked why the City is not satisfying its NPDES requirements. He stated the Staff does check the City's allotment of storm water structures because it is a federal mandate. He explained there are winter activities the Public Works staff must perform. He explained that when he first came to work at the City ice rinks would not be cleared after a Friday snowfall until the following.; Monday morning, and the trails would not be cleared until at least one day after the snowfall. Now the trails and ice rinks are cleared right after the roadways are cleared. He noted that he personally routinely plows the trail and small lots, and even sometimes the ice rinks. Councilmember Turgeon suggested Staff conduct an assessment of all of the Public Works staffing needs. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City has taken on many obligations because of the mandates. If the mandates are really related to enterprise activities then he would like to have the cost of doing them appropriately reflected in those budgets and not in the operating budget. He questioned if the shortage of an employee in Public Works for the last six months was sustainable. Administrator Heck stated Public Works personnel are also allocated to enterprise activities. Administrator Heck stated he and Director Brown will review the staffing needs and allocation for Public Works positions. Administrator Heck again stated the transfer from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund will be reduced to $100,000 from $175,000. Mayor Lizee questioned what the longer-term impact of that reduction will be. She cautioned against making reductions for a short-term benefit that will have a negative impact on long-term needs. Administrator Heck stated lie thought it would be not impact the three-year replacement schedule. The reduction still allows for the schedule to be reasonable and sustainable for the next three to five years. Director Burton stated the City has a history of reducing transfers to capital funds when economic times are bad and restoring the transfers to compensate for prior year reductions when economic times are better. i6c Councilmember Woodruff stated it's nice to have a replacement schedule in the CIP, but when economic conditions are poor the City has to consider whether the replacements are a necessity. Director Brown explained that because Staff has recommended the purchase of used equipment in some instances the Equipment Replacement Fund is in a better position than it would have otherwise been. Councilmember Turgeon commended Staff for finding approximately $100,000 in reductions. Councilmember Woodruff stated there is a proposed $25,376 in operating expense savings (not including staff reductions and a $3,000 increase in parks maintenance) and a decrease in the transfer to the Equipment Replacement Fund. He requested Staff review the staffing needs for Public Works and the budget for fuel. Councilmember Bailey stated the draft budget includes a transfer of $40,000 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund. He noted the Liquor Fund did not earn $40,000 in interest in 2008. He wanted Council to understand the transfer to the General Fund from the Liquor Fund was going to include principal and interest. The Liquor Fund is being reduced in order to fund operations. Administrator Heck asked what Council's priorities were for the use of the Liquor Fund. Councilmember Woodruff stated it was his recollection that for General Fund purposes there would he a $40,000 transfer to the General Fund. Woodruff then stated the Liquor Fund was probably only earning $8,000 in interest. He recommended Council consider using the Liquor Fund to fund parks needs. He stated it may not be possible to make the transfer to the General Fund. Mayor Lizee stated the use of the Liquor Fund should be had in the near future. 3. ADJOURN Bailey moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of July 20, 2009, at 7:35 P.M. Motion passed 4/0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk De inane Item Description: r From: Michelle Nguyen,, Bonnie Burtort- Brian Heck ; °I Meeting Item Number July 7, 2009 3A Verified Claims Background / Previous Action The Verified Claims are presented for council authorization. The attached claims list includes checks numbered 48670 through 48724, totaling $329,923.69. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 7/23/2009 12:24 PM VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 7/14/2009 THRU 99/99/9999 A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT CHECK VENDOR T.D. NAME STATUS DATE 00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 7/21/2009 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 7/21/2009 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 7/21/2009 16625 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS R 7/21/2009 00052 PERA R 7/21/2009 20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC R 7/21/2009 1 COLEMAN, DANIEL J. R 7/27/2009 1 SHOREWOOD HOLDING LLC R 7/27/2009 00700 ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP R 7/27/2009 00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN R 7/27/2009 01300 ALBINSON PRO COLOR R 7/27/2009 1 ALL PARTITIONS & PARTS R 7/27/2009 01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 7/27/2009 03325 BOYER TRUCK PARTS DISTRIBUTION R 7/27/2009 1 CHRIS & AMY HAMDORF R 7/27/2009 29275 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON R 7/27/2009 29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 7/27/2009 05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES R 7/27/2009 29283 CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. R 7/27/2009 05875 CUB FOODS R 7/27/2009 05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 7/27/2009 29276 DELANO RENTAL, INC. R 7/27/2009 PAGE: 2 CHECK CHECK CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 000000 12,391.42 000000 2,257.65 048670 1,820.56 048671 32.00 048672 6,584.32 048674 305.00 048675 398.02 048676 215.47 048677 6,635.00 048678 357.00 048679 49.54 048680 132.00 048681 230.00 048682 226.30 048683 7,875.00 048684 60.00 048685 847.47 048686 4,645.00 048687 204.00 048688 68.99 048689 33.50 048690 367.59 7/23/2009 12:24 PM A/C HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: _ BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 7/14/2009 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE 07480 EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING R 7/27/2009 07600 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF R 7/27/2009 1 GOPHER SIGN COMPANY R 7/27/2009 09501 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIAT R 7/27/2009 29232 HECK, BRIAN R 7/27/2009 06654 HENN CTY HUMAN SVC DEPT PUBLIC R 7/27/2009 10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 7/27/2009 10503 HENN CTY TREAS.-TAXPYER SVCS D R 7/27/2009 11520 JANI-KING OF MINNESOTA, INC. R 7/27/2009 11650 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED R 7/27/2009 12125 KINKO'S R 7/27/2009 13070 LANDINI, JAMES R 7/27/2009 00079 MEDICA R 7/27/2009 15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER R 7/27/2009 15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC R 7/27/2009 29284 MINNESOTA SODA BLASTING, INC. R 7/27/2009 06645 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY R 7/27/2009 14050 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY R 7/27/2009 17475 MTKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION R 7/27/2009 19950 NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUP R 7/27/2009 29251 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP R 7/27/2009 26100 QWEST R 7/27/2009 CHECK CHECK CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 048691 46.18 048692 4,683.11 048693 158.20 048694 170.00 048695 79.99 048696 658.00 048697 32.00 048698 592.70 048699 223.53 048700 4,241.59 048701 39.41 048702 115.74 048703 12,861.57 048704 48,017.98 048705 162.56 048706 400.00 048707 1,723.58 048708 701.01 048709 1,936.00 048710 67,090.38 048712 777.01 048713 551.66 7/23/2009 12:24 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT VENDOR SET: 01 C20y of Shorewood BANK: = BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 7/14/2009 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE 22490 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN R 7/27/2009 23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 7/27/2009 19435 SPRINT R 7/27/2009 17200 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS R 7/27/2009 23726 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLAN R 7/27/2009 24600 TONKA BAY-CITY OF R 7/27/2009 25000 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES R 7/27/2009 00085 U7UM LIFE INSURANCE CO R 7/27/2009 70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 7/27/2009 22901 VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC R 7/27/2009 28451 WSB AND ASSOCIATES R 7/27/2009 T O T A L S REGULAR CHECKS: HAND CHECKS: DRAFTS: EFT: NON CHECKS: VOID CHECKS: TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 BANK: 1 TOTALS: REPORT TOTALS: PAGE: CHECK CHECK CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 048714 288.00 048715 58,467.79 048716 183.53 048717 58.80 048718 3,736.00 048719 1,193.04 048720 496.22 048721 1,235.20 048722 111.35 048723 784.50 048724 18,259.51 NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED 53 261,162.90 0.00 261,162.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 14,649.07 0.00 14,649.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VOID DEBITS VOID DISCOUNTS VOID CREDITS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 55 275,811 .97 0.00 275,811. 97 55 275,811 .97 0.00 275,811. 97 57 275,811 .97 0.00 275,811. 97 07-23-2009 12:21 AM VENDOR NAME C O U N C I L R E P O R T BY VENDOR NAME - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 1 DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT ABDO, SICK & MEYERS, LLP 7/27/09 2008 AUDIT SVC General Fund Professional Svcs 6,120 .00 7/27/09 2008 AUDIT SVC-FINAL General Fund Professional Svcs 515 .00 TOTAL: ,635 .00 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 7/27/09 AUG-UNION DENTAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 357 .00 TOTAL: 357 .00 ALBINSON PRO COLOR 7/27/09 COLOR PRINTS General Fund Planning 49 .54 TOTAL: 49 .54 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 7/27/09 PARK COMMISSION 7/14 General Fund Parks & Recreation 230 .00 TOTAL: 230 .00 BOYER TRUCK PARTS DISTRIBUTION CTR. 7/27/09 SNOW PLOW General Fund Public Works 226 .30 TOTAL: 226 .30 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 7/27/09 JUN WATER TESTING Water U tility Water 60 .00 TOTAL: 60 .00 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 7/27/09 JULY C.H. CLEAN General Fund Municipal Buildings 0 .00 7/27/09 JULY P.W. CLEAN General Fund Public Works 316 .46 7/27/09 JULY C.H. CLEAN General Fund Public Works 531 .01 TOTAL: 847 .47 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 7/27/09 PARK MTG 7/6-7/17 General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,025 .00 7/27/09 S.S.CTR-CRR SVCS 7/1-7/17 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cents 2,620 .00 TOTAL: 4,645 .00 CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 7/27/09 MRKTG SVC-USERNAME:PHELLIN General Fund Municipal Buildings 204 .00 TOTAL: 204 .00 CUB FOODS 7/27/09 COUNCIL MTG 2/23 & 3/2 General Fund Municipal Buildings 68 .99 TOTAL: 68. 99 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 7/27/09 S.S. CENTER WA SOFTNER Public Facility Fu Public Facility/Off Eq 33. 50 TOTAL: 33. 50 DELANO RENTAL, INC. 7/27/09 RENTAL COMPACTOR General Fund Public Works 367. 59 TOTAL: 367. 59 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,375. 40 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,248. 29 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 759. 72 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80. 60 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18. 87 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 273. 95 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 64. 07 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 401. 61 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 93. 93 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 302. 14 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 70. 66 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 325. 86 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 76. 21 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 211. 53 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 49. 48 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 166. 35 07-23-2009 12:21 AM C O U N C I L VEN-__ DATE R E P O R T By DESCRIPTION VENDOR NAME - JULY 27, 2009 FUND PAGE: 2 DEPARTMENT 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 7/21/09 FICA W/H Genera]. Fund Public Works 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 7/21/09 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 7/21/09 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 7/21/09 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 7/21/09 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 7/21/09 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem Stormwater Management 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem Stormwater Management TOTAL: 1. EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING EXCELSIOR-CITY OF 7/27/09 COUNCIL PLAGUE 7/27/09 2ND QTR WATER FEES General Fund Council Water Utility Water GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 7/27/09 RENEWAL: BONNIE BURTON General Fund Finance 38.90 663.90 155.27 283.40 66.28 271.31 63.45 115.33 26.97 121.22 28.35 4.63 1.08 26.46 TOTAL: 46.18 4,683.11 TOTAL: 4,683.11 170.00 TOTAL: 170 .00 MISC. VENDOR ALL PARTITIONS & PARTS 7/27/09 STAINLESS STEEL SHEFT-INV# City Bldg Project Equipment Replacement 132 .00 CHRIS & AMY HAMDORF 7/27/09 ESCROW -26425 ARBOR CREEK Escrow Deposit Age NON-DEPARTMENTAL 7,875 .00 COLEMAN, DANIEL J. 7/27/09 03-960206-00 Water Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 398 .02 GOPHER SIGN COMPANY 7/27/09 SIGNS- INVOICE 479307 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 158 .20 SHOREWOOD HOLDING LEG 7/27/09 04-270202-02 Water Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 215 .47 TOTAL: 8,778 .69 HECK, BRIAN 7/27/09 JUN CELL REIM General Fund Administration 79 .99 TOTAL: 79 .99 HENN CTY HUMAN SVC DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH 7/27/09 2009 LICENSE-SOUTHSHORE CT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cents 658 .00 TOTAL: 658. 00 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 7/27/09 JUN-800MHZ General Fund Public Works 32. 00 TOTAL: 32. 00 HENN CTY TREAS.-TAXPYER SVCS DIVISION 7/27/09 PID 3211723130035-EASEMENT Street Capital Imp Street Caps Improvemen 592. 70 TOTAL: 592. 70 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,609. 60 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 210. 96 TOTAL: 1,820. 56 JANI-KING OF MINNESOTA, INC. 7/27/09 INCREASE IN WORK DUE TO CO General Fund Municipal Buildings 223. 53 TOTAL: 223. 53 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 7/27/09 GEN RETAINER MATTE General Fund Professional Svcs 1,500. 20 7/27/09 SOUTH SHORE CENTER LEASE General Fund Professional Svcs 1,787. 00 7/27/09 RON JOHNSON MATTERS General Fund Professional Svcs 954. 39 TOTAL: 4,241. 59 07-23-2009 12:21 AM KINKO'S LANDINI, JAMES MEDICA METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS MINNESOTA SODA BLASTING, INC MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY MN DEPT OF REVENUE MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY MTKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUP C O U N C I L R E P O R T By VENDOR NAME - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 3 DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT 7/27/09 20520 EXCEL BLVD COPY General Fund Protective Inspections 39 .41 TOTAL: 39 .41 7/27/09 MILEAGE REIM General Fund City Engineer 13 .75 7/27/09 CPS DATE PHONE General Fund City Engineer 45 .64 7/27/09 JULY_ WELLNESS REIM General Fund City Engineer 40 .00 7/27/09 PIPE HARDWARE Stormwater Managem Stormwater Management 16 .35 TOTAL: 115 .74 7/27/09 AUG MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 12,861 .57 TOTAL: 12,861 .57 7/27/09 AUG WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 48,017 .98 TOTAL: 48,017 .98 7/27/09 2ND QTR BILLING SVC-ENVELO General Fund Finance 162 .56 TOTAL: 162 .56 7/21/09 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32. 00 TOTAL: 32. 00 7/27/09 GRAFFITI REMOVAL PARKS General Fund Parks & Recreation 400. 00 TOTAL: 400. 00 7/27/09 2ND QTR BLDG PRMT REPORT General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,723. 58 TOTAL: 1,723. 58 7/21/09 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,257. 65 TOTAL: 2,257. 65 7/27/09 MOWER PARTS General Fund Public Works 29. 49 7/27/09 MOWER PARTS General Fund Public Works 211. 28 7/27/09 MOWER PARTS General Fund Public Works 30. 18 7/27/09 IRRIGATION PARTS General Fund Parks & Recreation 430. 06 TOTAL: 701. 01 7/27/09 LG SVC JUN 12 - JUL 12 General Fund Parks & Recreation 1,936. 00 TOTAL: 1,936. 00 7/27/09 RADIO READ-TRAINING Water Utility Water 2,500. 00 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER Water Utility Water 1,349. 75 7/27/09 WATER METER Water Utility Water 36. 42 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER Water Utility Water 40,020. 25 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER Water Utility Water 1,422. 34 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER Water Utility Water 21,743. 41 7/27/09 WATER METER Water Utility Water 18. 21 TOTAL: 67,090.38 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PEAR 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,098 .49 General Fund Administration 302 .13 General Fund General Government 420. 34 General Fund Finance 328. 95 General Fund Planning 384. 97 General Fund Protective Inspections 253. 55 General Fund City Engineer 181. 76 General Fund Public Works 748. 46 07-23-2009 12:21 AM C O U N C T 7, R E P O R T BY VENDOR NAME - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 4 VENDOR NAME DAVE ---"DN FUND DEPARTMENT AMO UNT 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 314 .85 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 251 .65 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 130 .32 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 134 .97 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Util ity Recycling 5 .05 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem Stormwater Management 28 .83 TOTAL: 6,584 .32 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP 7/27/09 AUG DENTAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 777 .01 TOTAL: 777 .01 QWEST 7/27/09 JULY SVC Water Utility Water 315 .23 7/27/09 JULY SVC Water Utility Water 236 .43 TOTAL: 551 .66 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN 7/27/09 FLASH CS4 General Fund General Government 288 .00 TOTAL: 288 .00 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 7/27/09 3RD QTR LEASE PYMT General Fund Police Protection 58,235 .00 7/27/09 JUL HENN CTY PROCESSING FE General Fund Police Protection 232 .79 TOTAL: 58,467 .79 SPRINT 7/27/09 JUN 13-JUL 12 SVC Water Utility Water 91 .76 7/27/09 JUN 13-JUL 12 SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 91 .77 TOTAL: 183 .53 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 7/27/09 ORD NO. 459 SUMMARY 07/04 General Fund General Government 58 .80 TOTAL: 58 .80 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 7/27/09 JUN PARK CIP General Fund Parks & Recreation 3,736 .00 TOTAL: 3,736 .00 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 7/27/09 WATER CONNECT Water Utility Water 848 .04 7/27/09 SW CONNECT Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 345 .00 TOTAL: 1,193 .04 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 7/27/09 ENVELOPES & INSPECTION NOT General Fund General Government 496 .22 TOTAL: 496 .22 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO 7/27/09 AUG LIFE PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 1,235 .20 TOTAL: 1,235 .20 VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/09 BRAD N. CELL SVC 6/11-7/10 General Fund Planning 111 .35 TOTAL: 111. 35 VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC 7/27/09 TREE REMOVAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 784. 50 TOTAL: 784. 50 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 305. 00 TOTAL: 305. 00 WSB AND ASSOCIATES 7/27/09 MAY-COMP CONSULTANT General Fund Municipal Buildings 105. 00 7/27/09 MAY-CIP-SMITHTOWN LN Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 6,384. 78 7/27/09 MAY-CIP HARDING LN/AVE REH Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 10,028. 23 7/27/09 MAY-MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 1,741. 50 TOTAL: 18,259. 51 07-23- 2009 12:21 AM C O U N C I L R E P 0 R BY VENDOR NAME - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 5 VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION FUND -'S AMOUNT -PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300 .00 General Fund Administration 4,475 .94 General Fund General Government 6,477 .45 General Fund Finance 4,873 .31 General Fund Planning 5,703. 14 General Fund Protective Inspections 3,756. 41 General Fund City Engineer 2,692. 69 General Fund Public Works 11,087. 85 General Fund Streets & Roadways 4,664. 44 General Fund Parks & Recreation 4,648. 17 Water Utility Water 1,930. 71 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1,999. 65 Recycling Utility Recycling 74. 82 Stormwater Managem Stormwater Management 427. 14 TOTAL: 54,111. 72 FUND TOTALS - 101 General Fund 172,386.71 401 Public Facility Fund 33.50 404 Street Capital Improvemen 18,747.21 410 City Bldg Project Svcs 132.00 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 3,278.00 601 Water Utility 76,141.77 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 50,738.94 621 Recycling Utility 85.58 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 504.98 880 Escrow Deposit Agency 7,875.00 GRAND TOTAL: 329,923.69 TOTAL PAGES: 5 07-23-2009 12:31 AM C 0 U N C I L R E P O R By DEPARTMENT - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 1 -TENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMO UNT NON-DEPARTMENTAL General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FEDERAL W/H 4,375 .40 7/21/09 FICA W/H 3,248 .29 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 759 .72 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DED'U'CTS-PERA 3,098 .49 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,609 .60 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 210 .96 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 7/21/09 STATE W/H 2,257 .65 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 7/27/09 2ND QTR BLDG PRMT REPORT 1,723 .58 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 7/21/09 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS 32 .00 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 305 .00 TOTAL: 17,620 .69 Council General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 80 .60 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 18 .87 EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING 7/27/09 COUNCIL PLAGUE 46 .18 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 1,300 .00 TOTAL: 1,445 .65 Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 273. 95 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 64. 07 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 302. 13 HECK, BRIAR? 7/27/09 JUN CELL REIM 79. 99 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 4,475. 94 TOTAL: 5,196. 08 General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 401. 61 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 93. 93 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 420. 34 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 7/27/09 ORD NO. 459 SUMMARY 07/04 58. 80 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN 7/27/09 FLASH CS4 288. 00 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 7/27/09 ENVELOPES & INSPECTION NOT 496. 22 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 6,477. 45 TOTAL: 8,236. 35 Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 302. 14 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 70. 66 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 328. 95 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 7/27/09 RENEWAL: BONNIE BURTON 170. 00 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 7/27/09 2ND QTR BILLING SVC-ENVELO 162. 56 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 4,873. 31 TOTAL: 5,907. 62 Professional Svcs General Fund ABDO, SICK & MEYERS, LLP 7/27/09 2008 AUDIT SVC 6,120. 00 7/27/09 2008 AUDIT SVC-FINAL 515. 00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 7/27/09 GEN RETAINER MATTE 1,500. 20 7/27/09 SOUTH SHORE CENTER LEASE 1,787. 00 7/27/09 RON JOHNSON MATTERS 954. 39 TOTAL: 10,876. 59 Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 325. 86 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 76. 21 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 384. 97 ALBINSON PRO COLOR 7/27/09 COLOR PRINTS 49. 54 VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/09 BRAD N. CELL SVC 6/11-7/10 111. 35 07-23-2009 12:31 AM C O U N C I L R E P O R" By DEPARTMENT - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 2 DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMO UNT *-PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 5,703 .14 TOTAL: 6,651 .07 Municipal Buildings General Fund CUB FOODS 7/27/09 COUNCIL MTG 2/23 & 3/2 68 .99 JANI-KING OF MINNESOTA, INC. 7/27/09 INCREASE IN WORK DUE TO CO 223 .53 WEB AND ASSOCIATES 7/27/09 MAY-COMP CONSULTANT 105 .00 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 7/27/09 JULY C.H. CLEAN 0 .00 CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 7/27/09 MRKTG SVC-USERNAME:PHELLIN 204 .00 TOTAL: 601 .52 Police Protection General Fund SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 7/27/09 3RD QTR LEASE PYMT 58,235 .00 7/27/09 JUL HENN CTY PROCESSING FE 232 .79 TOTAL: 58,467 .79 Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 211 .53 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 49 .48 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 253 .55 KINKO'S 7/27/09 20520 EXCEL BLVD COPY 39 .41 --PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 3,756 .41 TOTAL: 4,310 .38 City Engineer General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 166 .35 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 38 .90 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 181 .76 LANDINI, JAMES 7/27/09 MILEAGE REIM 13 .75 7/27/09 GPS DATE PHONE 45 .64 7/27/09 JULY WELLNESS REIM 40 .00 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 2,692 .69 TOTAL: 3,179 .09 Public Works General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 663 .90 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 155 .27 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 748 .46 BOYER TRUCK PARTS DISTRIBUTION CTR. 7/27/09 SNOW PLOW 226 .30 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 7/27/09 JUN-800MHZ 32. 00 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 7/27/09 MOWER PARTS 29. 49 7/27/09 MOWER PARTS 211. 28 7/27/09 MOWER PARTS 30. 18 DELANO RENTAL, INC. 7/27/09 RENTAL COMPACTOR 367. 59 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 7/27/09 JULY P.W. CLEAN 316. 46 7/27/09 JULY C.H. CLEAN 531. 01 *-PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 11,087. 85 TOTAL: 14,399. 79 Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 283. 40 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 66. 28 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 314. 85 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 4,664. 44 TOTAL: 5,328. 97 Traffic Control/Str Li General Fund MISC. VENDOR GOPHER SIGN COMPANY 7/27/09 SIGNS- INVOICE 479307 158. 20 TOTAL: 158. 20 Tree Maintenance General Fund VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC 7/27/09 TREE REMOVAL 784. 50 TOTAL: 784. 50 07-23-2009 12:31 AM C O U N C I L R E P O R T BY DEPARTMENT - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 3 DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMO UNT Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 271 .31 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 63 .45 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 251 .65 ANDERSON, KRTST-I B. 7/27/09 PARK COMMISSION 7/14 230 .00 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 7/27/09 PARK MTG 7/6-7/17 2,025 .00 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 7/27/09 IRRIGATION PARTS 430 .06 MTKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION 7/27/09 LG SVC JUN 12 - JUL 12 1,936 .00 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 7/27/09 JUN PARK CIP 3,736 .00 MINNESOTA SODA BLASTING, INC. 7/27/09 GRAFFITI REMOVAL PARKS 400 .00 -PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 4,648 .17 TOTAL: 13,991 .64 Unallocated Expenses General Fund MEDICA 7/27/09 AUG MEDICAL PREM 12,861 .57 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO 7/27/09 AUG LIFE PREM 1,235 .20 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 7/27/09 AUG-UNION DENTAL PREM 357 .00 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP 7/27/09 AUG DENTAL PREM 777 .01 TOTAL: 15,230 .78 Public Facility/Off Eq Public Facility Fu CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 7/27/09 S.S. CENTER WA SOFTNER 33 .50 TOTAL: 33 .50 Street Capt Improvemen Street Capital Imp HENN CTY TREAS.-TAXPYER SVCS DIVISION 7/27/09 PID 321172313nn35-EASEMENT 592 .70 WSB AND ASSOCIATES 7/27/09 MAY-CIP-SMITHTOWN LN 6,384 .78 7/27/09 MAY-CIP HARDING LN/AVE REH 10,028 .23 7/27/09 MAY-MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT 1,741 .50 TOTAL: 18,747 .21 Equipment Replacement City Bldg Project MISC. VENDOR ALL PARTITIONS & PARTS 7/27/09 STAINLESS STEEL SHEFT-INV# 132 .00 TOTAL: 132 .00 Community Cents Southshore Communi COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 7/27/09 S.S.CTR-CRR SVCS 7/1-7/17 2,620 .00 HENN CTY HUMAN SVC DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH 7/27/09 2009 LICENSE-SOUTHSHORE CT 658 .00 TOTAL: 3,278 .00 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Water Utility MISC. VENDOR COLEMAN, DANIEL J. 7/27/09 03-960206-00 SHOREWOOD HOLDING LLC 7/27/09 04-270202-02 TOTAL: Water Water Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H PERA EXCELSIOR-CITY OF SPRINT NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUP TONKA BAY-CITY OF QWEST CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 7/21/09 FICA W/H 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 7/27/09 2ND QTR WATER FEES 7/27/09 JUN 13-JUL 12 SVC 7/27/09 RADIO READ-TRAINING 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER 7/27/09 WATER METER 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER 7/27/09 CIP-WATER METER 7/27/09 WATER METER 7/27/09 WATER CONNECT 7/27/09 JULY SVC 7/27/09 JULY SVC 7/27/09 JUN WATER TESTING 398.02 115.33 26.97 130.32 4,683.11 91.76 2,500.00 1,349.75 36.42 40,020.25 1,422.34 21,743.41 18.21 848.04 315.23 236.43 60.00 07-23-2009 12:31 AM C O U N C T I, R P O R T BY DEPARTMENT - JULY 27, 2009 PAGE: 4 FUND VENDOR . DATE DE ' AMOUNT -PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 1,930 .71 TOTAL: 75,528 .28 Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 121 .22 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 28 .35 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 134 .97 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WAS TEWATER) 7/27/09 AUG WASTEWATER SVC 48,017 .98 SPRINT 7/27/09 JUN 13-JUL 12 SVC 91 .77 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 7/27/09 SW CONNECT 345 .00 -PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 1,999 .65 TOTAL: 50,738 .94 Recycling Recycling Utili ty EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 4. 63 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 1. 08 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 5. 05 -PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 74. 82 TOTAL: 85. 58 Stormwater Management Stormwater Mana gem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/21/09 FICA W/H 26. 46 7/21/09 MEDICARE W/H 6. 20 PERA 7/21/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 28. 83 LANDINT, JAMES 7/27/09 PIPE HARDWARE 16. 35 -PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/20/2009 - 99/99/9999 427. 14 TOTAL: 504. 98 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Escrow Deposit Age MISC. VENDOR CHRIS & AMY HAMDORF 7/27/09 ESCROW -26425 ARBOR CREEK 7,875. 00 TOTAL: 7,875. 00 FUND TOTALS 101 General Fund 172,386. 71 401 Public Facility Fund 33. 50 404 Street Capital Improvemen 18,747. 21 410 City Bldg Project Svcs 132. 00 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 3,278. 00 601 Water Utility 76,141. 77 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 50,738. 94 621 Recycling Utility 85. 58 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 504. 98 880 Escrow Deposit Agency 7,875. 00 GRAND TOTAL: 329,923.69 TOTAL PAGES: 4 Background / Previous Action Last year TTM was granted a conditional use permit to locate communications equipment at the water tower site on Smithtown Road. Although they made their lease payment at the beginning of this year, they have been unable to install their equipment due to delays in cleanup and restoration of the water tower. The Public Works Director has been reporting on this matter for the past few months. Since they cannot get their equipment installed on the site, TTM has requested that their lease payment be credited to start upon installation of their equipment. A draft amendment to the lease agreement to that effect is attached for your consideration. Options Approve the agreement, deny the agreement, or modify the agreement. Staff Recommendation The initial TTM agreement anticipated that the City would receive the lease payment upon installation of the equipment, which was to have occurred at the beginning of this year. Staff agrees that TTM should not have to pay for the time prior to the installation of their equipment and recommends approval of the Lease Agreement Amendment. Since this item is included on the consent agenda, please contact the Planning Director prior to the meeting if you have any questions. Council Action: _ _ _ _ 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO WATER. TOWER LEASE AGREEMENT The FIRST AMENDMENT TO WATER TOWER LEASE AGREEMENT ("First Amendment") is effective this day of , 2009, and is intended to modify that certain WATER TOWER LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated February 13, 2009, ("Agreement") between City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and TTM Operating Corporation, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (Lessee"). Whereas, City has an interest in certain real estate located at 26352 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, Minnesota ("the Property"); and City owns and operates a municipal water tower on the Property (the "Tower"); and Whereas, City and Lessee entered into Agreement for the non-exclusive lease of a portion of the Property and certain space on the Tower for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating certain equipment therein and thereon. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and Lessee agree as follows: I . The initial term of the Agreement shall commence on the date that Lessee begins construction on the Property ("Commencement Date"). 2. City hereby agrees the Base Rent paid by Lessee in the amount of Eighteen 'T'housand Dollars ($18,000.00) shall be carried forward and the next installment shall be pro-rated based on the Commencement Date as described herein at the rate of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) per month. 3. Unless otherwise provided herein, all defined terms shall have the same meaning as ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 4. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this First Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of the First Amendment shall govern and control. 5. Except as otherwise provided in this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with the original terms of the Agreement. In witness whereof, this First Amendment is effective and entered into as of the date first written above. CITY: City of Shorewood By. - Name: Its: Date: LESSEE: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. By: Name: Its: Date: cp. ii,Unt Council Meeting Item Number Administration-Deputy Clerk 7/27/09 Item Description: Adopt the 2009 S-4 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shorewood FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk - CC: Brian Heck, City Administrator Background / Previous Action: On November 22, 2004, Council adopted Ordinance No. 409, which approved the Municipal Code Book recodification provided by American Legal Publishing and the League of Minnesota Cities. With this recodification, the Code Book was current through Ordinance No. 401 passed on February 23, 2004. Three supplements have been completed since the initial recodification. These three supplements included Ordinance No's 402-447. The fourth supplement (S-4) to the City Code Book includes Ordinance No.'s 448 - 456. American Legal Publishing has provided 40 copies of the replacement pages to the City Code Book for this fourth supplement (S-4). The attached Exhibit A provides an outline of the sections/pages of the Code Book that have been updated. The total cost for 52 pages of S-4 was $944. The cost for the on-line searchable Folio format was $200, for a total of $1,144. One additional charge of $200 will be due in October - this is the annual fee to host the Code Book on American Legal's website. The total of these three charges -$1,344 - is under the budget allotment of $1,950. The attached Ordinance accepts the replacement pages, which includes all of the ordinances approved during 2008 and early 2009. (Ordinance No's 448-456), for the City Code Book. The replacement pages were checked for accuracy and were found to be in order. The Code Book is available on the City's Web site in a searchable format, via a link to American Legal Publishing Corporation. Council Action Adoption of an Ordinance to enact and adopt the 2009 S-4 Supplement to the Shorewood City Code Book, provided by American Legal Publishing Corporation; and Adoption of a Resolution approving a summary publication of said Ordinance. Council Action: CITY - -__a- ` ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AN ADOPTING THE 2009 S- SUPPLEMENT T THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA WHEREAS American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, has completed the fourth Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood, which supplement contains all ordinances up through and including Ordinance No. 456 of a general and permanent nature enacted since the prior supplement of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Shorewood to accept these updated sections, as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. That the fourth supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood as submitted by American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, is hereby accepted. Section 2. This ordinance adopting the 2009 S-4 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances shall take effect upon publication in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 27th day of July, 2009. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk J YOOD, MINN ,SOTA istructio feet ®q S - mt MOVE OLD RAGES INSERT NEW RAGES Title page Title page ADOPTING ORDINANCE 7, 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 through 4 1 through 4 TITLE 100: ADMINISTRATION 106-1, 106-2 106-1, 106-2 TITLE 300: BUSINESS REGULATIONS 300-1, 300-2 300-1, 300-2 307-1 through 307-8 307-1, 307-2 TITLE 400: LIQUOR REGULATIONS 401-11, 401-12 401-11, 401-12 TITLE 900: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY 900-1, 900-2 900-1, 900-2 903-9 through 903-12 903-9 through 903-12B 904-5, 904-6 904-5, 904-6 907-1 through 907-4 TITLE 1300: MUNICIPAL FEES 1301-3, 1301-4 1301-3, 1301-4 1301-11, 1301-12 1301-11, 1301-12 PARALLEL REFERENCES 3, 4 3, 4 7,8 7,8 11 through 14 11 through 14 23, 24 23 , 24 27,28 27,28 Exhibit A LEI IN SOTi 4. 'fit _ ;T 2 REMOVE OLD PAGES INSERT NEW PAGES INDEX 11,12 17,18 11,12 17,18 memf 04/09 CITY - - - - - - ESOLUT Oi-4 NO. 09- OFFICIAL SUMMARY F ORDINANCE NO. The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. approved by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, on 27 July 2009: An Ordinance Enacting and Adopting the 2009 S-4 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shorewood, Minnesota which contains all ordinances enacted since the 2008 S-3 Supplement, including Ordinance No.'s 448-456. A printed copy of the Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the Office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 27th day of July, 2009. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Department Council Meeting Item Number Administration 7/27/09 Item Description: Ordinance Amending C~iapter 503.09 of the Shorewood City Code FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator - ,f Background / Previous Action: At its November 13, 2006, enterprise budget work session, Council discussed the city's spring clean-up program, and agreed to discontinue the curbside collection service starting in 2007. The City Code Book states the following in regards to Spring Cleanup: 503.09 SPRING CLEANUP. During the spring season, the city will provide a curbside pickup service for yard waste, trash and household rubbish and a limited drop-off site for certain larger items. The service will be limited to Shorewood residents and the date of the cleanup will be determined by the City Council each year. Staff Recommendation As Curbside Collection was discontinued in 2007, staff recommends changing "will" to "may" in the paragraph above , to read: During the spring season, the city may provide a curbside pickup service for yard waste, trash and household rubbish and a limited drop-off site for certain larger items. The service will be limited to Shorewood residents and the date of the cleanup will be determined by the City Council each year. This minor edit makes it permissive for the city to conduct curbside pick-up, should it ever be determined to reinstate the program in the future. Council Action Adoption of the attached Ordinance amending Chapter 503.09 of the Shorewood City Code as noted above. Council Action: CITY F _ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 503 OF THE SHOREOOD CITY CODE Section 1: Section 503.09, Spring Cleanup, paragraph 1, is hereby amended to read: 503.09 SPRING CLEANUP. During the spring season, the city may provide a curbside pickup service for yard waste, trash and household rubbish and a limited drop-off site for certain larger items. The service will be limited to Shorewood residents and the date of the cleanup will be determined by the City Council each year. Section 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its publication in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of July, 2009. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Department Council Meeting Public Works July 27, 2009 From: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Item (Dumber 3-E Date: July 23, 2009 Description: This item considers the authorization for the expenditure of funds for safety training, safety inspections, safety policy documentation, documentation updates and consultation. Background / Previous Action The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) mandates safety training for all employees. Each year employees must be certified in the following items. • Employee Right to Know • Blood Borne Pathogens • Emergency Action Plan Beyond this training, Public Works Personnel also to be certified annually in the following areas: • AWAIR • Equipment Lockout/Tagout • Confined Space Entry/Rescue • Hearing Conservation • Personal Protective Equipment • Respirators • Trench Safety • Chainsaw Operations • Forklift/Skidsteer Certification • Defensive Driving Safe Assure Inc. has provided these services as a joint project with 11 other lake area communities. Attachment 2 is Safe Assures Proposal. The ability to train with other municipalities provides the opportunity to train at a cost of approximately one tenth the cost of other programs. Council Action: Safe Assure also provides an autc - - I -)ata Safety Sheet program. OSHA mandates that Safe Assure's proposal includes preparation and ongoing maintenance of an MSDS database. Safe Assure will not only keep MSDS files current, but will also provide consultation to any employee(s) about material data, protective equipment and health risks, and will respond to emergency inquiries. Staff is recommending approval of this option. Also included with the services is an annual on site simulated OSHA inspection for Public Works and City Hall. Mr. Chad Petersen of Safe Assure performs these onsite inspections. Mr. Petersen has previously been employed with OSHA. Options 1. Accept the proposal by Safe Assure Consultants 2. Decline said proposal and seek other proposals Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the proposal provided by Safe Assure Consultants for safety services in the amount of $2,775.00. Funding for this proposed expenditure has been budgeted in the Public Works Operating budget as a budgeted item. Sufficient funds for this planned expenditure are available. C as) Phone: C EIV.' - Dr- 'Preparation: 11/26/01 Revision: 4/28/03 II Section 1 - Chemical Product and Company Identification CAS No: 7782-50-5 Molecular Weight: 70.91 Chemical Formula: C12 Distributed by: Hawkins, Inc. 3100 E. Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 (612-331-6910) Section 2 - Composition / Information on Ingredients Ingredient CAS No Percent Hazardous Chlorine 7782-50-5 99.5 - 100% Yes Section 3 - Hazards Identification Emergency Overview STRONG OXIDIZING AGENT. POISON. HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND GAS UNDER PRESSURE. MAY CAUSE CHEMICAL PNEUMONIA AND EVEN DEATH IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS. MAY CAUSE SEVERE IRRITATION TO SKIN , EYES, AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. LIQUID MAY BURN EYES AND SKIN. CAN REACT EXPLOSIVELY WITH ORGANIC PRODUCTS. Potential Health Effects Inhalation: Severe irritant. Coughing, burning, chest pain, vomiting, headache, anxiety and feeling of suffocation. Severe exposure may cause pneumonitis and pulmonary edema. Ingestion: Chlorine is a gas at room temperature. Ingested liquid chlorine can cause severe burns of the mouth, esophagus and stomach. Nausea and vomiting are likely to occur. Skin Contact: Corrosive! Contact with skin can cause irritation or severe burns and scarring with greater exposures. Eye Contact: Corrosive! Severe irritant. High concentrations or contact can cause burns. Chronic Exposure: Above established exposure limits may result in reduced breathing capacity. Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions: Persons with pre-existing impaired respiratory function may be more susceptible to the effects of the substance. Page of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 MSDS SHEET 2 Hots r Section ` - First Ai - E ---es Inh+ ation- Remove to fresh air. Get medical attention for any breathing difficulty. Ingestion: If swallowed, DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING. Give large quantities of water. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention immediately. Skin Contact: Immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes while removing contaminated clothing and shoes. Call a physician, immediately. Wash clothing before reuse. Eye Contact: Immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes, lifting lower and upper eyelids occasionally. Get medical attention immediately. Note to Physician: Monitor closely for delayed onset of pulmonary edema and chemical pneumonia. Provide treatment as is medically indicated. Section 5 - Fire-Fighting Measures NFPA Ratings: Health: 4 Flammability: 0 Reactivity: 0 Other: OX Fire: Not considered to be a fire hazard, but does support combustion. Explosion: Reacts explosively or forms explosive compounds, with many chemicals, such as acetylene, turpentine, ether, ammonia gas, hydrogen and finely divided metals. Fire Extinguishing Media: Use any means suitable for extinguishing surrounding fire. Approach fire from upwind. If no chlorine escaping, apply water spray to keep fire-exposed containers cool. DO NOT APPLY WATER TO LEAKING CONTAINERS. Remove chlorine containers from fire zone if possible. Flame impingement on steel chlorine container will result in iron/chlorine fire causing rupture of the container. Special Information: Firefighters should wear self-contained, positive-pressure breathing apparatus, and a one piece, total-encapsulating suit of Butyl coated nylon or equivalent. Section 6 - Accidental Release Measures Evacuate unnecessary personnel. Keep unnecessary and unprotected people upwind from area of spill. Wear appropriate personal protective equipment as specified in Section 8. Contain and recover liquid when possible. Do not flush residues to the sewer. Residues from spills can be absorbed into an alkaline solution such as caustic soda. US Regulations (CERCLA) require reporting spills and releases to soil, water and air in excess of reportable quantities. The toll free number for the US Coast Guard National Response Center is (800) 424-8802. Page of 6 24 our Page of 6 re C 'c _ s P ;1 'c yeti _ Airborne Expos . Limits: Chlorine: -OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 1 ppm Ceiling -ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV): 0.5 ppm (8 hr TWA), 1 ppm STEL Ventilation System: A system of local and/or general exhaust is recommended to keep employee exposures below the Airborne Exposure Limits. Local exhaust ventilation is generally preferred because it can control the emissions of the contaminant at its source, preventing dispersion of it into the general work area. Please refer to the ACGIH document, "Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practices", most recent edition, for details. Personal Respirators (NIOSH Approved): If the exposure limit is exceeded, a half-face dust/mist respirator may be worn for up to ten times the exposure limit or the maximum use concentration specified by the appropriate regulatory agency or respirator supplier, whichever is lowest. A full- face piece dust/mist respirator may be worn up to 50 times the exposure limit, or the maximum use concentration specified by the appropriate regulatory agency, or respirator supplier, whichever is lowest. For emergencies or instances where the exposure levels are not known, use a full-facepiece positive-pressure, air-supplied respirator. WARNING: Air-purifying respirators do not protect workers in oxygen- deficient atmospheres. Skin Protection: Wear impervious protective clothing, including boots, gloves, lab coat, apron or coveralls, as appropriate, to prevent skin contact. Eye Protection: Use chemical safety goggles and/or a full face shield where splashing is possible. Maintain eye wash fountain and quick-drench facilities in work area. 11 Section 9 - Physical and Chemical Properties Appearance: Boiling Point: Greenish-yellow gas, amber liquid -34C (-29.3F) Odor: Pungent odor Solubility: Slight. Density: 11.7 lbs/gal @15.6C % Volatiles by weight: 100%. Melting Point: -101C (-150F) Vapor Density (Air=1): 2.5 Vapor Pressure (mm Hg): 71 psig @ 60F. Page of 6 r SC:..f-- - --6 --y' Stability: Stable under, ordinary conditions of use and storage. Hazardous Decomposition Products: No hazardous decomposition products. Hazardous Polymerization: will not occur. Incompatibilities: Dry chlorine is highly reactive with titanium and tin. Reacts with most metals at high temperatures. Reacts with water to produce hydrochloric acids, which are corrosive to most metals. Ammonia, elemental metals, certain metal hydrides, carbides, nitrides, oxides, phosphides and sulfides, easily oxidized materials, organic materials (e.g. oil grease) and unstable and reactive compounds. Conditions to Avoid: Heat, moisture, incompatibles. Section 11- Toxicological Information Chlorine: IDLH = 10 ppm --------\Cancer Lists\------------------------------------------------------ ---NTP Carcinogen--- Ingredient Known Anticipated IARC Category Chlorine (7782-50-5) No No None 11 Section 12 - EcoloEical Information 11 Environmental Fate: Water: Chlorine is a strong oxidizer and will react rapidly with inorganic compounds. Chlorine will also oxidize organic compounds, but at a slower rate than inorganic compounds. The presence of light accelerates the dissipation of chlorine in water. Environmental Toxicity: Acute LC50 (96 hours) for Fathead Minnow: 0.07 - 0.15 ppm. Acute LC50 (96 hours) for Bluegill: 0.44 mg/l 11 Section 13 - Disposal Considerations 11 Chlorine gas will disperse to the atmosphere leaving no residue. Chlorine may be neutralized by introducing it into caustic soda, soda ash, or hydrated lime. Liquid and/or solid residues from neutralization must be disposed of in a permitted waste management facility. Dispose of container and unused contents in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. IF- Section 14 - Transport Information Domestic (Land, D.O.T.) Proper Shipping Name: CHLORINE Hazard Class: 2.3,8 UN/NA: UN1017 Packing Group: Page of 6 RQ, arine I 1. =eci a( _5 - -e ulat y Ii -)T-iation --------\Chemical Inventory Status - Part 1\®------------------------------- Ingredient TSCA EC Japan Australia Chlorine (7782-50-5) Yes Yes Yes Yes --------\Chemical Inventor Status - Part 2 --Canada-- Ingredient Korea DSL NDSL Phil. Chlorine (7782-50-5) Yes Yes No Yes -------\Federal, State & International Regulations - Part 1\---------------- -SARA 302- ------SARA 313------ Ingredient RQ TPQ List Chemical Catg. Chlorine (7782-50-5) 10 100 Yes No --------\Federal, State & International Regulations - Part 2 -RCRA- -TSCA- Ingredient CERCLA 261.33 8(d) Chlorine (7782-50-5) 10 No No Chemical Weapons Convention: No TSCA 12(b): No CDTA: No SARA 311/312: Acute: Yes Chronic: No Fire: Yes Pressure: Yes Reactivity: No (Pure / Liquid) IF- Section 16 - Other Information Prepared By: Chris W. Gibson Revision Notes: Updated Section 14 Disclaimer: Please be advised that it is your responsibility to inform your employees of the hazards of this substance, to advise them of what these properties mean and be sure they understand exposure information. The information presented herein, while not guaranteed, was prepared by competent technical personnel and is true and accurate to the best of our knowledge. No warranty or guaranty, express or implied, is made regarding performance, stability, or otherwise. This information is not intended to be all-inclusive as to the manner and conditions of use, handling, and storage. Other factors may require additional safety or performance considerations. While our technical personnel will be happy to respond to questions regarding safe handling and use procedures, the handling and use remains the responsibility of the customer. No suggestions are intended as, and should not be construed as, a recommendation to infringe on any existing patents or to violate any Federal, State, or local laws. i i ATTACHMENT 2 SAFE ASSURE I The United Sues Department of Labors Division of Occupational Safety ar, I B-i ' HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS 29 CFR 1910.1200 & MN Statute 5206.0100 thru 5206.1200 "Evaluating the potential hazards of chemicals, and communicating information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees may include, but is not limited to, provision for: development & maintaining a written hazard communication program for the work place... " t RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 29 CFR 1904 ' "Each employer shall maintain in each establishment a log and summary of all occupational injuries and illnesses for that establishment............ " I Ell Z 1, In a IZ4 a In 11 0 S >4m ~~9j ° W a o oty. dS ~ a3 ~ dS a3 dl O X! 78 z 3 3 ^~4, z Y t _ pp o w LU c m j ~ g z cg 0 g tD ~¢f~ LL $gJ ~ X f..{C~~ n t~z, T3 ~g f K 6 h 7. ~y ` 3 U' aft '5 h ~ .wd v 5 yTJ Z ~y LU ~F C r CCf3 dZ I o < o zo e ~S. 5 Y 2~ En _ a = < p T ~ Z _ .Q pf g ^ ~ ~ N O N 11 ~o ly N N~ y E o N N N M 7 N N _ o ZZOO LO 1 i e LL 05 U v -1 N fn M ny N M LL n1 ti N M LL N O~ H p M p M N M ►L- N •ID-I NN M F t0 H N N y co ~ p ~ NN n `f~ N F n a N NN F- W M H o N f eel N N4 . 1: N ~p N N ~ t ~ ~ N U. 3 E N U. N 3 N n L F 3 ~f- f 2" q to U. R N ti N tD .ti N 10 V1 U. V maiiaiiwl N Vf LL If1 N .4 O n N N M H F- m N Mme- rn F- `r .y N co ~j I- F N ID rQi h It+ . N N E E .-4 N N _ ~ ~ p MM ~-1 N N • N UI n p ppp H N fV V1 n N N N V! ~D N N N rq 0 N = r it1 N N N FL- V H In cn 'D a N 01 N NN M f e1 co W 00 o N N N N N N N April 23, 2009 Larry. Brown, PW Director 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood MN 55331 Dear Larry: Enclosed is a renewal Contract for your review, along with some information about our new On-Line Employee Training options and a schedule. If the contract is acceptable to you, please send us a copy of the contract signature page. The on-line training option is great for administrative personnel and others who have easy access to computers and also for make-ups or for new hires. If you want to get set up for on-line trairurig give Melanie a Call: Chan ges cart be n3atie to the sClieuitle to make certain that you receive what you need and want. This year I will be working with you guys on "JHA" (Job Hazard Analysis) in September. "JHA" has becomei a new focal point of MnOSHA. We want to make certain that all of your departments are familiar with the program/regulation and that you have written JHA's and the required documentation. I appreciate your business, SafeAssure does take serious our commitment of keeping your city in complete OSHA compliance.. Sinc urs, J C. et C:file P.O. Box 756 • 200 SW 4th Street • Willmar, MN 56201 • (Ph.) 320-231-3603 • (Fax) 320-231-1405 Toll Free:, 1.800-920-SAFE Email: info@safeassure.com • Web: www.safeassure.com CONFINED F" r', 2 ''"91 910.146 If the deck." _ - its employees will enter permit spaces, the employer shall develop a implement written permit space program...... , . RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 29 CR 1910.134 1 Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators shall be established. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE 29 CFR 1910.95 ' The employer shall institute a training program for all employees who are exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels, and shall ensure employee participation in such a program. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS 29 CFR 1910.1030 ' Each employer having an employee(s) with occupational exposure as defined by paragraph (b) of this section shall establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure. POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS 29 CFR 1910.178 "Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to operate a powered industrial truck. Methods shall be devised to train operators in the safe operation of Powered Industrial Trucks". i GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE PL91-596 "Hazardous conditions or practices not covered in an O. S. H. A. Standard may be covered under section 5(a) (1) of the act, which states: Each employer shall furnish to each of (their) employees employment and a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to (their) t employees. " LOGGING OPERATIONS 1910.266 (i)(1) The employer shall provide training for each employee, including supervisors, at no cost to the employee. EXCAVATIONS/TRENCHING 1926.651 ()(1) Daily inspections of excavations, the adjacent areas, and protective systems shall be made by a competent person for evidence of a situation that could result in possible cave-ins, indications of failure of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres, or other hazardous conditions. I PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 1926.95 a) 7=4ppl)cation. " Protective equipment, includirng personal protective equipment for oyes, '2 J face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact. I OVERHEAD CRANES 1910.1790)(3) ' Periodic inspection. Complete inspections of the crane shall be performed at intervals as generally defined in paragraph 0) (1) (ii) (b) of this section, depending upon its activity I ERGONOMICS 29 CFR PART 1910.900 THRU 1910.944 ' "Training required for each employee and their supervisors must address signs and symptoms of MSD's, MSD hazards and controls used to address MSD hazards. " [1 1926 Subparts Subpart C - General Safety and Health Provisions Subpart D - Occupational Health and Environmental Controls I Subpart E - Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment Subpart F - Fire Protection and Prevention Subpart G - Signs, Signals, and Barricades Subpart H - Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal Subpart I - Tools - Hand and Power Subpart J - Welding and Cutting Subpart K - Electrical Subpart L - Scaffolds Subpart M - Fall Protection Subpart N - Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors Subpart O - Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations ' Subpart P - Excavations Subpart V - Power Transmission and Distribution Subpart W - Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection Subpart X - Stairways and Ladders Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances Applicable MN OSHA 5205 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5207 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5206 Rules (Employee Right to Know) t I I It is always the practice of SafeAssure Consultants to make modifications and/or additions to your program when necessary to comply with changing OSHA standards/statutes. These ' changes or additions, when made during a contract year, will be made at no additional cost to The City of Shorewood All written programs/services that are produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. are guaranteed to meet the requirements set forth by MNOSHA/OSHA. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will reimburse the City of Shorewood should MNOSHA/OSHA assess a fine for a t deficient or inadequate written program that was produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. does not take responsibility for fmancial loss due to MNOSHA/OSHA fines that are unrelated to written programs mentioned above. i - SAFETY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The ■ City of Shorewood Written Programs & Training A.W.A.I.R. (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Act) • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel • accident investigation • simulated OSHA inspection • safety committee advisor Employee Right to Know/Hazard Communication • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel (general and specific training) • various labeling requirements • assist in maintaining DAMARCO Solutions, LLC, MSDS and data base Lock Out/Tag Out (Control of Hazardous Energy) • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel Emergency Action Plan • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel Respiratory Protection • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel 7 r t~ ain in sit,-,,, ec-'15c program • documented training o all personnel canes-Chains-Slings maintain site specific program documented training of all personnel (inspections) Nearing Conservation (Occupational Noise Exposure) Confined Space ' • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personal ' • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel • decibel testing and documentation Personal Protective Equipment • n'iaiiitaiii site specific program I • documented training of all personnel Trenching & Excavation (competent person training in second year) • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel Earth Moving Equipment/Motor Vehicles ' • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel Powered Industrial Trucks/Forklifts • maintain site specific program • documented training of all personnel • testing and licensing 9 Background / Previous Action Last fall, the City began work on remodeling City Hall. The estimated project cost - construction, technology, furnishings and fixtures, landscaping, etc, was estimated at $1,310,000. The remodeling and expansion project is substantially completed and we are still waiting for the completion of both exterior and interior punch list items identified several weeks ago. I have sent several notes to the contractor, architect, and owner's representative regarding these outstanding issues and have yet to receive satisfactory responses or actions. I am continuing to encourage the contactor -through the architect and owner's representative to complete the work on the building so we can close out this project. I will also begin discussions with Mary regarding the process and procedures for initiating action on the performance bond. The Table below illustrates the current status of project costs based on the stated bid for the project. Where there is no formal bid, as in the case of the furnishings and IT, initial estimates for the bond are used. As a note, there was no estimate included for the owner's representative or audio / visual equipment in the Council Chambers. Description Bid / estimate Actual 6/30/09 Difference Percent Comments Construction $931,810 $871,736 $60,074 94% Currently holding payment Bond Issuance $23,395 0 0 0 Engineering $6,082 Legal - Bonding $6,790 Architect Fees $72,000 $78,276 ($6,276) 109% Currently holding final bill Owner's Rep $44,500 $44,050 $450 99% Other Contr. $55,526 Furniture/Fixt $75,000 $72,480 $2,520 97% Estimate for Bond IT/Communication $50,000 $20,269 $29,731 41% Estimate for bond Chambers A/V $26,466 Miscellaneous $14,682 Moving, bank fees, etc. Sub Total $1,310,000 $1,219,752 $90,248 93% OUTSTANDING Change Order $20,000 Single Change orderforthe entire project Landscaping $40,000 Council Chambers $13,000 Blinds and new projector and microphone Architect Final $10,000 Council Action: Contractor Final $60,074 TOTAL OUTSTANDING $143,074 Estimated Final $1,310,000 $1,362,824 ($52,824) 104% Not included is $27,213 in accrued interest. Staff Recommendation Accept the report. Background / Previous Action The Council agreed to manage the SouthShore Community Center from March 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009 while a new operational structure was discussed and developed. The agreement with the other Cities was to manage the operations for this period with the understanding that any shortfall in revenue over expenditures would be shared equally among the participating cities and any "surplus" would be kept by Shorewood. The City of Shorewood officially assumed responsibility for the operation of the Center on July 1, 2009 according to a lease agreement approved by all five cities. Shorewood also entered into an agreement with Community Recreation Resources (CRR) for the management and operation of the Center effective July 1, 2009. The general framework for this has been developed, however there are some additional details that staff and CRR are still working out. The table below outlines, as best we are able to determine, the final revenue and expenses for the three month period Shorewood oversaw the operations. Description Through June 30, 2009 Comments Revenue Rentals 12,422 Interest 424 Sub-total 12,845 Less pre-paid reservations 1,145 Period July - December Net Revenue 11,700 Expenses Utilities 4,119 All utilities and charges Contractual 2,676 Custodial services Insurance 3,356 Three months pro-rated insurance Total 10,151 Net Over/(Under) 1,549 Not included in the expenses is just over $8,000 in legal fees accrued during the entire process from the dissolution of the Friends to drafting the various agreements and leases. Some of the legal time is associated with Shorewood specific issue pertaining to the Center. Based on the information presented, there is no shortfall for the three month period. I will be sending a letter to the other Cities informing them of this outcome. Staff Recommendation Accept the report. Council Action: A. Roll Call Present: Chair Norman; Commissioners Davis, DeMers, Quinlan, Robb, and Edmondson Late arrival City Council member Bailey; and Park Coordinator Anderson Absent: Commissioner Trent B, Review Agenda Davis moved, Quinlan seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Park Tour Minutes of June 9, 2009 Quinlan moved, Robb seconded, approving the Park Tour Minutes of June 9, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. B. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2009 Edmondson moved, Davis seconded, approving the Regular Minutes of June 9, 2009, as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REVIEW AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LITTLE LEAGUE SIGNAGE AT BALL FIELDS - (Planning Director, Brad Nielsen) Planning Director Nielsen explained that the Council directed staff to draft a tightly written amendment to the Code that would include a license agreement setting forth the conditions of approval. Staff suggested a conditional use process be established listing the circumstances under which signs would be allowed in the parks. One of the conditions requires the applicant to enter into an annual license agreement with the City. This gives the City greater control than just the CUP. In addition, Nielsen stated that there is no vested right in the license from year to year, and if the City decided not to allow signs in the parks in the future, it would simply not issue a license. Nielsen indicated that the placement of signs would be limited to Freeman Park, the one and only community park, that the backs of the signs must be colored dark green, the license must be applied for annually, and that the license must pay permit fees for each individual sign. Chair Norman stated that he would put the question to the City Attorney. He indicated that advertising is generally exempt from freedom of speech laws and maintained that the City should have a say over what is posted. Nielsen stated that he would run the question by the City Attorney and have information to provide the Planning Commission at their upeoming meeting. As the advcrtisin is on City property and m view of children, the City might have content prevue. Robb agreed content was a big concern. He asked if the signs would be up all summer. Anderson stated that the signs should generally take a hiatus mid July to mid August during the off- season. Chair Norman reiterated his position that he did not agree with signs in the public parks. He did not like the direction this was going allowing commercial signage in mixed use public spaces. He also asked to see the financial accountability piece incorporated into the documents. If the little league is going to make money off of the public space, lie wanted to have a record of where it goes. Norman stated, given the fact that, the little league came to the City originally looking for ways to fund scholarships, he felt it reasonable to see an accounting of whether that is where the money goes. Davis added that there should be a piece with regard to indemnification against theft. She stated that, she too, was very concerned about content and felt it was an inappropriate invasion of the public space. Having disregarded what both the Park and Planning Commission's had recommended, she felt the City Council was opening a flood gate of issues. Davis stated she had a real disconnect with what the little league originally said they needed money for and the direction she heard them going during the park tour, building new batting cages and potentially a new concession stand. Quinlan asked whether the City could differentiate between the two ends of Freeman park. He felt the City was on a slippery slope. Nielsen stated that he could not differentiate between the ends of Freeman nor between sports programs, although the other organizations had not expressed an interest at this time to pursue advertising. Nielsen stated that if the neighborhoods express concern and enough complaints come in, the whole process could be unraveled as created now. T ,--,F- ` - Davis moved, t i-nian seconded, asking Nielsen to incorporate the Park Commission changes including it _ -ition for theft, content purview, financial accountability, color, size and height of signs into the documents. In addition, she stated that the Park Commission, in general, does not support the City Council's initiative for advertising on the fences, but in an effort to compromise would review the revised document at its August meeting. Motion passed 6/0. Bailey interjected that the City Council approved 4/1 to go forward with the concept. He viewed the issues as aesthetics versus legal, and did not see a legal problem utilizing the facilities this way. He felt there was great synergy in the relationship, these sports organizations serve community and the local businesses appreciate a way to reach their customer base. Bailey believed staff had attached sound restrictions to ensure the public interest and that the signs themselves provide a lively decoration in the ball parks. 5. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of July 13, 2009 Bailey stated that the only park relevant item concerned the Community Center request by CRR's Director Anderson for funding to update flooring and painting throughout. B. Update on Park Signs Anderson stated that she had provided the park sign designs to other contractors for additional bids. She stated that the original contractor had provided her with pricing for real stone faced pillars and a faux stone limestone center which was approximately twice the cost of the polystyrene signs which came in at $4000-5000. Robb passed around a photograph of the Randy's Sanitation sign from Delano and stated that the sign was very attractive. Anderson stated that she would return with a recommendation at the next meeting as well as a sample of the polystyrene stone for the Commission to view firsthand. C. Spring Survey Results Anderson shared the spring survey results from the ongoing online survey monkey survey and asked for comment. The Commissioners were intrigued by the results and encouraged staff to come back in August with a proposed fall survey for review. They asked Anderson to try to take a different approach in an effort to keep the survey interesting. With regard to interconnectivity, they suggested a question asking where folks might like to see additional trails within the park system, or where they like and walk currently. D. Update on Manor Pond Chair Norman reported that about 30 people from the Manor Park neighborhood, the Mayor, and Dick Osgood from the DNR, met at Manor Park prior to the evening meeting to discuss the conditions of the Manor Park pond. It was the opinion of many of the neighbors that the quality, appearance, and condition of the pond had deteriorated significantly over the past few years and they wished to see what could be done. I TES TLS DAY,JU _ 9 PALL 4 OF 6 Davis stated that there are many ponds within the west metro that are in similar situations and that the City must ensure the piping is cleared out in order to get the silt cleaned out from time to time. Norman also suggested the aerator be removed from the development near the pond who seems may be exacerbating the problem. 6. APPROVE REVISED DONATION REQUEST FORM The Commission complimented staff on the changes, stating the document was more clear and concise at this presentation. Bailey suggested the document thank the donor for their contribution. Davis moved, Edmondson seconded, recommending approval by the City Council of the revised donation request forms with the addition of `thank you for your donation' at the documents conclusion. Motion passed 6/0. 7. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR 2010 ARCTIC FEVER EVENT Chair Norman stated that the Arctic Fever committee would like to ask the City Council for funding for the event. Having proven itself over the past several years, Norman felt a contribution of $1500 was warranted. Anderson reminded the Commission of staff's previous explanation from April, which stated that the committee could make the request but the City Council would likely direct the Commission to redefine their own budget to allow for the expense, for instance, something else would have to give if this was deemed more important. Chair Norman stated that the Park Commission will need to set aside more finding, in general, if it is going to enhance or build programming in 2010 He noted that a higher level of contributions will be required and dedicated to grow this piece of the park and rec program. Anderson explained that the City Council contributes $45,000 to Parks annually, which is generally put into the CIP for the `bricks and mortar' within parks. She suggested the Commission make a recommendation or request the City Council make a contribution to the general fund of $X from the $45,000 given to parks to specifically be set aside for funding park programming. For example, instead of the entire $45,000 going to the CIP, $2500 of that is set aside in the general fined for programming, and $42,500 is deposited into the CIP. Bailey believed the Commission could make such a request that this piece be put into the general fund or operations budget to fund programming specifically, as opposed to the entire amount going to the CIP. INUT ;S `r§ , -g e I PA6r , Pr b Since the funds must always come from somewhere, he questioned what they would be losing if they chose to take the funds out of their own budget in this way. Chair Norman stated that he would make the request as the liaison at the next City Council meeting that the Council holds back $2500 from the CIP contribution to be allocated to the operations budget to specifically enhance programming for 2010. 8. REVIEW AND APPROVE 0-2 YEAR PARK RENEWAL SCHFDULE Anderson shared the pricing estimates for the 2009-2010 park renewal schedule as discussed at the previous Commission meeting. She asked the Commissioners to begin to prioritize their improvements and make a formal recommendation to the City Council to be used in the budgeting process, based on a rough CIP budget of $150,000. Once the Commissioners reviewed their priorities on a park by park basis, Chair Norman urged the Commissioners to narrow down their list to the top 4-6 for all parks that could be accomplished in the next 0-2 years. Upon review of the Commission's top priorities for each of the parks, Anderson indicated that they had far exceeded any CIP budget that existed and urged the Commission to realistically reconsider which were their top priorities. Davis moved, DeMers seconded, recommending their top priorities to the City Council for review including: 1) Park Signs - budgeted for $30,000 2) Bike Racks 3) Silverwood Park Shelter 4) Remodel Manor Park Shelter/Warming House 5) Upgrade Badger warming house with paint, roofing, siding 6) Install Rustic Trails - at Badger and Silverwood 7) Tennis Court overlay For an estimated $80,000 from the CIP budget. Motion passed 6/0. A. Review Questionnaire For Open House on July 15 Anderson shared a draft questionnaire and playground element option boards to be posted at the Open House on July 15"' The Commission thought it would be useful to provide the questionnaire and thought the playground options a fun addition to the open house. 9. DISCUSS PRESENTATION FOR OPEN HOUSE ON JULY 15 AND DETERMINE WHO WILL BE ATTENDING Anderson, Chair Norman, and each of the Commissioners indicated that they would be present at the open house. Anderson stated that she had spoken to the contractor and that he indicated that during his initial visit to the site he failed to notice that the 4`h side was sealed differently than the other three. She stated that clearly the contractor should have made a call fi-om the site when he discovered that it was going to be more involved than originally thought in order to give the City a chance to decide whether they were willing to pay for the additional work required. "I'hc contractor, kcl ipso painting, stated that while three sides were polyurethane tinted stain and 4`h side and under the canop}I was done in a polyurethane varnish and sealed natural. He chose to sand and restain the three sides and simply sand ad reseal with the natural varnish on the 4°i side. Chair Norman stated that, in his opinion as wel l as many others, this is poor and he asked whether the City could ask the contractor to come back and do it right. Anderson stated that she could contact Eclipse and tell them the City would like to have been contacted mid process to make the cal l on how to proceed. She said she would ask whether they would make it right, at what cost, cost of materials or what, since the City is unhappy with the result and report back to the Commission. 13. ADJOURN Davis moved, DeMers seconded, adjourning the Park Commission meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Kristi B. Anderson Recorder T Department Council Meeting Item Number Background / Previous Action: Attached is the background information on the Park Commission's review of the Donor Policy that was created in 1999. At its meeting on July 14, the Park Commission approved changes to the Donor Policy and Donor Forms and is forwarding them to Council for review and approval. Council Action Review and consider approval of the revisions to the attached documents. Council Action: MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Brian Heck, City Administrator FROM: Kristi Anderson, CRR Twila Grout, Park Secretary DA'L'E: July 1, 2009 RE: Process for Accepting Donations The Park Commission created a Donor Policy in 1999 which accepted Donations from users and groups. It has become apparent that a process was never established to evaluate Donation requests, as well as, the obligations the City and Donor has to one another. Staff will review the new and revised documents with the Commission. To that end, the Donation Request Form was created as an application to initiate the Process for evaluating donations. Once a Request Form has been submitted, it is presented to the Commission for review. If the improvement/donation is approved, the Park Commission executes the Acceptance and Indemnification Agreement with the Donor user/group and moves this on to the City Council for their final approval. Going forward, all improvements, as well as, their base level of General Maintenance will be acknowledged within the Revised Memorandum Agreement which is executed with each sports organization at the outset of each season. Staff Recommendation: Upon review, staff recommends that the Park Commission support the proposed process and documents including the Donation Request Form, Acceptance and Indemnification Agreement, and Revised Memorandum Agreement for accepting donations and providing general maintenance guidelines to City Council for their approval. 6-22-09 s-N P Table of Contents Section: 1) Purpose 2) Definitions 3) Recognition Methods 4) Process for Donation & Recognition Submittals 5) Donor Agreement Guidelines 6) Methods of Payment - Donor Responsibility 7) Naming 8) Stewardship 1 b-22-64 1. I T"® - E; F DONOR RECOGNITION The City of Shorewood seeks to recognize donors who wish to support the City through distinguished effort or substantial gift. These guidelines have been developed to give staff a benchmark when individuals or business' approach the City and would like to provide a gift or donation. This policy determines procedures for recognizing financial contributions, donated amenities or projects, also noted in this policy as a "Substantial Gift", found within Shorewood. 2. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this policy, "Substantial Gift" is defined as a contribution of at least 50% of the estimated cost of an amenity or project for: (a) new construction, remodeling, field improvements or renovation of facilities within City parks or infrastructure; (b) developing new real property, i.e. park buildings, structures (pavilions, warming houses, shelters, plazas, etc.), architectural elements, real estate, etc.; or (c) replacement of an existing, unnamed facility or landmark that requires substantial renovation at the time of the gift. 3. RECOGNITION METHODS Recognition may be in honor of individuals, groups of individuals, or corporations "Method of donor recognition must be agreed upon and formally approved by City Council prior to signing the donor agreement. (a) The nature of the donation will assist in determining the type of recognition. (b) A plaque, or other negotiated signage, may be placed on a building, room, or facility to recognize a Donor. The design, wording, size, and location of the plaque require the approval of the City Council. (c) A donor recognition or memorial plate may be affixed to routine furniture items. The City shall specify the size and location of the donor plate and the donor will pay for the plate and engraving. The City shall approve the wording of the donor plate and affix the plate to the furniture. 2 6-22-09 (d) Plaques or markers will not be placed for tree donations. (e) Donations ofa routine nature (e.g., park benches and other furniture) shall be reviewed and approved, if appropriate, by the Public Works Director and/or the Park Commission. (f) The donor shall pay for the delivery and installation of the amenity and/or donor recognition plaque or plate. (g) The option of funding the amenity for life will include a built-in maintenance reserve of up to 50% of said value to be put in an endowment for the ongoing care, upkeep, and maintenance of said amenity. (h) There is no exclusive right to sole recognition in cases of expansion or other structural modifications. Recognition/Donation carries no power of direction to the City on matters of schedule, design, furnishing, or priority of use. 4. PROCESS FOR DONATION RECOGNITION SUBMITTALS Any proposal for recognition and donation shall be made through a formal submission process via the Donation Acceptance and Indemnification Request Form to the City. Proposals must have the written approval of the person or corporate representative for whom the recognition is to be given. If the person is deceased, the approval of the family or designated representative should be obtained. If the person is deceased and there is not family or a designated representative, recognition can proceed through the submission process. Procedures governing approval of recognition proposals, of a non-routine nature, are set forth below. Exception's from policy requirements must be authorized by the City Council in advance of the donation. Step One: A Schematic design and details will be submitted to the City of Shorewood and shall include the following elements: (a) A scaled architectural drawing or plan drawn to scale to be completed by a landscape architect or civil engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota, and would include: 1. site plan 2. architectural details 3. landscape plan 4. tree preservation plan 5. sign or memorial detail 3 6-22-69 Please note: The Schematic design phrase of the submission process will be overseen by the appropriate departments of the City of Shorewood according to established procedure. Proposed recognition (ie. plaque or nameplate) should be designated at the time of submission of schematic design, as found in Step One, a5. Recognition may not be allowed after the amenity is implemented except by Council review and approval. Step Two: After submission of the schematic design, the individual, group, or corporation will formally present their request to the City. Step Three: Upon approval by City Council, the Donor Agreement will be signed and kept on record with the City of Shorewood. 5. DONOR AGREEMENT GUIDELINES Donors or donor representatives must sign a donor agreement that delineates terms of the contributions, unless donor wishes to remain anonymous. The Donor Agreement will include the following: (1) In the event of demolition of a structure, its recognition or any part of it shall be subject to new recommendations. (2) The style of recognizing structures and facilities should adhere to City ordinances. (3) The Director of Public Works or designated staff person is responsible for overseeing compliance with full policy requirements. (4) Plans for groundbreaking, dedication, or other ceremonies relating to gifts, shall be reviewed by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. (5) The City Council reserves the right to decline a donation for any reason. (6) Improvements will be considered and evaluated based on ongoing maintenance requirements that accompany the request: A base level of service will be provided - (Example; maintaining fields, which includes, but is not limited to, mowing the grass, dragging fields daily, lining fields, aerating and fertilizing fields annually). Additional ongoing care and maintenance or funding the amenity for life requires an accompanying endowment. 4 6-22-09 6. r - _7 _ t ' ENT , _ _F'rIE DOT_. ~ ? 7. NAMING The City of Shorewood reserves the ability to commemorate long-term service to the community or to a distinguished person, if desired, and such recognition is contingent upon Council review and approval. The City of Shorewood will consider naming opportunities for outstanding contributions, such as a parcel of land or new donation. Donations of this nature will follow all city ordinances and guidelines from an operations perspective. Naming a building in honor of a person who has given extraordinary distinguished service to the city will not normally be considered until after his/her substantive formal relationship with the city has ended. The name used should normally be the family name, or in the case of a corporate entity, the shortest possible name. Unless the City Council determines otherwise, a name may be used only once. Shorewood City Council has final approval on any naming designations. Thank you for your donation. 5 DONATION ACCEPTANCE, INDEMNIFICATION Process for Creating a Successful Partnership between the City of Shorewood and its User/Donors 1) Communicate: User/Groups will meet with Representatives of Shorewood staff to discuss proposed donations & improvements. Upon review and City Council approval of the request, the City will execute the Acceptance & Indemnification Agreement. 2) Recognize Supply & Demand: A Donation will be Considered if it Serves a Population or demand that is not currently being met. Once Approved an Improvement/Donation will become the sole Property of the city of Shorewood and under their care. 3) Donations/Improvements will be Considered and Evaluated based on ongoing Maintenance Requirements that accompany the Request: A Base Level of Service will be Provided - (Example; Maintaining Fields, which includes, but is not limited to, mowing the grass, dragging fields daily, lining fields, aerating and fertilizing fields annually) 4) Ask Questions: Understand the Limitations and responsibilities placed upon an Organization or Donor providing the Improvement (See Statement of Facts within the Acceptance and Indemnification Agreement) Add'I levels of service will require a maintenance endowment of up to 50% of said donation value 5) Once the Acceptance and Indemnification Agreement has been approved and executed by each party, it shall be in force from Date of execution and automatically renew annual) Company or Group Name Contact or Individual Name Address City State Zip Code Work Phone Home Phone E-MAIL ADDRESS I/We would like to make the following donation/improvement/contribution: Quantity Description Unit Price Total Price Th n _s shall' C ty o'. n Donor or Donor Representative City of Shorewood Director of Public Works City of Shorewood City Administrator Date Date Date 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 ® 952-474-3236 Fax: 952-474-0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us ACCEP- _ 77AN IN E NIF 0- _ _ _ `.C EEMENT Park, in the City: (hereinafter, the "Donation"). B. The City at its regular council meeting on , adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") accepting the Donation (a copy of such resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A). C. As evidence of the City's acceptance of the Donation and intent to indemnify Donor, the City desires to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, solely in consideration of the Donation, the City and Donor declare, covenant and agree as follows: 1.) Acceptance.- The Donation was formally accepted by the City pursuant to the Resolution. 2.) Donor's Representation. Immediately preceding the City's adoption of the Resolution, Donor owned the items included in the Donation free and clear of all encumbrances, claims and liens. 3.) Indemnity. The City shall forever indemnify, defend and hold Donor harmless from any loss or damage arising out of or incurred by Donor as a result of the use or operation of the Donation (excluding any such loss, damage, expense or cost arising out of a misrepresentation by Donor of the representation provided in Paragraph 2 above). 4.) The Donor shall provide up to a 50% built-in maintenance endowment to offset expenses or costs arising out of or incurred as a result of maintenance, use and ownership of the Donation at a higher than base level of service and general maintenance. - For Example, General Maintenance level for fields include, but is not limited to, mowing the grass, dragging the fields daily, lining fields, aerating and fertilizing fields annually. 5.) Miscellaneous. This Agreement is made and delivered in, executed with respect to, and shall in all respects be construed pursuant to and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement shall bind City and its successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of Donor and its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the City has caused this Agreement to be executed as of the above date. CITY: DONOR: CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Its: Mayor By: Its: By: Its: 6/23/09 data/parks/resolution/donoragrmnt Background / Previous Action Brian Carney has requested site plan review for a proposed Subway restaurant at 5660 County Road 19 (see Planning Staff Reports, dated 2 July and 20 July 2009 - attached). The initial staff report for this request raised a number of issues/deficiencies with the plans. The applicant's consultants subsequently submitted revised plans greatly improving the proposed landscaping, but not adequately addressing drainage concerns raised by the City Engineer (see Engineering staff reports, dated 25 June and 21 July 2009 - attached) . The Planning Commission has recommended concept approval of the site plan, subject to conditions suggested by staff, the most significant of which is resolving site grading and drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Options Approve the plans as submitted, approve the plans with modifications, limit approval to concept, subject to staff recommendations, or continue to the next meeting. Staff Recommendation The good news is-the landscape plan has been drastically improved. The bad news is - the drainage issue remains unresolved as of this writing. If the applicant is able to submit revised plans satisfying the City Engineer's concerns by Monday, it is recommended that the applicant receive site plan approval, and that staff be directed to prepare a resolution for the next Council meeting. If staff concerns have not been satisfied by Monday night's meeting, it is recommended that approval be limited to concept only, subject to modifications recommended by staff. Council Action: 5755 CCJN -W CLUES I ,J, .u ® SHCl lvWt: -J, inJNN SOTA 55331-8927 * (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Plalming Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 July 2009 RE: Carnco Properties - Site Plan Review (Subway) FILE NO.: 405 (09.03) BACKGROUND Mr. Brian Carney, representing Carnco Properties, LLC, has an interest in the property at 5660 Manitou Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to divide the existing building on the property, using one half of it for a Subway restaurant and leaving the other half for future leasable area. Since the property is zoned C-1, General Commercial, the project is subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The property has 35,920 square feet in area and is occupied by a 3000 square foot building and paved parking in front of the building. Most recently the building has been used as a floor coverings store. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: East: County Road 19, then commercial in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial South: vacant gas station; zoned C-1, General Commercial West: American Legion; zoned C-1 North: Gideon Glen preservation open space; zoned C-1 In order to accommodate the proposed uses, the applicant's site plan (Exhibit B) adds additional parking on the north and west sides of the building. The northwest corner of the property is devoted to handling site drainage. Exhibit C provides a very sketch floor plan, showing the Subway restaurant occupying the north half of the building with future % PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memo dum Re: " . Properties (Subway) - Site Plan Review 2 July zi J9 leasable area occupying the south half of the building. Other than new entry doors on the east side of the building and a new window on the north side, the outside of the building remains mostly unchanged (see Exhibit D). A proposed landscape plan is shown on Exhibit E. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION It should be noted that the landscape plan was submitted only yesterday and that staff s time to review it has been minimal. Based on plans submitted to-date, following is how the applicant's request complies with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code: A. Land Use. Restaurants (including convenience or fast food), without drive-up facilities are permitted uses in the C-I zoning district. While the use of the future leasable area is unknown at this time, it is expected to comply with the allowable uses in the C-I District. It is worth mentioning that it will not be able to be used for additional restaurant space, due to lack of parking. B. Building Setbacks. The existing building complies with the requirements of the C-1 District. The Zoning Code requires a 30-foot front setback, a 30-foot rear setback and 15 feet on the sides. The existing building is 55 feet back from County Road 19, 17 feet from the south property line, 88 feet from the west line and 97 feet from the north property line. C. Building Height. The C-1 District allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height. As shown on Exhibit D, the proposed building is one story, and less than 15 feet in height. D. Parking. The Zoning Code requires 51 parking spaces for the use that is proposed for the site. This is based on 44 spaces for the restaurant and seven for the fixture space, anticipating some sort of retail operation. The site plan on Exhibit B includes 54 spaces, but there are issues that must be resolved. First, the parking lot does not comply with the five-foot setback requirement on the south side of the site. Eliminating the three southernmost spaces would resolve the setback and provide a small back-out area for the end spaces. It would also help the plan comply with the requirement that there be five percent landscaped area in the parking lot. Parking must be paved, curbed and striped prior to occupancy of the building. The plans do not indicate how loading will be accomplished. Since the parking areas are dead-ends, it is expected that loading and trash removal will involve trucks backing in. The applicant should address this issue. -2- Memorandum Re: Cameo Properties (Subway) - Site Plan Review 2 July 2009 E. Building Construction. Although somewhat dated, the existing building is consistent with the standards set forth in Section 1201.03 Subd. 7.c. of the Zoning Code. F. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping is shown on Exhibit E. It must be realized that virtually all of the existing trees on the site will be removed to accommodate the parking and drainage improvements. The landscape plan proposes eight trees, presumably as replacements under the Shorewood Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. This is viewed as inadequate, however, based on Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.g. of the Zoning Code (Required Landscaping). Also, there is some inconsistency with the landscape plan and the survey. The plan is also inconsistent with the recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study, which calls for decorative landscaping in front of business sites, with a backdrop of evergreens at the rear of the sites. It is recommended that the plan be revised to provide ample screening and buffering on the north side of the property, additional decorative landscaping in front of the building and several evergreen trees along the west side of the site. It is recognized that there is limited room in front of the building for landscaping. Correction of the parking area provides some additional space which should be devoted to landscaping, and the southeast corner of the site, outside of the County Road 19 easement affords additional room for decorative landscaping. Finally, the northwest corner of the site has slopes steeper than 3:1. The landscape architect should address what kind of ground cover will be used in that area. G. Grading and Drainage. The City Engineer addresses this under separate cover. As mentioned above, the landscape plan must show how the slopes and open areas will be treated. H. Signage. The applicant has not provided any plans for signage. The property is allowed three signs, one of which may be a freestanding pylon sign. Presumably the allowable area of signage will be spread somewhat equally between the three signs. Signs are subject to a separate permit. In light of concerns raised by the City Engineer and those raised in this report, staff is reluctant to suggest anything more than a "concept" approval. The issues raised by staff should be addressed in revised plans before being forwarded to the City Council. Cc: Brian Heck James Landini Larry Brown Brian Carney -3- SITE LOCATION Site Plan Review - 11 r - - 254.51 - - - - - - - LO - S HVd3St H -~Jllllfl Aj NmOD S O1 `20'08° E s - s 3 9 ~ - - - - - - J If 3 - - - - - - - - HsVg2fvlaNy D ILLTM SOI JNIx Idd silo Lill 04ISSIXH cp 00 JI'I M 21HUDN6o aam.lood S' JTH I SIX36 v'. H p ~AaO gz o z a U zp w WW WC4 8) 18 pa ~ if-6l ~ ~ C7 ~j O ral un O q N c~~d ,.Ci .d C,3 bb En Q ¢ U N~ N ® d v al ,t.,'' 0 cv ti b~ N 0 0 L~ ~ JNAL o C1 N F~ q n v Q . z ro b o a~i • ~Cd w a~ UZ ~4> 4~pa~ m•~ ZO fn, D0 ~U Z0 g a Z r u4~ U1Q uCLn u 0 ww wow 0 C) C) c) / W 1 o (3 V W \ N \ v LL m d r q m p P 1 09 O N N q. a, / (D ~ rn \ QA V A ~ u Z r~ it 44 qq W W h \ ~ 5 \ \ p U C7 O 6 N E w O Hsdg25 HZI/A rLo'I 7 w - X80 L 6 @ ZI-. -9 76 a~ aC ~ aano snoNmn ie HNC? six3 --L9.OOZ-- M ..-VO.67.00 S © OL 78 Exhibit B SITE PLAN/SURVEY Proposed site design w r t Exhibit C FLOOR PLAN SKETCH - Subway restaurant s Exhibit D BUILDING ELEVATION SKETCHES y ~ln .2". Elm I t 1(-ET Tire-,G'1'Vk£. C{RASE 56EC} V•I tTb~ 8 E e s - MAFLE, FALL F IF--TA 6ac5K4N1 canlTirs~t. 84®adk.Ery" ~ . ('°2tep r'YPF'• Au.. PUR9'~SC r~~x~V.'..........~ 4rY 3 3`Ut~B1B /'t} EE yR~c1Ni Pu-,M FRR ! _ r Aj e C r\0 ELE I to . "-4{--"`~- -y..... 'k v~..X~ . ~ /y y .y~ls~ 8 " r v1-"'~ 1. rr CC) Et L~, W OIL Maple err v NT Bib 5' M le n_: (Mir) CONC. V 24" Cottonwood lump 4 1 t Boxeldel I CURB 1 Aski Cottonwood ° 24" Cottonwood S Edge of brush r 9 p>YLILY, ST•6ri /s. RASH I LIArRis, t oeo c, F A•w• hPIRPA s~ ' I s- I( ' IE'"Cc ronwc+~ in~ 10 „ 0" El-n EJcQ oQc~ - 1-j N0 N cn LEGEND: TREE PRESERVATION/ REMOVAL 41 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED PLANTINGS 1 PLA NT SCHEDULE Common Namel - Szel Ouanuly Botanical Na- Root 0`1 DECIDUOUS TREES Crabapple. Spling Snow 2 S do I Malus'Spnng Snow B8B Maple. Fall Fiesta 3"oa 3 Acer saecharum'Railsla BSS ~ CONIFEROUS TREES " h' ( yk• Black Hal 's SPruce 6 hl 4 Picea glauca densala BSB d'~ R DECIDUOUS SHRUBS Dwad Bush Honeysuckle 95 6 D,e-11. lonicrra cant Anthony Waierel Spvea W 5 8 Spaaea z bumalca'A N! vnl ` PEIPENNIALS Dayhly SIa11a SopremSlalia P~ee 91 25 Heme-Ihs 5 H cool Gras, Fech er Reed IX I n Calan agrosi s aninlbrv K F coal I. alns. Y;ubo1, u i 12 Lialns sP¢ala'Kobold cwt co 1 10 Ash b Z I 41~. 12" LOttOh'IOG(I _ Fn t\t~~/ Z / 1 Elm ~J 1- w ` 7 sno7 Z ✓ IC•' ~oltanu~ood c 1'v 12" t;vttonwand t ~ n y ? •..r. C ~ Buck TLuF SPR .E G ~ s~+' QTY: I roil Bt0 /r N. ar _ 211.38 , 81 ° 31' 28,' E; N a~ 01 U W. 0 w H ~a .aI I ll II ~ 15 I I I I I I u ~ ~ 'r;] SOD ~y I ~ I I o ~-PER~~IhI`\U7j I ICE ea.Yi.f LY, 4T StIP," P 7 LIATRI~, FY"&~Lp I / ry ~ ~ SNR..UBS ~x1 I (n DWh KF L3US wI a .M+ I umaeYSUdk,_s I I I I I I ~ I 1 f i ( I 1 I I) 1 1 I I I v 111 ~~I~p1 I 1 rl I i I (l It a It ` 11 I 1 1` ~ 11 1 ~ t CFA9AFrLF„ SPRIkk1 Grow W-ryI I L•5"(718 33 W W ~q d 0 U zw W LLJ r N N N •N 0 Z 1 Cp7 ~ 33 I' 1 y 1 0 0 Q h z v BITUMINOUS AND CURBING TO BE REMOVED SCALE Exhibit E PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN ' 'T"_ 7 ; r 5755 CC'-AT, ,Y CLUB 17,3 ° -I DRL.-~- D, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 - (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer pL DATE: June 25, 2009 RE: Grading, Drainage Carnco Properties Site Plan I have reviewed plans for the Cameo Properties, prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Inc. not dated. I offer the following comments. Down stream from the site is an apartment building which has concerns about the surface water elevation adjacent to their building after storms. The water rises close to their finished first floor apartments and inundates garages. Adding additional impervious surfaces upstream from the apartments will add storm water runoff to a flooding issue. The site plan was reviewed for the stormwater rate control requirement and volume control. The current plan does not meet the rate control requirement and does not meet volume control. The current plans list existing discharge rates of 1.09 and 1.6 cfs for existing conditions and 2.18 and 3.14 efs for proposed conditions. Proposed rates must be equal to or less than existing conditions. The pipe invert in the infiltration area is set too low to provide the necessary storage to manage the additional volume of runoff. For the Proposed site plan I offer the following conditions for approval: ■ The 12inch PVC Overflow pipe invert in the infiltration area should be reevaluated to provide the necessary management volume and to provide the required rate control. ■ Provide energy dissipation and soil stabilization at the pond outlet. Recommendation Staff recommends conditional approval of the site plan. The conditions are listed above. f®41$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ C MEMORANDUM CITY JF SHORE". 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ® (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall@6 shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: James Landim, P.E., City Engineer p-- IRATE: June 25, 2009 RE: Grading, Drainage Carrico Properties Site Plan t have reviewed plans for the Carrico Properties, prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Inc. not dated. I offer the following comments. Down stream from the site is an apartment building which has concerns about the surface water elevation adjacent to their building after storms. The water rises close to their finished first floor apartments and inundates garages. Adding additional impervious surfaces upstream from the apartments will add storm water runoff to a flooding issue. The site plan was reviewed for the stormwater rate control requirement and volume control. The current plan does not meet the rate control requirement and does not meet volume control. The current plans list existing discharge rates of 1.09 and 1.6 cfs for existing conditions and 2.18 and 3.14 cfs for proposed conditions. Proposed rates must be equal to or less than existing conditions. The pipe invert in the infiltration area is set too low to provide the necessary storage to manage the additional volume of runoff. For the Proposed site plan I offer the following conditions for approval: ■ The 121nch PVC Overflow pipe invert in the infiltration area should be .reevaluated to provide the necessary management volume and to provide the required rate control. Provide energy dissipation and soil stabilization at the pond outlet. Recommendation Staff recommends conditional approval of the site plan. The conditions are listed above. 47T, %0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~M t-' - 5755 COUNT, IY CLUB RO,`,D ,JRRWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 - (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 20 July 2009 RE: Carrico Properties - Revised Plans FILE NO. 405(09.03) Brian Carney and his consultants have been working with staff to resolve issues raised in the 2 July planning staff report and the 25 June engineering report. To date, the landscape plan has come a long way (revised copy attached). Unfortunately, the drainage issues have yet to be resolved. A revised drainage plan did not satisfy the City Engineer's concerns and a second revision is underway, as of this writing. Staff will report on the status of the plans at the Plaiming Commission meeting tomorrow night. Hopefully, the drainage issue can be resolved so as to allow the application to be passed to the Council for its 27 July meeting. If you have any questions relative to this request, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone or e-mail prior to the meeting. Cc: Jaynes Landini Brian Carney % PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER RESTORA110N AkLA STORMWATER RETENTION AREA S, G'ESNIT' THIS I AREA SEED LOW GROW FESCUE MIX LEGS e~ma~DCoVfRED'. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET Or- LEGEND: TREE PRESERVATION/REMOVAL i EX1E71Mf TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED v S 8-7345'23" coN;RnEat {h T 7D 5'ec Fes. 20 P1 am 4a es ue c 5 tq Choqs F c . i Cele al Red Fesr e 10 s G, fl r nrr al Ry g as Appy at rate o 20J IVs t acre Ma ego -ght apnroe t3 NO na in fa en UItEC TyPeS 72 Straw B ei In'rr'tl n, ,rne efaev RASH Lr ATRrSr ko~tn S X~ IJ I~ ----s(-~a.-- I 9 (wln 12 dim ~ ~ . i ~ a OI17.-E7 .ICRUy.raR.F„ -3 8 E ~ Fre s - zrASa,~-at~,seaaLy~AO~J ~ ~ I ~ 1 GTY'I 2.S"Dull. gp s ~ I` • - i•_ • •~~~~lr Tc ~Ir2 X' ! I ~sco ~k Nvtc,JAY F{raE 6LAC~ ~I~s sw~.ucE. ~ o~~l I ~ ~ IIV V I G'L"Y'~ L G'N r 6d 4 I Maple c)k rY: s (,'NT aaa ~I I FALL FIE=STA rnAPEdE ~Gt^nf a^oinets ~iy' X51 Y~ H \ \ fed ~ I l 24" Cottonwood ump 4 CONC.- ~ Boxelders I ao onYULY Tun, CURB 2~ Cottonwood " IauAT~~S,~mtia ~ I 2nCottonwood ---.15 e L?5 'F fJ+zMSr k. F. ~.s FALL F ~ - TESTA. M!.Pt£ SNRat LAS W ~SDD)I Q.i"Y; I 3°P+IA• GCB s' 1. tN1.RF gu5A1 NoMeYSUCx(E ~ I 9 MYULYrSL b04 5 J - - r-s{.taaas ~ / J ~ I I 8 A.W. 6PIREA S I 1 5 J J S /~U•~ 1~ -SAVE- ~ 10rr El PExen4rllALS II 10 '7 DAYUL~Y, ST'.SUP• , $ LI ATRAS k015-l.D , DECIDUOUS SHRUBS PERENNIALS Let sspcala'KOboltl Tool ORNAMENTAL GRASSES MULCH E EDGING All plaol Getls and rntlivicual vees ro nave a PROPOSED PLANTINGS 1 PLANT SCHEDULE Common Name! Saes Quantity Bolan+cal Dlame Rael DECIDUOUS TREES CabzPPIe. SPrng Soon 25"tl„ 2 Malus'Bpnng Snorv 8E8 ' Maple, Fall fiesta 36a ' Acer saccharum'Bailsta' B&B CONIFEROUS TREES ~~rl •i Black Hills Spence 6'M 8 Plcea glauca densata 82B "1s\r Norway Pine 5h1 }a~{~ Pinu<_ras-sa 1388 ) nn Dwad Bush Haneysnckle k 5 to L'. ~rfY, DierviAa lrnlcera oom tY Anthony Waterer Surrey k 5 26 Spva2a r Gunralda A W cum Daif1{. Stella Sr preme k 5:: He eraalhs'S S cum Gayl 1, Lavender 5•ardus. P. re Ile neraaus'LS cur -s, Noboltl t atr R I r Sed ! Putuan Jay ut SeJ AUlumn Jay cnm G a s. Feet-, Reed ~ a a-gr051is' C I •bra 'K F CMt nit swl edge antl he mulc hed wen snredoed bark mulch ar a 3' depm 0 (0 LLJ Its 5 N m O m s l ~ Z j X j i NC,eI.JAY PIE16 <;rr i v(JT.aaa Iz.° ('o~t.onv+ood ~1 Elm cCZT Y: L (FLIT 848 kICF~1A( p1~1E ~U Ot~.U~4fAGrl II i 22i~;(! n _ 8tlxx 4 Ius Ski: RjY1 L to'LIT. EBB S OI: _ a a a a v C~ O? d \sop ' 'f r^ Bl AC k. 4liuS 5P,2~ `4TY~ i (,'WT B;S u "`211.38 N 81 31 ? 6 ~ d ~v czr U W O w a~ Y w 4a I 5~1R•UBS 'l AW bP{R~A CRAIgMENjAt C11iASS 5 KARL FoResTEr~, PERENr~I,ALS IC SE~yrt,AUT.Sc'( t 1 d~ _____PEREUU IALS is s6nur`1, nur~Y Ib pP:rU t'(, SL SUP. I O DAY L I LY U+.v, ST-R- sL<RUes 8 DuhnP Busy Ua~-._ II AWSPr4EA o RaIAr•I erJrA-L y tznss I3 JC1.FL Feb:-~ ~ GRA6A PPLE.r SF{e:sE'{ SSW q7-(: I as"oln. eAB BITUMINOUS AND CURBING TO BE REMOVED z E U 3 0 O x 0 V a w x 1 f ` 1 5bo~ ~ -a ~ W N N N c- N (9 n 0 Z 33 5 I t 1 1 ,33 I v 1 I t 0 0 IC ~ 0 19 4E Sra Le I~ .G. Noark x a ~ T®: Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer DATE: July 21, 2009 RE: Grading, Drainage Carrico Properties Site Plan I have reviewed plans for the Carneo Properties, prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Inc. dated 7/21/2009. I offer the following comments. See previous memo for downstream flooding concerns. The site plan was reviewed for the stormwater rate control requirement and volume control. The plan dated 7/21/2009 retains a sufficient volume of water on site to minimize flooding but the plans do not meet the rate control ordinance. The plan states an existing condition of 1.09 cfs for the 10 yr event and 1.60efs for the 100 yr event. The proposed condition is suppose to match those values but instead proposes 2.18 cfs for the 10 yr event and 3.14 efs for the 100 yr event. Visiting the site also demonstrated that the proposed plans will fill in an existing storm water pond that the downstream neighbors rely upon for flood control. The proposed plans have not demonstrated that there is sufficient compensatory storage for the filling. The slopes of the proposed pond are also an issue. The slopes are proposed to be 2:1 slope with storm water storage upstream. The proposed slopes would be highly susceptible to erosion and slope failure due to saturation. Recommendation Staff recommends concept approval only. %01 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Background / Previous Action In my absence at the previous City Council meeting conducted on July 13th, 2009, City Administrator Brian Heck presented the initial memorandum regarding this resolution which requests an advance in Municipal State Aid (MSA) Funds from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road Reconstruction Project. Project Summary In summary, the following are the financial totals, including design, right of way acquisition, construction and construction engineering for the project. Hennepin County's Cost $ 4,114,610.41 City of Tonka Bay's Cost $ 129,086.83 City of Shorewood's Cost $ 1,720,665.00 Xcel Energy Facility Surcharge $ 79,500.00 Total Project Cost: $ 6,043,862.24 Of the City of Shorewood's cost of $1,720,665, $1,646,623.51 is eligible for reimbursement by the MSA fund. The remaining $74,041.49 is to be funded from the City's Local Roadway Fund. Municipal State Aid Balance Currently, the City of Shorewood has an MSA balance, held in account by the State, of $362,720.54. The State has already paid the City of Shorewood $879,556.48 for this project. Therefore, once this project has been invoiced for payment to the State, the following deficit will occur in the MSA account. Council Action: Total State Aid Eligible Costs $1,646,623.51 Previous Amount paid by MSA 879,556.48) Net Balance Requiring Funding $ 767,067.03 Current State Aid Balance $ 362,720.54 MSA Fund Advance Request $ 404,346.49 Under MSA rules, a municipality or county may request an advance up to three times their annual construction allotment to cover such deficits. These advances in MSA funds are distributed on a first come first serve basis. While the annual amount of construction allotment does vary each year, historically, the variance for the City of Shorewood has been relatively small. The City's 2009 construction allotment is $184,414. Therefore, if approved, the payoff period for the advance is: Payoff period = MSA Fund Deficit / Annual Construction Allotment = ($404,346.49) / $184,414 = 2.2 years Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution that requests advance funding for the MSA account in the amount of $404,346.49. Payment Reconciliation In accordance with the cooperative agreement for the project, the following table is the payment reconciliation that has and is to occur for closeout. Payable to Payable to Shorewood Shorewood by b Coun Tonka Bay TOTAL OBLIGATION $ 2,636,833.20 $ 171,336.83 PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE: REMAINING AMOUNTS TO BE PAID $ 2,636,833.20 $ 140,393.31 $ 0 $ 30,943.52 Payable to County by Shorewood $ 43 8,231.66 Payable to County by Tonka Bay $ 10,326.95 $ 80,976.22 $ 8,488.84 $ 357,255.44 $ 1,838.11 The City of Shorewood's obligation includes the net amount to Hennepin County of $357,255.44. Similarly, the City of Tonka Bay will need to remit to the City of Shorewood $30,943.52. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends to the City Council that the proposed resolution requesting an advance for an amount of $404,346.49 be adopted and forwarded to the State. CITY OF q--' ! - RESOLUTION 1® ® 09- A RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADVANCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL STATE AI FUN WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has implemented Municipal State Aid Street Projects in 2004 which require State Aid funds in excess of those available in its State Aid Construction Account, and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has completed the construction of said projects and desires the use of an advance from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund to supplement the available funds in their State Aid Construction Account, and WHEREAS, the advance is based on the following determination of expenditures: Account Balance as of July 22, 2009: $ 362,720.54 Less disbursements: Project # S.A.P. 216-020-002 $ 643,592.55 Project # S.A.P. 216-108-002 $ 32,058.91 Project # S.A.P.216-101-002 $ 91,415.57 Total Disbursements $ 767,067.03 Advance Amount (amount in excess of acct balance) $ 404,364.49 WHEREAS, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.14, Subd. 6 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820.1500, Subp. 10b, and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood acknowledges advance funds are released on a first come-first-serve basis and this resolution does not guarantee the availability of funds. NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved: That the Commissioner of Transportation be and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid Street Projects of the Municipality of Shorewood in an amount up to $404,364.49. I hereby authorize repayments from subsequent accruals to the Municipal State Aid Street Construction Account of said Municipality from future year allocations until fully repaid. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of July, 2009. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Background / Previous Action Plans for the 2009 Road Reclamation Project on Smithtown Lane identified the need for additional Right- of-Way to construct a cul-de-sac. Hennepin County notified the City in 2007 of tax forfeit land available for purchase on Smithtown Road. Richard and Joan Whetston of 26040 Smithtown Lane indicated they would exchange the tax forfeit land on Smithtown Road for Right-of-Way on Smithtown Lane. The laws of Minnesota dictate that the City has to purchase the tax forfeit property for fair market value to use it for non public purposes. Hennepin County placed a fair market value of $500 on the tax forfeit land. Fees to acquire the property are $92.70. Fees to convey the property to the Whetston's should not exceed $100. Options 1. Direct staff to acquire property from Hennepin County and convey the property in exchange for Right-of-Way on Smithtown Lane to the Whetston's. 2. Utilize eminent domain legal proceedings to take necessary Right-of-Way to construct the cul- de-sac on Smithtown Lane. 3. Do nothing. Leaves the street without a proper turnaround for emergency vehicles and general traffic. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution directing staff to acquire land and convey it to Richard & Joan Whetston in exchange for Right-of-Way to construct a cul-de-sac on Smithtown Lane. Council Action: CITY(-'-- T .EV r.- - I SOLUTION NO, 09- A SOLUTION APPROVING LAND ACQUISITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAS' EXCHANGE WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, identified the need for additional Right-of-Way on Smithtown Lane for construction of a cul-de-sac; and WHEREAS, Hemlepin County owns property identification # 32-117-23-13-0035, Outlot A Smithtown Circle plat, which is available for purchase; and WHEREAS, Richard & Joan Whetston of 26040 Smithtown Lane would accept property identification # 32-117-23-13-0035 in exchange for the needed Right-of-Way to construct a cul-de-sac at the termination of Smithtown Lane. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: The City of Shorewood authorizes staff to acquire property identification # 32-117-23-13- 0035, Outlot A Smithtown Circle plat, from Hennepin County for fair market value as shown on Exhibit A for $592.70; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood authorizes staff to pay conveyance fees and convey said property upon receipt of deed to Richard & Joan Whetston in exchange for Right-of-Way as shown on Exhibit B. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of July, 2009. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk r P r ire Lands .Dote. C . , j7/09 lCil -12-596-6589 IF FULL PAYMENT REQUIRED: Total: 11 $592.70 CERTIFIED FUNDS PAYABLE AT TIME OF APPLICATION MAKE PAYABLE TO: HENNEPIN COUNTY 1 REAS)URER SUBJECT PARCEL: 26 Address Unassigned PID NUMBER: 32-117-23-13-0035 PREPARED FOR: City of Shorewood FAX 952-474-0128 Calculated: 17-Jul-09 Exhibit A 40 I / PROPOSED STREET, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT / AREA=4607 sq ft PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS AREA (EXISTING SMITHTOWN LANE) AREA=613 sq ft RICHARD S. WHETSTON 26040 SMOTHTOWN LANE PID 32-117-23-13-0011 i . Y, 175.71 r/ t` 0~ r• ! R=55.00' COR OF LOT 110 159.83 SMITHTOWN ROAD - - o~ - - -Pr2~78rpd hv' WSB Project No. 1459-33 Date 7117/09 Smithtown Lane a isli aTi 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Street Improvements Minneapolis, MN 55416 N WSR Ld www.wsb-g-ra Parcel Sketch &A 6.t-, Parcel 1 d' 161591-0A00-iaz I6J-541-9100 D o_ INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING RLANNING,CONSTRUCTION City of Shorewood, Minnesota Exhibit B Y Department Engineering Council Meeting 07/27/09 Item Number: From: James Landini, P.E. Item Description: Award Feasibility study for Nelsine Drive Background / Previous Action The 20 year Roadway Plan identified Nelsine Drive for rehabilitation in 2010. The road has a rating of 3, it has 50 feet of right-of-way, and the road is approximately 20.2 feet wide and 460 feet long. The water main is adjacent to the project making a watermain extension possible. Staff collected four quotes from the Engineering Pool for the Feasibility Study. Firm Price Notes Bolten & Menk $11,504.00 HTPO $8,984.00 10% discount if combined with Meadowview Road. TKDA $6,298.00 $1500 reduction if combined with Meadowview Road. WSB $11,766.00 Staff contacted TKDA to review the scope of services to ensure their quote included all the necessary work, they assured me with the work they do for the City of Victoria that they will be able to stand by their proposal. Options 1. Direct staff to conduct feasibility study of Nelsine Drive with the assistance of TKDA. 2. Direct staff to utilize a different quoter. 3. Do nothing. Leaves the street in poor condition. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the TKDA proposal for the feasibility report, surveying, sanitary cleaning & televising and soils report dated July 22, 2009. Council Action: 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 The right time. The right people. The rit - t company, Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www,tkda.com July 22, 2009 Mr. James Landini, P.E. Via E-mail Only: jlandini@ci.shorewood.mn.us City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Proposal for Engineering Services Nelsine Drive Rehabilitation Project; City Project 10-01 City of Shorewood, Minnesota Dear Mr. Landini: We are pleased to submit our qualifications to provide Engineering Services to the City of Shorewood for the rehabilitation of Nelsine Drive. We believe that our design team has the necessary experience, project understanding, and qualifications to provide you with high quality cost effective professional services that are responsive to your residents and staff, adding value to your community. We are committed to establishing a working relationship with the impacted residents, City Staff, City Council and community stakeholders, necessary for the successful delivery of this project. In reviewing your request for services and visiting the project site, we believe we are uniquely qualified to successfully prepare the requested Feasibility Study. TKDA brings the following benefits to your project: • Our approach to street rehabilitation projects is to ensure that the best fit solution is applied based on conditions of each existing road segment while seeking to provide balance between constructing high quality safe infrastructure and residents' interest in maintaining neighborhood character. ® The project team has successfully completed annual street projects in a neighboring community dating back to 2002 resulting in a high level of understanding of existing conditions and permitting requirements expected for this project. ® This proposal is being submitted in conjunction with a Proposal for Meadowview Road Rehabilitation Project No. 10-02. If TKDA is awarded both projects, we offer a reduction of the cost of each project by $1,500. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Mr. Jarnes Landini, P.E. City of Shorewood Nelsine Drive Rehabilitation Project, City Project 10-01 July 22, 2009 Page 2 This proposal has been submitted pursuant to your Request for Proposals (RFP) received by TKDA on July 10, 2009, and supplemental information received on July 15, 2009. The contents of our Proposal present our understanding of Shorewood's planned improvements, our team, and project experience. Please contact Cara Geheren at (651) 292-4630 if you have questions or need additional information. William E. Deitnei, P.E. Cara L. Geheren, P.E. CEO Manager, Client Services ~J CARA GEHEREN, E. Project Manager - Ms. Geheren has more than 11 years experience in municipal engineering serving as a Consulting City and Town - Engineer, Project Manager, and t Project Engineer. She has completed numerous neighborhood street reconstruction projects, including the feasibility reports, project design, resident design workshops and meetings, construction management and administration, and project assessments. When working on street rehabilitation projects, she strives to ensure that the best solution is applied for each individual project. Responsibilities: Provide overall coordination and responsibility for the Project. PATRICK WINDLER, P.E. Senior Registered Engineer - Mr. Windier has more than 27 years of experience in the design and construction of municipal .,i infrastructure. He currently serves as project engineer for projects in the Y Cities of Lino Lakes, Victoria, and Mn/ DOT. Mr. Windier worked with the City of Bloomington for 20 years. During this time he provided design and construction direction in the reconstruction of city water, sewer and storm sewer systems. He also served as liaison between the City design staff and city maintenance crews. His experience in this capacity provides Mr. Windier with a thorough understanding of the design features that impact infrastructure maintenance. Responsibilities: Preliminary street, storm sewer and utility design. CHAD ISAKSON, EIT, LEED AP Project Engineer - Mr. Isakson graduated in May, 2007 from the University of Minnesota with ti a Bachelors of Civil Engineering _ Degree. He works in the municipal services division providing assistance The right time. The right people. The right: company.. on the development of feasibility studies, plans and specifications, and construction administration for street improvement projects in the City of Victoria. Responsibilities: design assistance, cost estimates and report generation. GARY GARR Surveyor - Mr. Garr has over 25 years i, of experience as a Civil Engineering Technician and serves as one of TKDP.'s senior Mn/DOT certified Construction Observers. His services include survey, construction management, field observation, field computations, record keeping, and construction staking for a wide variety of municipal infrastructure projects, including sanitary sewer systems, watermain installation, storm sewer systems, street reconstruction and State-Aid improvement projects. Responsibilities: Survey services. MARK BYERS Technician - Mr. Byers joined TKDA E= from the City of Inver Grove Heights and I fl has been working as an Technician. He provides assistance with survey, utility locates, plan preparation, take F. ( offs and cost estimating for municipal street and utility projects. Mr. Byers is also a Mn/DOT certified construction observer providing field services for sanitary sewer systems, watermain installation, storm sewer systems, street reconstruction, state-aid improvement projects, and utility improvements installed through directional drilling. Responsibilities: Survey assistance and exhibits. 8 L CITY OFSHOREWOOD I N ELSIN E DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AviA11~ I RAIL I SURF, i B ,4 t _ ~ c t yr 5 S h °u MT~ r The City of Shorewood is requesting engineering services for the preparation of a Feasibility Report for the rehabilitation of Nelsine Drive from Eureka Road through existing cul-de-sac. The goal of the Report will be to determine the feasibility and associated costs for street rehabilitation for the referenced street in accordance with the City of Shorewood Decision Flow Chart for Reconstruction versus Pavernent Reclamation. After an initial meeting with the City, the project team will verify the adequacy of the existing right- of-way and will coordinate with American Engineering Testing, Inc. to complete subsurface exploration. The results of these two steps will highlight the critical path on the Decision Flow chart. Subsequent to the analysis of the findings for these items, a survey will be developed showing topography 15-feet past the right-of-way, right-of-way lines and existing utilities. The tearn will then coordinate the televising of the existing utilities. The compiled data will be used to finalize a feasibility report reviewing the costs to reclaim or reconstruct the streets and to provide improved drainage along the street through the installation of a storm sewer systern, if necessary. The study will include the evaluation of the extension of water The right time. The right people. The right company ;~/~,hf10 CILIA-S ; RAIL S ^~F(~T irISPO ?'TCiservices to the street including development of an assessment roll. We will also review the condition of the sanitary sewer facilities to identify improvements that would be recommended for cornpletion in conjunction with the street rehabilitation project. The Report will be prepared based on a detailed survey and available City mapping. Cost estimates will be preliminary, but compiled in sufficient detail to determine economic viability of the recommended improvements, and to determine the preliminary assessments that would be attributed to the benefiting properties, where applicable. Lastly, the Report will include exhibits to assist the City in presentations to the City Council and residents. CITY OF SHOREWOOD I NELSINE DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ;wood 7/21/2009 r 3 Tasn 1 nr- -iabilitation Proiect- City Project 10-01 s,4-na eG o_rsor Hour Pequircd. Taa,~ Description Project Senior Reg Project Tech Survey Crevv Technician Manager Engrnaer Engineer (Admin) Feasibility Study ' G - Totals 1.1 Project Management 1 1 2.1 Preliminary Design 1 3 8 12 3.1 Drainage/Storm Sewer Analysis 1 4 5 4.1 Cost Estimate 1 2 3 5.1 Prepare Preliminary Assessment Roll 1 2 3 6.1 Prepare Feasibility Report 1 1 10 4 16 7.1 Prepare Exhibits for City Staff Presentations 2 10 12 8.1a Boundary Survey 1 2 3 81b Topographic Survey 8 8 16 Additional Services - Subconsultants 9.1a Soil Borings 1 1 2 9.1 b Televise Sanitary Sewer 2 2 Total Person Hours 4 7 32 10 18 4 75 Estimated Billing Rate/Hr x Multiplier $ 115 $ 118 $ 65 $ 163 $ 61 $ 51 Total Billable for Charged Time $ 460 $ 826 $ 2,080 $ 1,630 $ 1,098 $ 204 98 Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS) $ 58 Alloy ncefor Geotechnical Services $ 5,000 Total Project Fees $ 11,400 Department Engineering Council Meeting 07/27/09 Item Number:'- From: James Landini, P.E. Item Description: Award Feasibility study for Meadowview Road Background / Previous Action The 20 year Roadway Plan identified Meadowview Road for rehabilitation in 2010. The road has a rating of 3, it has 50 feet of right-of-way, and the road is approximately 21.5 feet wide and 660 feet long. The water main is approximately 650 away from the project making a watermain extension improbable. Staff collected four quotes from the Engineering Pool for the Feasibility Study. Firm Price Notes Bolten & Menk $10,982.00 HTPO $12,580.00 10% discount if combined with Nelsine Drive. TKDA $6,298.00 $1500 reduction if combined with Nelsine Drive WSB $15,198.00 Staff contacted TKDA to review the scope of services to ensure their quote inc►ucieca aii the necessary work, they assured me with the work they do for the City of Victoria that they will be able to stand by their proposal. Options 1. Direct staff to conduct feasibility study of Meadowview Road with the assistance of TKDA. 2. Direct staff to utilize a different quoter. 3. Do nothing. Leaves the street in poor condition. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the TKDA proposal for the feasibility report, surveying, sanitary cleaning & televising and soils report dated July 22, 2009. Council Action: July 22, 2009 Mr. James Landini, P.E. City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 The right time. The right people. The right company. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com Via E-mail Only: jlandini@ci.shorewood.mn.us Re: Proposal for Engineering Services Meadowview Road Rehabilitation Project; City Project 10-02 City of Shorewood, Minnesota Dear Mr. Landini: We are pleased to submit our qualifications to provide Engineering Services to the City of Shorewood for the rehabilitation of Meadowview Road. We believe that our design team has the necessary experience, project understanding, and qualifications to provide you with high quality cost effective professional services that are responsive to your residents and staff, adding value to your community. We are committed to establishing a working relationship with the impacted residents, City Staff, City Council and community stakeholders, necessary for the successful delivery of this project. In reviewing your request for services and visiting the project site, we believe we are uniquely qualified to successfully prepare the requested Feasibility Study. TKDA brings the following benefits to your project: Our approach to street rehabilitation projects is to ensure that the best fit solution is applied based on conditions of each existing road segment while seeking to provide balance between constructing high quality safe infrastructure and residents' interest in maintaining neighborhood character. ® The project team has successfully completed annual street projects in a neighboring community dating back to 2002 resulting in a high level of understanding of existing conditions and permitting requirements expected for this project. ® This proposal is being submitted in conjunction with a Proposal for Nelsine Drive Rehabilitation Project No. 10-01. If TKDA is awarded both projects, we offer a reduction of the cost of each project by $1,500. An Employee Owned Company promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity N d Landini, P.E. City of Shorewood Meadowview Road Rehabilitation Project, City Project 10-02 July 22, 2009 Page 2 This proposal has been submitted pursuant to your Request for Proposals (RFP) received by TKDA on July 10, 2009, and supplemental information received on July 15, 2009. The contents of our Proposal present our understanding of Shorewood's planned improvements, our team, and project experience. Please contact Cara Geheren at (651) 292-4630 if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, William E. Deitne , P.E. CEO Cara L. Geheren, P.E. Manager, Client Services - 4 e° m L rt CARA GEHEREN, P.E. Project Manager - Ms. Geheren has more than 11 years experience s',, in municipal engineering serving as a Consulting City and Town All" l ' Engineer, Project Manager, and - Project Engineer. She has completed numerous neighborhood street reconstruction projects, including the feasibility reports, project design, resident design workshops and meetings, construction management and administration, and project assessments. When working on street rehabilitation projects, she strives to ensure that the best solution is applied for each individual project. Responsibilities: Provide overall coordination and responsibility for the Project. PATRICK WINDLER, P.E. Senior Registered Engineer - Mr. Windier has more than 27 years ; ^ of experience in the design F and construction of municipal infrastructure. He currently serves as project engineer for projects in the Cities of Lino Lakes and Victoria and for Mn/DOT. Mr. Windier worked with the City of Bloomington for 20 years. During this time he provided design and construction direction in the reconstruction of city water, sewer and storm sewer systerns. He also served as liaison between the City design staff and City maintenance crews. His experience in this capacity provides Mr. Windier with a thorough understanding of the design features that impact infrastructure maintenance. Responsibilities: Preliminary street, storm sewer, and utility design. I the University of Minnesota with a Bachelors of Civil Engineering Degree. He works in the municipal services division providing assistance CHAD ISAKSON, EIT, LEED AP Project Engineer - Mr. Isakson graduated in May, 2007 from The right time. The right people. The right company on the development of feasibility studies, plans and specifications, and construction administration for street improvement projects in the City of Victoria. Responsibilities: Design assistance, cost estimates, and report generation. GARY GARR Surveyor - Mr. Garr has over 25 years of experience as a Civil Engineering Technician and serves as one of TKDA's senior Mn/DOT certified Construction Observers. His services include survey, construction management, field observation, field computations, record keeping, and construction staking for a wide variety of municipal infrastructure projects, including sanitary sewer systems, watermain installation, storm sewer systems, street reconstruction, and State-Aid improvement projects. Responsibilities: Survey services. MARK BYERS Technician - Mr. Byers joined TKDA from the City of Inver Grove Heights and 4 has been working as an Technician. J He provides assistance with survey, utility locates, plan preparation, take ` offs and cost estimating for municipal street and utility projects. Mr. Byers is also a Mn/DOT certified construction observer providing field services for sanitary sewer systems, watermain installation, storm sewer systems, street reconstruction, state-aid improvement projects, and utility improvements installed through directional drilling. Responsibilities: Survey assistance and exhibits. CITY OF SHOREWOOD MEADOWVIEW ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AVIATI J R41L i . The City of Shorewood is requesting engineering services for the preparation of a Feasibility Report for the rehabilitation of Meadowview Road from Wild Rose Lane to Valleywood Lane. The goal of the Report will be to determine the feasibility and associated costs for street rehabilitation for the referenced street in accordance with the City of Shorewood Decision Flow Chart for Reconstruction versus Pavement Reclamation. After an initial meeting with the City, the project team will verify the adequacy of the existing right-of-way and will coordinate with American Engineering Testing, Inc. to complete subsurface exploration. The results of these two steps will highlight the critical path on the Decision Flow chart. Subsequent to the analysis of the findings for these items, a survey will be developed showing topography 15-feet past the right-of-way, right-of-way lines and existing utilities. The team will then coordinate the televising of the existing utilities. The compiled data will be used to finalize a feasibility report reviewing the costs to reclaim or reconstruct the streets and to provide improved drainage along the street through the installation of a storm sewer system, if necessary. The study will include the evaluation of the extension of water The right time. The right people. The right company. AV A ION I F,01 MES 1 1 RAIL SG"' ;~ETn ~;'~SPORT C'! services to the street including development of an assessment roll. We will also review the condition of the sanitary sewer facilities to identify improvements that would be recommended for completion in conjunction with the street rehabilitation project. The Report will be prepared based on a detailed survey and available City mapping. Cost estimates will be preliminary, but compiled in sufficient detail to determine economic viability of the recommended improvements, and to determine the preliminary assessments that would be attributed to the benefiting properties, where applicable. Lastly, the Report will include exhibits to assist the City in presentations to the City Council and residents. z~- CITY OF SHOREWOOD I MEADOWVIEW ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT /of Shorewood 7/21/2009 -view Road Rehabilitation Project - City Project 10-02 i.opaccc;: Estina c erscn Hours Task Task Description Project Senior Reg Project Tech Survey Crew Technician Manage: Engineer Engineer 1 Feasibility Study OG Totals i 1.1 Project Management 1 1 2.1 Preliminary Design 1 3 8 12 3.1 Drainage/Storm Sewer Analysis 1 4 5 4.1 Cost Estimate 1 2 3 5.1 Prepare Preliminary Assessment Roll 1 2 3 6.1 Prepare Feasibility Report 1 1 10 4 16 7.1 Prepare Exhibits for City Staff Presentations 2 10 12 8.1a Boundary Survey 1 2 3 8.1b Topographic Survey 8 8 16 Additional Services - Subconsultants 9.1a Soil Borings 1 1 2 9.1 b Televise Sanitary Sewer 2 2 Total Person Hours 4 7 32 10 18 4 75 Estimated Billing Rate]Hr x Multiplier $ 115 $ 118 $ 65 $ 163 $ 61 $ 51 Total Billable for Charged Time $ 460 $ 826 $ 2,080 $ 1,630 $ 1,098 $ 204 3 6298 Expenses: Tavel & Subsistence (TS) $ 58 Allowance for Geotechnical Services $ 5,000 I Total Project Fees $ 11,400 T - Background / Previous Action The Council first viewed this document at the June 8, 2009 meeting and referred it to the June 22, meeting and asked staff to provide information regarding the Minnetonka policy and procedures relating to Council meetings. Staff presented a revised document to Council a revised document at the June 22 meeting for consideration. The revised document merged parts of the Minnetonka policy with the draft developed by staff. Council referred this revised document to the July 13 meeting due to time constraints. Council reviewed the draft policy at the July 13 meeting and suggested several amendments to the document and asked staff to bring the item back for final consideration at the July 27 meeting. The attached document includes the recommendations council made at the July 13 meeting. Options The council may choose to 1. Approve the policy and procedure. 2. Amend and refer to next meeting 3. Amend and adopt Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the council review and if acceptable, to adopt the policy and procedure. Council Action: City Council Policy and Procedures. 1.1 Terms of Office. a. The term of office for the Mayor shall be two (2) years. b. The term of office for Council members shall be staggered four (4) year terms. c. Newly elected or re-elected members shall take the oath of office immediately preceding the start of the first meeting of the year. 1.2 Term Begins. The term of office for a newly or reelected Council member or Mayor shall begin on the first Monday in January following the election; however, incumbent Council members or Mayor shall serve until the newly elected or reelected members are duly sworn in and qualified. 2. Meetings 2.1 Public Meeting. Except as otherwise provided in the open meeting law, all council meetings, including special, emergency, and adjourned meetings of all council committees shall be open to the public. 2.2 Initial Meeting. At the first regular council meeting in January of each year, the council shall: 1) Designate the depositories of city funds 2) Designate the official newspaper; 3) Choose an acting mayor from the council members who shall perform the mayor's duties during the mayor's absence, disability from the city, or in case of vacancy in the office of mayor, until a successor has been appointed and qualifies; 4) Appoint necessary officers, employees, and members of board, commissions, and committees. 2.3 Regular meetings. Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on the second and fourth Monday of each calendar month at 7:00 p.m. Any regular meeting falling on a holiday shall be held on the next following business day at the same time and place. The city clerk shall maintain a schedule of regular meetings. This schedule shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the city clerk's office. All meetings, including special emergency meetings, shall be held in the city hall. 2.4 Special meetings. The mayor or any two (2) members of the council may call a special meeting of the council upon at least 24 hours written notice to the city clerk. A request submitted to the city clerk via e-mail shall be considered written notice. The clerk shall deliver written notice to each member of the council and shall mail written notice at least three (3) days before the meeting date to those who have requested notice of such special meetings. The request for special meeting must include the date, time, and location of the meeting. The clerk may notify the other members of the council and interested parties via e-mail and follow the e-mail notification with delivered copies of the agenda for the meeting. 2.5 Emergency meetings. The mayor or any two (2) council members may call an emergency meeting when circumstances require the immediate consideration of a matter by the council. Notice may be in writing personally delivered to council members or may be in the form of a personal telephone communication. Notice must include the date, time, place, and purpose of such a meeting. Where practical, the clerk shall make an effort to contact news gathering organizations that have filed a request to receive notice of special meetings. 2.6 Work Sessions. Work sessions of the Council are held for the purpose of having informal discussion on an issue or topic and where no formal action is taken. 2.7 Quorum. At all council meeting a majority of the elected council members shall constitute a quormn for the transaction of business, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time. 2.8 Notice of Meetings. With the exception of emergency meetings, all meeting of the Council shall be posted at City Hall at least three (3) days prior to the meeting noting the time, location and issues to be discussed. 3. Order of Business 3.1 Agenda. The Administrator shall prepare an agenda of business for each regular council meeting in consultation with the presiding officer. Council members and members of the public may request an item be placed on the agenda by contacting the Administrator and providing a description of the item and supporting documentation for the item. A copy of the agenda shall be provided to the Administrator by 2:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting. The agenda shall be prepared in accordance with the order of business and copies shall be delivered to each council member and to others as far in advance of the meeting as time for preparation will permit. No item of business shall be considered unless it appears on the agenda for the meeting or is approved for addition to the agenda by a majority vote of the council members present. 3.2 Agenda materials. The Administrator shall see that at least one copy of printed materials relating to agenda items is available to the public in the meeting room while the council considers the subject matter. The agenda item shall not be considered unless this provision is complied with. This section does not apply to materials that are classified as other than public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or materials from closed meetings. 3.3 Delivery of Agenda. The Agenda and supporting materials are delivered to the Council members in person or electronically the Thursday before the Monday meeting. 3.4 Order of Business. Each meeting of the city council shall convene at the time and place appointed. Council business shall be c0F,-!tk ,A' ccntueted in the following order unless varied as provided herein. I ) Call to Order. 2) Roll Call. 3) Review Agenda 4) Approval of Minutes 5) Consent Agenda 6) Matters from the Floor 7) Reports and Presentations 8) Public Hearings 9) Parks 10) Planning 11) Engineering/Public Works 12) General and New Business 13) Staff and Council Reports 14) Adjournment 3.5 Varying order. With the consent of a majority of the Council, the order of business may be varied by the Mayor; however, all public hearings shall be held at the time specified in the notice of the hearing. 3.6 Public Comments. Questions or comments from the public will be limited to the subject under consideration upon recognition of the Mayor or by_a majorit-v vote of tlic Council. The Mayor may limit the time provided to address the Council on an issue. The public may comment or raise an issue of concern for items not under consideration by the Council during t1x time setz3sil3r the c e<a+t}itt~ nts. FktC t,u+~e=i I ill t}E talc avtic?n-en-tht-issue rai~;~-d--~~t-tl-i~t}~eeti+~ and-thy Lla~>r-~~ra~~(ts~i+t-thc= titn~~lli~v~<1-for %;h- °r"Matters from the Floor"Rortion of_the_~1gcnda. ~,nr * ~ 3.7 Consent Agenda. Routine, non-controversial items will be placed on the consent agenda for approval in one blanket motion. A council member or member of the audience may request that an item be removed for separate consideration; however, a council member may abstain from voting, vote against, or reeue-s-r-ecues-themselves from voting on, any consent agenda item without requesting its removal. Abstentions will be recorded in the minutes. 4. Presiding Officer 4.1. Presiding Officer. The Mayor is the presiding officer at all meetings of the Council. In the absence of the mayor, the acting mayor shall preside. In the absence of both, the Administrator shall call the meeting to order and shall preside until the council members present at the meeting choose one of their number to act temporarily as presiding officer. The selection of a t 3_Etr resdin& afficer :hall be_icet>m-plishc d bN, non it , tion and majority vote of the ntembe ;s resent. 4.2. Participation of the Mayor. The Mayor may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to the same limitations of debate imposed on all Council members. The Mayor is not deprived of any rights and privileges of a council member by reason of acting as presiding officer. However, the mayor is primarily responsible for the conduct of the meeting. If he or she desires to personally engage in extending debate on questions before the council, he or she should consider turning the chair over to another member. 4.3 Maintenance of Order. The mayor is responsible for the maintenance of order and decorum at all times. No person is allowed to speak who has not first been recognized by the mayor. All questions and remarks must be addressed to the mayor, or through the mayor to the appropriate council member, staff, citizen of ~r represcntative;_. Comment [ci7 ht tit I,t t,)i i;u >I,s -ho 1vrh to Speak n addle ss anot h,nmmtlu oflhe Council. staff. or public to rc(1ucat from tnc Mnw, 4.4 Powers. p 11 ,,1011 to dO So a III ` U 1) ol, I would like to aIA l ut he Wo'l" Ditcctor 13,("11_." Or simple j atlutessing III, V'.I~or to cL: rite flo in order to ask the The mayor has the following powers: qu,t I a. To rule motions in or out of order, including any motion obviously offered for obstructive or dilatory purposes; b. To determine whether a speaker has gone beyond reasonable standards of courtesy in his or her remarks and to entertain and rule on objections from other members on this ground; c. To entertain and answer questions of parliamentary law or procedure; d. To call a brief recess at any time; and e. To adjourn in an emergency. A decision under (a), (b), or (c) may be appealed to the council upon motion of any member lay nse of 1pOilrt of order. This motion is in order only immediately after the challenged decision is announced. The member making the motion need not be recognized by the mayor, and the motion may not be ruled out of order if it is made tl1} I Comment [c2] A Council ni mI cl Ill use the y.: 1C Pe n1t of Ord" pl ores, to appeal a clu v1 n "Ind, 1 the niiwr_ 'I his is sccoml li_hcd by nddl cssnl,~ the 5. Rules, Decorum, and Order Al or .Ind ral In I point er „Idet_ up,n ' \'iE~'Or, lh'(_O~nG'IilnCmbC~ta11C5_ t( __II ILIOn OI III th,- ObICC1011 and giOLLndS t111 tha ObJI2 I110II %%111CI1 IJ 5.1 Points of Order. The mayor will determine all points of order subject to the right of i Ihrn ted on h, th conned to det- Ic ieme any member to appeal to the council. If any appeal is taken, the question will be, "Should \l n I 'ladson should be upheld oI o", dal the decision of the mayor be sustained?" A majority vote will govern and conclusively determine the question of order. I comment [cal: due abo, r 5.2 Decorum and Order - Council Members. a. A council member desiring to speak must address the mayor and upon recognition, must address only the question under debate. b. A council member desiring to question the staff must address the question to the city administrator or city attorney, in appropriate cases, who will respond to the inquiry or designate a staff member to do so. c. A council member, once recognized, may be interrupted while speaking only if called to order by the mayor, a point of order is raised by another council member, or the speaker chooses to yield to questions from another council member. d. A council member called to order while speaking must cease speaking immediately until the question of order is determined. If ruled to be in order, he or she may proceed. If ruled to be not in order, he or she must remain silent or alter his or her remarks so as to comply with rules of the council. e. Council members must accord courtesy to each other, to city employees, and to the public appearing before the council and must refrain at all times from rude and derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements as to motives and personalities. f. A council member may move to require the mayor to enforce the rules. Upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the council, the mayor must do so. 5.3 Decorum and Order - Employees. Staff members must observe the same rules of procedure and decorum applicable to members of the council. The city administrator must ensure that they observe such decorum. Any staff member, including the city administrator, desiring to address the council or members of the public must first be recognized by the mayor. All remarks must be addressed to or through the mayor. 5.4 Decorum and Order - Public. Members of the public attending the council meetings must observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to the council. The mayor may order the removal of any person who makes inappropriate remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the council and bar that person from further audience with the council. 5.5 Enforcement of Decorum. The city administrator must carry out the orders and instructions of the mayor for maintaining order and decorum in the council chambers. 5.6 Personal Privilege. The right of a member to address the council on a question of personal privilege is limited to cases in which his or her integrity, character, or motives are questioned or impugned. 5.8 Conflict of Interest. Any council member prevented from voting because of a conflict of interest, must refrain from debate and voting. That council member may choose to leave the council chambers during debate and voting on the issue. 5.9 Limitation of Debate. A council merrhe,r normally should speak only once on a subject until every other council member choosing to speak has done so. 5.10 Dissents and Protests. A council member has the right to express dissent from or to protest any action of the council. A council member wishing to have the dissent or protest entered in the minutes should state so with language such as "I would like the minutes to show that I am opposed to this action for the following reasons:" 5.11 Procedure in Absence of Rules. In the absence of a rule to govern a point or procedure, Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, should be used as a guide. 5.12 Rulings of Mayor Final Unless Overruled. The mayor will decide all questions or interpretations of these rules, point of order or other questions of procedure, requiring ruling. Unless overridden or suspended by a majority vote of the Council members present and voting, a ruling is final and binding for purposes of the matter under consideration. 5.13 Amendment of Rules. These rules may be amended at any regular meeting or at a special meeting that includes amendment of the rules as one of the stated items to be considered. Adoption of an amendment requires an affirmative vote equal to at eL dw-ds<I/5 of all the actual membership of the council, excluding vacant seats. 6. ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL 6.1 Manner of Addressing the Council. A member of the public desiring to address the council is to proceed to the podium and wait to be recognized by the mayor. After being recognized, he or she is to state his or her name and address for the record. All remarks and questions are to be addressed to the mayor and not to an individual council member, staff member, or other person. During a public hearing, all remarks must be limited to the subject under consideration. No person may enter into any discussion without being recognized by the mayor. 6.2 Addressing the Council after Motion is Made. After a motion has been made, or after a public hearing has been closed, no person may address the council without first securing permission from the Mmayor or upon majority vote of tile Council. 6.3 Limitations Regarding Public Comments and Reports. The mayor may limit or rule out of order a speaker who addresses the council on a topic that is currently before, or about to be submitted for consideration by, a city commission, board or other agency. If an appeal procedure is or was available, the mayor may not allow oral communication to the council outside that procedure. This rule is intended to ensure that a matter follows the appropriate process and that discussion takes place in the proper forum. Comment [c4]: n Cou and mcmbci 1111111d ,aisc a point orordei sh.uld the ltryor rule a pc2F.cr out of order- A spca},er of the public can not appeal a 6.4 Written Correspondence. The city administrator is authorized to open and attend d lwgl of the r l,ti-er as the,,, ale not pcFt or me to all mail addressed to the mayor or council not marked personal and that appears to t " , ` lit' f'Uo c a l i„e n'b ` i s c~tio ante- ~ nth` ~ iu,l utt of uunil on !hhi union, hogs ser with the relate to city business. All administrative business in those communications that does not al iwr Rorthe Council to i al ipomtOf oidci, this . council action may be disposed of be between council meetings. A copy of any ec hc- as flulloi of tl Council can call s-ccrion i a~ea~i~ a,c y1 ~ cormnunication to the council must be sent to each council member weekly. Correspondence to the mayor or individual members not of general interest to the council should be forwarded to the person addressed. Communication delivered to city hall relating to a matter pending, or to be brought before city council, must be included in the agenda packet for the meeting at which the item is to be considered. Letters of appeal from administrative or commission decisions must be processed under applicable ordinance provisions. 7. MOTIONS 7.1 Motions Out of Order. A member may make only one motion at a time. A substantive motion is out of order while another substantive motion is pending. 7.2 Division of Question. If the question contains two or more propositions, the mayor may, and upon request of a member, must, divide the same. 7.3 Withdrawal of Motions. A motion may not be withdrawn by the mover without the consent of the person seconding it. 7.4 Precedence of Motions. When a motion is before the council, only procedural motions may be considered, in order of priority listed below. Unless otherwise noted, each motion is debatable, may be amended, and requires a majority vote of the full council for adoption. 7.5 Motion to Adjourn (not debatable). A motion to adjourn is in order at any time except: a) When made as an interruption of a member while speaking; b) When discussion has ended and vote on a motion is pending; and c) While a vote is being taken. 7.6 Motion to Fix Hour of Adjournment. Unless otherwise agreed to by at least a majority of the council, all meetings and study sessions of the council must be adjourned by -12 (1-:00 ap.m. A motion to set a different specific time at which to adjourn is not debatable and not subject to amendment except by unanimous vote. 7.7 Motion to Suspend the Rules. A motion to suspend provision of these rules may be approved only by a vote equal to -lea t-€wttrils_4i of the actual membership of the council, excluding any vacant seats. 7.8 Motion to Table. A motion to table is not debatable and precludes all amendments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the motion prevails, the matter may be "taken from the table" at any time prior to the end of the next regular meeting, unless the motion is to either table indefinitely or to a date certain. If the motion is to table indefinitely, the matter may not be rescheduled without at least a majority approval of the council. 7.9 Motion to Limit or Terminate Discussion. A motion to limit or terminate discussion may be used to limit or close debate on, or prohibit further amendment to, the pending motion. It is not debatable. If the motion fails, debate must be reopened; if the motion passes, a vote must be taken on the pending motion. 7.10 Motion to Amend. A motion to amend is debatable only as to the amendment. A motion to amend an amendment is in order, but a motion to amend the amendment to an amendment is not in order. An amendment modifying the intention of a motion is in order, but an amendment relating to a different matter is not in order. A substitute motion on the same subject is acceptable, and voted on before a vote on the amendment. Amendments must be voted on first, then the main motion as amended. 7.11 Motion to Continue. Motions to continue to a definite time are amendable and debatable as to propriety and time set. 7.12 Motion to Reconsider. A motion to reconsider an action already taken must be made by a member who voted with the prevailing side, which is the majority side except that in the case of a tie, the "no's" prevail. The motion must be at the meeting during which the original vote was taken, including any continuation of that meeting. The motion cannot interrupt deliberation on a pending matter, but is in order at any time before final adjournment. If a motion to reconsider is adopted, the prior action taken by the council is rescinded, and the matter is returned to the status that it had immediately before the prior vote was taken. The motion previously voted upon will once again be pending. 7.13 Motion to Rescind or Repeal. A motion to rescind or repeal an action previously taken is appropriate when the time for reconsideration has expired. A motion is not in order if rescission or repeal of an action is forbidden by law. 8. ljeepin Record of tl€eleetisa asacl Minutes 8.1 Keeping of Minutes. Minutes of each council meeting shall be kept by the clerk or designee. In the absence of both, the presiding officer shall appoint a secretary pro tem. Ordinances, resolutions, and claims need not be recorded in full in the minutes if they appear in other permanent records of the clerk and can be accurately identified from the description given in the minutes. 8.2 Approvals. The minutes of each meeting shall be reduced to typewritten form, shall be signed by the clerk and copies shall be delivered to each council member as soon as practicable after the meeting. At the next regular meeting following such delivery, approval of the minutes need not be read aloud, but the presiding officer shall call for any additions or corrections. If there is no objection to a proposed addition or correction, it may be made without a vote of the council. If there is an objection, the council shall vote on the addition or correction. If there are no additions or corrections, the minutes shall stand approved. 8.3 Publication. The clerk shall make available to the public within thirty (30) days of a regular or special meeting including the action on motions, resolutions, ordinances, and other official proceedings. Providing access to the minutes through the city's website shall meet the requirements under this subdivision. 8.4 :audio and Video Recordin Ly All reoulat and 5pecial meetingys oftllla £.,itY C_'ouncil as wets as work sessions will be recorded and televised and of available for vicwieg via web streamingk_ 9. Voting Procedure 9.1 Voting. The votes of the members on any question may be taken in any manner, which signifies the intention of the individual members, and the votes of the members on any action taken shall be recorded in the minutes. The vote of each member shall be recorded on each appropriation of money, except for payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute. If any member is present but does not vote, the minutes, as to that member's name, shall be recorded as an abstention. 9.2 Votes required. A majority vote of all members of the council shall be necessary for approval of any ordinance unless a larger number is required by statute. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a majority vote of a quorum shall prevail in all other cases. 9.3 Failure To Achieve Required Votes. A matter that fails to achieve the required number of votes for passage, including a tie vote, is deemed denied. The council members voting in opposition may state their reasons for the record. A matter is not deemed denied if the council continues the matter to another council meeting by a motion adopted by the same number of votes needed for passage. 10. Ordinances. 10.1 Introduction. Every new ordinance or amendment to an existing ordinance will be introduced to the council at a work session to get feedback and input. The council can refer the matter to an advisory board or commission at this time. comment [c5]: rill I it~nt is t,) rc t mI of, sort for the un it to har a bctte? omi to Ii anti then o I icc 11111) 11 -t I cros and otlir»pectt 10.2 Public Hearing. A public hearing on the ordinance or amendment to an ordinance of ap"llindw dn;.m- ,nle"'I„"„t is not required unless specified in City Code or state Law. The council may, at its discretion, hold a public hearing. 10.3 Adoption. An ordinance can only be considered for adoption at next meeting of the council following the introduction of the ordinance. Unless otherwise specified, an ordinance will be adopted by a majority vote of the council. 10.4 Repeals and amendments. Every ordinance and resolution repealing a previous ordinance or resolution or a section or subdivision thereof shall give the number, if any, and the title of the ordinance or code number of the ordinance or resolution to be repealed in whole or in part. Each ordinance or resolution amending an existing ordinance or resolution or part thereof shall set forth in full each amended section or subdivision as it will read with the amendment. 10.5 Publication. The administrator shall ensure publication of the adopted ordinance. The council may authorize publication of summary of the ordinance by resolution passed by a majority vote of the council. 11. Committees. 11.1 Committees designated. The following committees shall be appointed by the council at the first regular meeting in January of each year._AphointgtLr?t_sliall be dolle via General consensus; ho,vever. if more than one member desires apnointinem to the carne connnittee, the CoLmcil shall vote and majority shall determine the mernbers to committees and comu7issioris. -l rstt rt~r3t C crenttx ~ ~trd 11.2 Referral and reports. Any matter brought before the council for consideration may be refereed by the presiding officer to the appropriate committee-or cornmission_ or to a special committee or commission that the presiding officer appoints to )rL arc €-w a written report and recommendation before it is considered by the council as a whole. A majority of the members of the committee or._commission shall sign the report and file it with the clerk prior to the council meeting at which it is to be submitted. Minority reports may be submitted. Each committee-or .coimini.ssio« shall act promptly and faithfully on any matter referred to it. Background / Previous Action When the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space property was purchased from Tom Simms, the City agreed, as a condition of the purchase, to install a memorial bench on the site, recognizing the contribution of the Simms family. Last year the City authorized staff to purchase a bench, which was to be installed on the site as part of Miles DelBusso's Eagle Scout project. Mr. DelBusso has now received formal approval of his project from his Eagle Scout Board and is prepared to commence with the work. A copy of his project narrative is attached hereto as Exhibit A. It should be noted that his narrative mentions a concrete bench. Due to maintenance concerns, the City determined that a plastic resin material would be better suited to the site. Staff walked the site with Mr. DelBusso to determine the best location for the bench. Initially, it was thought that some place near the last informational kiosk would be best. However, due to terrain considerations and the locations of trees that have been planted, the best location for the bench is somewhat south of the last kiosk, as shown on Exhibit B, attached. This location requires minimal grade alteration and affords the most pristine view overlooking the wetland and "Big Woods" to the west. The location has been marked on the site for anyone who wishes to see it. Based on concerns about the maintenance of the site, staff has sifted through the cooperative agreement with the MCWD to determine who is responsible for what on the property. The plantings are the responsibility of the MCWD for five years after installation. As of this writing, two issues remain unanswered: 1) when can the blue tubes that protect the planted trees be removed? and 2) is there more to be done on the east end of the site between the pond and the access drive? Staff anticipates having answers to those questions for the meeting on Monday night. It is worth mentioning that the Scouts will inventory the plantings to determine how many plants may have died off since installation. It appears the MCWD representatives have now removed erosion control fencing from the site. With respect to the maintenance of the trail, that is the City's responsibility and the Public Works department has chemically treated the trail area for weeds. Once the weeds have died off, the trail will be cleaned up. This will happen in conjunction with the Boy Scouts' efforts. Options Approve the location of the memorial bench or suggest another location. Staff Recommendation Mr. DelBusso will be present at Monday night's meeting to present his project, after which he would like to begin work the first week of August. Staff intends to document the project with photos and feature them on the City's website. Upon completion of the project, it is suggested that a small dedication ceremony be scheduled, inviting the Simms family to be present. Staff recommends that Mr. DelBusso be authorized to begin work as proposed. As always, if there are questions relative to this matter, please contact the Planning Director prior to the meeting. Scout's name: ilea el usso Address: 25165 Glen Road Telephone No.: 952-470-576 Unit No.: Boy Scout Troop 424 District: Lake Minnetonka Local council: Northern Star Unit leader's name: Paul Thompson Address: 6375 (Maple Ridge Lane Telephone No.: 942-474-2276 Unit advancement committee person's name: Wendy Altrichter Address: 23605 Gillette Curve Shorewood 55331 Telephone No.: 952-474-9151 Exhibit A Describe the project you plan to do. What group will benefit from the project? The citizens and the community of the City of Shorewood; surrounding The community of My project will be of benefit to the group because: This project will benefit the community of Shorewood, which is small and close-knit, by honoring the benefactor of the land and beautifying the area of the park with native plantings, as well as providing a place to sit. This concept was discussed with my unit leader on (Date): June 06 The project concept was discussed with the following representative of the group that will benefit from the project. Representative's name: Brad Nielsen Representative's Title: City of Shorewood Planning Director Phone No.: 952-960-7912 Date of meeting: June 08 r the presen' + ;stn, the method, materials to be used, project helpers, and a time schedule'-)r carrying out the project. Describe any safety hazards you might face, and explain hover you will ensure the safety of those carrying out the project. If appropriate, include photographs of the area before you begin your project. Providing before-and-after photographs of your project area can give a clear example of your effort. Bench and platform assembly: For the bench platform, we would first dig out the site ten feet by five feet for the bench. Then, we would assemble 2x6 boards in a rectangular VL ; frame with auikrete Oich we will r`c I f hand u:-:,1 f tl°_ie 'heelbarro, id Financing: Financing for the project would be handled by the city of Shorewood which has budgeted one thousand dollars for all materials required. This amount would likely cover all costs involved with any deficit being picked up by the city project board. Materials needed: Work firneline Day 1: construction of concrete slab 11:30 1 arrive on site 12:00 all volunteers arrive on site 12:15 assemble frame from 2x6 lumber and place at site 1:15 Dig out site for bench, making room for a 4x8 inch footing around the interior 2:30 break for lunch 3:00 mix and pour concrete for bench footing 4:30 smooth out concrete slab and place anchor bolts for bench 5:00 end work day, occasionally check up on slab to ensure it is setting correctly and to prevent it from drying out over the next two days Day 2: plant survey 11:30 1 arrive on site 12:00 all volunteers arrive on site 12:15 teach volunteers what to look for in plants 12:45 break into groups and begin plant survey 2:00 break for lunch 2:30 continue with plant survey 3:30 finish survey, end work day Day 3: bench placement and landscaping 11:30 1 arrive on site 12:00 all volunteers arrive on site 12:15 begin construction on bench •f ;z 3.00 e---- -_ork day "Before" Photographs }r (h { 5 m u- pants that 1 would t: ~ 5 i r 'n x- . WE W Overall view of the site Location for the bench g s 6 s an Project plans were ~t--viewed anu- approved by: Religious institution, school, or community representative: Scoutmaster/Coach/Advisor: Unit committee member: Date: Date: Date: Council or district advancement committee member: Date: IMPORTANT NOTE: You may proceed with your leadership project only when you have - Completed all the above mentioned planning details - Shared the project plans with the appropriate persons - Obtained approval from the appropriate persons - Record the progress of your project. Keep a record of how much time you spend planning and carrying out the project. List who besides yourself worked on the project, the days they worked, the number of hours they worked each day, and the total length of time others assisted on the project. If appropriate, list the type and cost of any materials required to complete the project. If your original project plan changes at any time, be sure and document what the change was and the reason for the change. Flours I Spent Working on the project The length of time spent should be as adequate as is necessary for you to demonstrate your leadership of two or more individuals in planning and carrying out your project. Hours I spent Planning the project: 3 hours Carrying out the project : 12 hours Total hours I spent working on the project: 7 hours Flours Spent by Scouts, Venturers, or other Individuals Working on the Project Name Date No. of Hours Total number of hours others worked on the project: For a grand total, add the total number of hours you spent on the project to the total number of hours others worked on the project: Materials Required to Complete the Project Type of Material Cost of Material Changes is` - n-- ~ the original project plan an' n11. Photographs "AFTER" Photographs '^'n why those Including photographs of your completed project (alonq_ with the "before" photographs with the project description) helps present a clearer overall understanding of your effort. Approvals for Completed reject Start date of project: Completion date of project: The project was started and has been completed since 1 received the Life Scout rank, and is respectfully submitted for consideration. Applicant's signature: Date: This project was planned, developed, and carried out by the candidate. Signature of Scoutmaster/Coach/Advisor: Date: Signature of the representative of religious institution, school, or community: Date: R Y- as ws _ x Exhibit B rp. Background / Previous Action: On July 20, 2009, the City Council interviewed the following three candidates to fill the seat on the Planning Commission recently vacated by Scott Schmitt: A. Bethany Connelly, 6040 Oakview Court B. Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail C. Brian Kearns, 5080 Anthony Terrace Council Action Adoption of the attached Resolution naming one of the candidates above to fill the Planning Commission seat for the term ending February, 29, 2012. Council Action: r iw r ---/OOD ESGK UTION a®G® 09 A RESOLUTION AIDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has advertised for Shorewood residents to apply to serve on the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council did complete the selection procedure for appointment to said Commission. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby makes the following appointments to the Planning Commission effective July 27, 2009, with the term expiration as indicated: Planning Commission: Member Term 1. February 29, 2012 Said appointments complete the seven member Planning Commission which consists of the following additional members: Member Term 3. Bob Gagne February 28, 2010 4. Thomas W. Geng 5. David B. Hutchins 6. William C. Ruoff 7. Missy Villet 8. Pat Arnst February 28, 2010 February 28, 2010 February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011 February 29, 2012 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of July, 2009. Christine Liz6e, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk