Loading...
10-13-14 CC Reg Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2014 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Zerby Hotvet Siakel Sundberg Woodruff B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 22, 2014 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Recycling Contract Extension C. Approval of Tobacco License Renewals D. Setting the Date of November 10 for the Canvassing Board meeting E. Electing to Not Waive Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report by Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) Representative Paul Stelmachers on LMCC activities Attachments Minutes Claims List Recycling Coordinator's memo, Contract Clerk's memo, Resolution Clerk's memo Finance Director's memo, Resolution CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — October 13, 2014 Page 2 of 2 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Approve Change Order No. 1 for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Project B. Accepting Petition and Authorizing Connection to the City Water Distribution System 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS Attachments Engineer's memo, Resolution Engineer's memo, Resolution A. Review of Proposals for RFP for Renewable Energy Alternatives, City Administrator's Project 14 -09 memo B. Southshore Center correspondence Administrator's memo C. Request from Resident to Suspend the Deer Management Program at Site 92 Planning Director's memo 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trail Schedule Trail Schedule 2. Excelsior Boulevard Trail Update 3. Clover Plantings 4. Christmas Lake Update 5. Manor Park Shelter Repairs B. Mayor and City Council 13. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 . 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952 - 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mnmtiis • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.tiis Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, October 13, 2014 7:00 p.m. 5:30 PM – Ribbon Cutting - Meet across from Minnewashta School on Smithtown Road 6:00 PM – City Council Work Session Agenda Item 93A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item 9313: This is an extension of the Recycling Contract with Republic Services (aka Allied Waste), for a 5 -year contract from January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019. Agenda Item 93C: The four establishments currently holding a tobacco license have all submitted their renewal application, fee and supporting documentation. Staff is not aware of any tobacco license violations of these establishments in the past year, but it is recommended that approval of the resolution be contingent upon receipt of the background investigations that are being conducted by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. The license period is 11/1/14 – 10/31/15. Agenda Item 93D: This motion sets Monday, November 10, for the Canvassing Board meeting to canvass the local election results. It is recommended the meeting take place prior to the Work Session and Regular Council meeting. The meeting must take place between November 7 and 14. Agenda Item 93E: Staff recommends council approve the resolution electing to not waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance Agenda Item 94: Matters from the Floor—members of the public have an opportunity to address the Council on an issue not on the agenda; no Council action will be taken. Agenda Item 95: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening. Agenda Item 96A: Paul Stelmachers, LMCC Board Representative, will be present to provide an update on recent LMCC activities. Agenda Item 97: There are no park items this evening. Agenda Item 98: There are no planning items this evening. Agenda Item 99A: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Project, City Project 14 -04. Agenda Item 9913: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution accepting a Petition for Local Improvement from a resident for water connection and extension of water service at 25580 Nelsine Drive. Executive Summary — City Council Meeting of October 13, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 910A: Earlier this week, Council received copies of the proposals received in response to the RFP for Renewable Energy Alternatives. Staff is seeking input from Council on the proposals. Agenda Item 91OB: Council is asked to review and approve sending a letter to the Southshore Center founding cities that requests their approval of a notice of termination of their participation in the Cooperative Agreement. Agenda Item 91 OC: Kevin Minchk, a property owner in Marsh Pointe has requested the City indefinitely suspend its Deer Management Program for the hunt site that abuts their property (Site 92). He made a similar request last year, and at the October 14, 2013 council meeting, Council received public input on that request and determined to continue the program at Site 92 in 2013. Based on Council's decision in 2013, Staff did not temporarily suspend the program for Site 2 this year. Council should determine if it wishes to continue or indefinitely suspend the Deer Management Program in 2014 for Site 42. Agenda Item 11: There are no items of old business this evening. Agenda Item 912.A: The Trail Schedule is attached. Staff reports will be provided at the meeting. Agenda Items 91213: Mayor and City Council Members may report on recent activities. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 MINUTES #2A 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel „' Sundberg, and Woodruff, Attorney Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk,Panehyshyn; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, September, 8, 2014 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of September 8, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 510. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 8, 2014 Woodruff ,moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 510. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items,bn the Consent Agenda. Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolution Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -080, "A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Project, City Project No. 14 -04.” C. Accept Donations for Oktoberfest D. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Public Works Equipment — Plow and Sander Attachments CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 2 of 11 E. Accept Proposal for Professional Services for Sunnyvale Lane Construction Materials Testing Councilmember Woodruff stated there were two Computer Check Proof lists by Vendor lists included in the hardcopy meeting packet. One list has 55 items and one has 56 items. The one with the 56 items is the one being approved. Motion passed 510. 4. There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. Mayor Zerby welcomed Hennepin County update on County activities. Commissioner Callison explained the assessn Hennepin County because of the increase in districts coming online. Unfortunately, the iner to apartments or commercial / industrial pa residential. Some of the increases in values for homestead market exclusion. The Hennepin County .I September 11, 2014. A, for the last four years the The factors affecting the the Commissioners,and The County has not hired For a medians valued par( 2015. The median value will actually be a decreas She noted the County's 7 to give an are more land parcels in increment financing (TIF) to residential parcels than ;n will shift more toward some of parcels above the County's maximum budget and tax levy on posed in the general operating levy. By contrast, percent. The levy overall would be 3.07 percent. ;meats reached a year ago as well as the fact that is under resourced in the human resources area. wood the median value was $367,000 in 2014. It will be $386,000 in rcent. The levy the County is considering for the County property tax that median valued parcel. axation public hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2014. She stated she checked into the status of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) County Road 19 and Highway 7` signal project. County staff informed her that some of the needed components are supposed to arrive on September 26 and the new signal should be installed by mid - October. She then stated that Mayor Zerby had talked to her about a potential trail along Mill Street. She does not have any firm information about that. She is aware that would be an expensive trail connection with impacts on some properties. Typically the County may consider a project like that when a roadway is reconstructed. That roadway is not scheduled to be reconstructed. She noted the new Hennepin County Excelsior Library opened about one week ago. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 3 of 11 She then stated Hennepin County and Ramsey County are talking about a collaborative effort for juvenile detention services. Hennepin County operates the Home School in the City of Minnetonka. Ramsey County operates Totem Town. Both of those facilities are old. The uses of those facilities have changed over the years. There are not enough children at the Home School buildings because the County tries to keep the in the community to keep the buildings occupied. The two Counties are in the very early stages of talking about the possibility of collaborating to build one new facility. She noted that the County is continuing to decentralize its social services. In October the County will open a facility in the City of Hopkins. She also noted the County is close to opening its new public safety facility. The grand opening will be October 3. Commissioner Callison then noted she was willing to entertain Mayor Zerby thanked Commissioner Callison for her report. Councilmember Siakel stated a number of Shorewood residents I about things going on at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Council had sent the MCWD a letter asking for the MCWD Boar made available for at least online viewing. When the MCWD relocz the art video recording equipment in the meeting room where rego of other cities in the MCWD community have also made similar r good governance on the part of the Board. There seems like there i not seem to be a direct response to people who, could have some g City values the MCWD. The City needs the MCWD as a partner some of the decisions the Board made cannot be reversed; She bringing in new members on the Board that could bring in new ide calm to the situation. from Council. ie called to express their concerns ✓ICWD). She noted the Shorewood meetings to be video recorded and d to a new building-it put in state of Board meetings are held. A number Iuests. She expressed concern about chaos at the MCWD and there does od,input:, She noted Council and the She stated that she understands that uggested consideration be given to i and thought and also provide some Commissioner Callison explained the Hennepin County Board appoints watershed managers for three watershed districts —the MCWD, the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The; term, of the appointments is typically four years. Typically the Board appoints a couple, of managers each year. When she considers candidates she looks for individuals that will make good decisions. And, she has to look for a balance to represent different parts of the watershed districts and to have managers with different areas of expertise. She likes to believe she appoints good people and holds them accountable. When appointees are up for possible renewable she takes into account how they performed. She noted she also goes before the MCWD Board and she makes herself accessible to the MCWD,Board. Commissioner Callison ,,.stated she sent the MCWD Board a letter about some of the issues that had transpired about one month ago. She noted that the MCWD is a high functioning and important watershed. For her it has been tough to see the changes. She noted that conflict usually comes from both sides. One side does not do it all right and the other side does not do it all wrong. The Board has some tough issues to deal with. The decision for the Board to hire a mediator was a good decision. With regard to transparency, Commissioner Callison stated that to her it makes perfect sense to make videos of public meetings available to residents. She is not sure why the MCWD Board is hesitant to do that. She is willing to share her perspective if asked. But, the Board needs to make its own decisions and then explain its rationale to the MCWD community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Commissioner Callison encouraged Council to invite the MCWD Board to have a conversation with Council. The Board might find that helpful. She stated that although the Commissioners appoint the managers, the managers respond to the all of the MCWD's constituents. Getting the MCWD Board of Managers to talk directly with Council about Council's concerns would be a very appropriate way to go about things. It would be a way to get things out in the open. Councilmember Siakel stated there are concerns about the MCWD Board being dysfunctional. She indicated she thought there needed to be some intervention. She also thought there needs to be some new thoughts and talent on that Board. She clarified that she is conveying that the Board is a big issue for people. Commissioner Callison stated her opportunity to infuse new thought is when appointments are made unless a manager does something so egregious that it rises to maleficence, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. She noted that she does not believe that is what is going on with the MCWD Board. Councilmember Siakel stated it was pretty well documented that one member of the MCWD Board shouted profanities at a member of the public who came to address the Board. If that behavior ,occurred in this Council chamber or any other council she thought a, council would take action. From her vantage point there has not been enough done about that situation. Commissioner Callison explained the Hennepin County Attorney had been contacted for guidance on the situation. The Attorney did not think the situation gave rise to maleficence, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. She noted she is pleased that the individual who acted that way has apologized for his behavior. Councilmember Sundberg stated she, like everyone on Council; has heard a lot about this issue. She then stated she supports the idea of asking the MCWD Board,to come and openly talk with Council about what Council's expectations are of the MCWD and MCWD Board and what the MCWD's expectations are of the City. She went on to state Commissioner Callison and the Hennepin County Board have made quality appointments in the past. Situations with other watersheds were turned around. She hopes that will happen again. Sometimes changing just one player can drastically positively change the dynamics of the group. For the situation she is, talking about that is what happened and she is appreciative for Commissioner Callison's efforts in that situation: Mayor Zcrby thanked Commissioner Carson for coming and for looking out for the City's interests. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. 7 :14 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — Vacate Drainage and Utility Easements Applicant: Brent Hislop Location: 5990 and 6000 Strawberry Lane Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. Director Nielsen noted that Item 6.A and Item 8.A go hand in hand. Item 6.A is a result of the request under Item 8.A. Director Nielsen explained that Brent Hislop, 6000 Strawberry Lane, has arranged to purchase the westerly 250 feet of the property located at 5990 Strawberry Lane which is owned by Brian McConnell to enlarge his property. Mr. McConnell has agreed to the sale. Because the existing lot line will be moved Mr. Hislop has asked that the drainage and utility easements along the existing lot line be vacated as part CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 5 of 11 of the minor subdivision/combination in Item 8.A. The existing easements are substandard on the McConnell property. There are five -foot drainage and utility easement along the side lot lines. The Zoning Code requires ten feet. He noted the location of the existing easements on a graphic. New conforming easements would be granted along the new common lot line. Both reconfigured properties will meet or exceed the size zoning standards for the R -IA, Single- Family Residential zoning district in which they are located. Nielsen noted that staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of both the vacation and the minor subdivision/combination. Mayor Zerby asked if Brockwood is a paper street. Director Nielsen responded it is. Nielsen explained that Mr. Hislop had previously subdivided his property to carve off a one acre lot along Cathcart Drive. There is a ghost plat for that showing a street coming into that area with `a cul -de -sac. At some time that could be divided into additional lots. Council chose to discuss the subdivision/combination in Item 8.A at the same time as the vacation was discussed. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Mayor Zerby ,opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. Councilmember Woodruff stated the request is straight forward. Councilmember Siakel stated it was straight Planning Commission meeting. Sundberg moved, Siakel Drainage and Utility Ea 5990 and 6000 Strawber Mayor Zerby closed the Pi Sundberg moved, Woo Approving Subdivision McConnell, 5990 Strawb 7. PARKS A. Report of Park Commissioner Hartir Park Commission meeting 8. PLANNING the September 2, 2014, ed, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -081, "A Resolution Vacating Looted on the Property Line between the Properties Located at " Motion passed 510. aring of 7:23 P.M. econded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -082, "A Resolution mbination, for Brent Hislop, 6000 Strawberry Lane, and Brian ne ". Motion passed 510. ber 9, 2014, Park Commission Meeting ann reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 9, 2014, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Approval of Minor Subdivision/ Combination Applicants: Brian McConnell and Brent Hislop Location: 5990 and 6000 Strawberry Lane This was discussed as part of item 6.A. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 6 of 11 B. Conditional Use Permit for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards Applicant: Peter Kapsner Location: 5905 Seamans Drive Director Nielsen explained that Peter Kapsner purchased the property located at 5905 Seamans Drive. Mr. Kapsner intends to build a new home on the property. He proposes to raise the grade on the property two to five feet over approximately the front third of the site in order to accommodate a full basement and to maintain the current easterly drainage pattern on the site. The contractor estimates that the proposed grading plan will require approximately 300 cubic yards of fill to be brought on to the site. Shorewood's Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. Although two to five feet of fill appears to be a lot, 300 yards is considered to be a relatively small amount and it is being placed on a relatively small portion of the site, with the deepest area being behind the house. The grading is quite gradual, except for the small area behind the house. The C.U.P. process for fill/grading projects serves several purposes. It places heightened scrutiny on drainage to ensure it will not create drainage issues for surrounding properties. It provides control over traffic patterns for trucks hauling fill. That is a minor issue for this request because the amount of fill that will be brought in will not be significant. And, it advises local residents of what can amount to a dramatic change in terrain. He reviewed the City Engineer's recommendations which are as follows. • For the building permit, the grading plan should be revised to show the contrast between existing and proposed contour lines. • A defined swale should be graded across the front of the property to conduct drainage to the north and then east across the north side of the lot' property in general drains to the east toward the Minnetonka Country Club's golf course. The applicant has provided a new survey showing that. • Silt fence must be placed around the entire area affected by construction. Nielsen noted, that at the dais this evening there was a copy of an updated resolution which includes language about the property owner repairing the roadway should there be any damage from construction vehicles. He also noted that,the Planning Commission unanimously recommended granting the C.U.P. Councilmember Sundberg asked if there is a wetland adjacent to the property. Director Nielsen clarified there is a wetland.setback adjacent to the property. Councilmember Siakel noted she was the Council Liaison at the Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed. A couple of neighbors were present and they had their possible concerns addressed and were comfortable with what was being proposed. Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -083, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Peter Kapsner for the Property Located at 5905 Seamans Drive ". Motion passed 510. C. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet Applicants: Linda and Louis Tilton Location: 5620 Covington Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Director Nielsen explained Linda and Louis Tilton own the property located at 5620 Covington Road. They propose to build an attached garage addition on the north side of their home. That addition, when combined with the floor area of other accessory structures on the property (a small shed and a garage / carriage house) puts the property in excess of 1200 square feet of accessory space. That requires them to obtain a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) in accordance with Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d. of the City's Zoning Code. Nielsen reviewed how the applicants' request complies with the four criteria in Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code. 1. The total area of accessory space (3102 square feet) would not exceed the floor area above grade of the home (4630 square feet). 2. The total area of accessory space would not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot size for the R- lA /S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). The old garage /carriage house is nonconforming with respect to its height anti its setback from the property line. The shed does not comply, with the lakeshore setback for Christmas Lake. It is 33 feet from the shoreline, whereas 75 feet is required: When there is a nonconforming structure a property owner cannot exceed 1200 square feet of accessory space except in certain cases where the structures have historical, architectural or cultural significance for the area. The Tiltons and their architect have done a good job of demonstrating how those structures comply with what the City is looking for with special structures. a. The buildings were there before the City was incorporated. Copies of aerial photographs and regular photographs dating back 4b 1956 and earlier were displayed. b. The buildings are in character and in keeping with the existing house which was built in the 1920s or, 1930s. A copy of a photograph in a 1922 House and Garden Magazine article was displayed. c. The architect advises,in his letter that the garage /carriage house is structurally sound. An ad hoc committee made up of Kris Sundberg (Council), Sue Davis (Planning Commission), and Justin Mangold (Park Commission), reviewed the material submitted by the applicants, and voted unanimously to recommend to the Planning Commission that the property satisfied the historic preservation provisions of the Zoning Code. 4. The proposed garage is very much in keeping with the existing buildings on the property. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request during its September 2, 2014, meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the C.U.P. He stated if this is approved the applicants will have to sign a maintenance agreement for the existing nonconforming structures. The City's ordinance is fairly liberal in what it requires in that regard. The Ordinance says the buildings will be maintained and nothing prevents the property owners from bringing the buildings into conformance by either moving or removing them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Councilmember Sundberg stated that as a member of the ad hoc committee she had the opportunity to go through this in detail. She is comfortable with what is being proposed and believes it will enhance the property considerably. Councilmember Hotvet stated based on what was included in the meeting packet there is a lot of support for this from residents in the neighborhood and even by a former neighbor. Sundberg moved, Hotvet seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -084, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet of Area for Linda and Louis Tifton, 5620 Covington Road" subject to the applicants executing and recording the maintenance agreement for the garage /carriage house and shed. Motion passed 510. D. Setting the Date for the Smithtown Sidewalk (weest) "Ribbon Cutting Director Nielsen stated there is a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Smithtown Road (west) sidewalk proposed for October 13 at 5:30 P.M. The ceremony will take place directly across the street from the Minnewashta Elementary School parking lot. There was Council consensus to accept the date as sugg 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WO A. Accept Quotes and Award Report Engineer Hornby noted a quotes received for the Gi opened on September I� Corporation, Eden Prairie. high quote to the shorten( will consider combining alternatives. Councilmember Woodruf still a reasonable estimate. vised handout from him N on +Glen parking lot proec 2014. The low bid of $ 'he Engineer's Estimate fc 2014 construction season. the king Lot and Drainage is placed at the dais this evening regarding the He explained that the bids for the project were ),300.13 was received from Midwest Asphalt the project was $21,517.50. Staff attributes the itaff recommends Council reject the bids. Staff 015 street project as well as consider other if theEngineer's Estimate needs to be revised or does staff think that is Engineer Homby, explained the capital improvement program (CIP) allocated about $12,000 for that project. Based on the current bidding climate staff did not think that amount would be sufficient. Staff did think the Engineer's, Estimate Would have been sufficient. The project also includes work on a culvert with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to resolve an erosion issue. About one -half of the cost is for the parking lot improvements. He thought that cost would be $12,000 — $15,000. Quotes were solicited from seven contractors and only one of them bid on the project. He thought contractors were too busy to do such a small project. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the project be talked about when the 2015 CIP is discussed. In response to a comment from Woodruff, Engineer Hornby explained Sunnyvale Lane is under construction. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 9 of 11 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -085, "A Resolution Rejecting Bids for Gideon Glenn Conservation Open Space Parking Lot Improvements." Motion passed 510. 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Monthly Budget Report Administrator Joynes stated the monthly budget report will be sent out tomorrowor the next day. Mayor Zerby noted the report did not get included in the meeting packet for the last meeting either. 2. Trail Schedule Engineer Hornby noted the meeting packet contains a copy,of the Trail Schedule. He also noted the Smithtown Road east walkway project is on schedule. The feasibility report will be completed in October and it will be presented to the Planning Commission and Council in October. Other Director Brown stated Manor Park. Brown explained that on indicated that the cost to not qualify for cost re representatives, from, FEh The City stands to recbu the City will recoup will sent an damaged the warming house in er 12, +2014, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had Enchanted Lane to the way it was before the storm this summer would He appealed that decision. The morning of September 8 he and -d the site and after substantial discussion FEMA reversed its decision. '56,000 for Enchanted Lane restoration from FEMA. The total amount $70,060. Brown noted that the parking lot in Freeman Park on the south side of the Park has been regraded. The installation of the .Shorewood Oaks trail has been completed. He stated that when he was out inspecting the trail he had the opportunity to meet with the residents in that area and they indicated they liked what had been done. One resident suggested waiting to do any other grading modifications until there is an opportunity to see how the st6rmwater flows from the spring rains. Brown stated the clover plots have been planted. Staff is working on a watering plan with the people who have been involved with the planting. Mayor Zerby asked for an update on the fence in Freeman Park being too high. Director Brown explained there are ballgames still being played there. Staff wanted to hold off on fixing that until the games are almost done for the season. The coaches agree with that decision. The contractor is on board with getting that done. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 10 of 11 Councilmember Woodruff asked if staff is going to put the restoration of Enchanted Lane out for bids and if so when. Director Brown explained that staff decided that the City does not need to pursue a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers because the restoration could fall under a maintenance only category. Staff will seek quotes for the project this week and he hopes that Council will be able to award the contract during its October 13 meeting. Councilmember Sundberg asked staff anticipates that it will be difficult to water the clover in Cathcart Park. Director Brown responded he does not think there will be a problem. Director Brown clarified that during 2014 the only thing that will be done to Enchanted Lane is the gravel areas will be overlaid; not the entire roadway. Councilmember Woodruff noted Public Works staff has been Enchanted Island. He clarified that the patching work and overlay Councilmember Sundberg applauded Director Brown for up with a favorable decision. Engineer Hornby explained that Sunnyvale Lane is u doing some erosion control installation and the bitun sanitary sewer work was started early today. He then there is turf coming up. The wear course will be installe Hornby noted that the City received nine proposals' fc was provided with a list of respondents at the dais 1 proposals and provide Council with a summary and a because one of the proposals reeelved is from is an affi from the review process. He did not even open any of 1 there is a conflict of interest Director Brown stated the and the some roadway patching out on are two separate things. ,IA's original decision and ending in. Last week the contractor was egate base was scraped off. The for the Valleywood Lane project G will be completed in 2014. renewable energy alternatives study. Council evening. He explained staff will review the ommend Lion for consideration. He noted that e of WSB & Associates he will excuse himself proposals because he does not anyone to think ,artment heads will review the proposals. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like to look at the proposals. Engineer Hornby clarified that all members of the Council will have the opportunity to look at all of the proposals as part of the review and summary process. Director, Brown explained that it has been the City's policy to leave the wear course on a newly constructed roadway off for one year in order to let the freeze /thaw action take its toll. During his 19 -year tenure with the City there has only been one time when pavement repairs had to be made before the wear course was put down. Staff discussed the damage the City plows could do to the curbing on Valleywood Road and it spoke with mrepresentatives from other communities about how they handle things. Staff is comfortable with foregoing the waiting period and putting in the wear course this year unless Council disagrees with that. Councilmember Hotvet asked staff to provide an update on the trail project being done as part of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) forcemain project. Director Brown explained that during Council's September 8, 2014, meeting he had informed Council that MCES realized that its forcemain in that area was located in a different spot than originally thought. The design engineers for MCES have revised the design for the retaining wall near the trail. The engineer for the contractor who actually designs the wall has submitted the design to MCES and MCES is doing the final checks on the design. Hopefully, things will move along as planned. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2014 Page 11 of 11 Mayor Zerby asked for an update on the Apple Road project. Engineer Hornby explained the contractor plans to start the work during the first half of October. Director Nielsen stated there is a South Lake area parks summit meeting scheduled for September 23. He then stated there is an orientation scheduled for September 25 for the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base bowhunters. The 2014 deer harvesting effort starts this upcoming weekend. The City does send residents living on properties that abut the harvesting sites a notice of when the harvesting will occur. He noted the October Planning Commission's October meeting has been moved to October 21 and it will discuss the feasibility study for the Smithtown Road east walkway project. Prior to the meeting the Commission will walk the proposed walkway area. Administrator Joynes explained that on September 23 staff Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnehaha update everyone on Christmas Lake activities. Staff will provi discussed and planned. He noted there is an Excelsior Fire Dist: September 24. The 2015 EFD budget issues will be discussed dul issues can be resolved. He stated that he and Attorney Keane are eventually be sent to the other four co- owners of the Southshore consider the sending of the letter during its October 13 meeting. r B. Mayor and City Council Mayor Zerby stated he attended the event. The movie Frozen was most people at the event. Councilmember Hotvet City's representative. Mi of the Minnetonka Schoa of them being open enro close schools and lav off 13. Woodruff moved, Siakel P.M. Motion passed 510. Christine ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk 1 be meeting with the Minnesota -k Watershed District (MCWD) to `ouncil with a summary of what is ;EFD) Board meeting scheduled for that meeting and the hope is that the :ing on drafting a document that will munitv Center (SSCCI. Council will .ember 12 Movie in the Park event in Badger Park. It was a good ropriate for 'a very chilly evening. He estimated there were 100 ded a Minnetonka Family Collaborative Council meeting as the )I District Superintendent Dr. Peterson gave a report on the State the District almost has 10,000 students with approximately 2,900 ned that without the open enrollment the District would have to ,on noted the District is $83 million in the black. the City Council Regular Meeting of 8 2014, at 8:06 Scott Zerby, Mayor #3A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title j Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid? Background: Claims for council authorization. 60787 -60798 & ACH 114,362.96 Pending Checks & ACH 506,281.43 Total Claims $620,644.39 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending September 20, 2014 & October 4, 2014. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation f Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: Mnguyen Batch: 00002.09.2014 - PAYROLL - 09222014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 46,123.37 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101 -11- 4103 -0000 1,300.00 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -11- 4122 -0000 99.47 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4101 -0000 7,236.54 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -13- 4121 -0000 498.33 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4122 -0000 543.27 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4131 -0000 1,106.32 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -13- 4151 -0000 18.34 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -15 -4101 -0000 4,224.08 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -15- 4121 -0000 306.24 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4122 -0000 313.36 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4131 -0000 422.60 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -15- 4151 -0000 8.35 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -18- 4101 -0000 5,162.38 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -18- 4121 -0000 374.27 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18 -4122 -0000 359.66 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18 -4131 -0000 851.33 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -18 -4151 -0000 24.10 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -24- 4101 -0000 3,704.38 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -24- 4121 -0000 268.57 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4122 -0000 242.83 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4131 -0000 450.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -24- 4151 -0000 22.59 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -32- 4101 -0000 8,504.65 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -32- 4121 -0000 616.59 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4122 -0000 628.37 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4131 -0000 1,494.68 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -32- 4151 -0000 348.77 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -52- 4101 -0000 3,540.34 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -52- 4103 -0000 821.25 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -52- 4121 -0000 256.67 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4122 -0000 334.05 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4131 -0000 717.38 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -52- 4151 -0000 184.44 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/22/2014 - 12:05 PM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101 -53- 4101 -0000 974.49 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -53- 4121 -0000 70.64 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4122 -0000 71.59 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4131 -0000 17.72 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -53- 4151 -0000 4.73 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 46,123.37 46,123.37 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 1,361.46 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201 -00 -4101 -0000 817.70 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 201 -00- 4102 -0000 163.80 0.00 OVERTIME 201 -00- 4103 -0000 214.50 0.00 PART -TIME 201 -00- 4121 -0000 71.16 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4122 -0000 89.09 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4151 -0000 5.21 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,361.46 1,361.46 FUND 601 Water Utility 601 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 4,841.15 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601 -00- 4101 -0000 3,100.14 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 601 -00- 4102 -0000 213.00 0.00 OVERTIME 601 -00- 4105 -0000 154.00 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601 -00 -4121 -0000 251.36 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4122 -0000 264.21 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4131 -0000 772.32 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 601 -00- 4151 -0000 86.12 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 4,841.15 4,841.15 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 4,883.53 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611 -00 -4101 -0000 3,262.88 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 611 -00 -4102 -0000 85.20 0.00 OVERTIME: 611 -00- 4105 -0000 154.00 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611 -00- 4121 -0000 253.91 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4122 -0000 267.93 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4131 -0000 772.32 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 611 -00- 4151 -0000 87.29 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 4,883.53 4,883.53 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 442.74 CASH AND INVESTMENTS PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/22/2014 - 12:05 PM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 621 -00- 4101 -0000 333.79 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 621 -00- 4121 -0000 24.20 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4122 -0000 21.75 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4131 -0000 63.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY FUND Total: 442.74 442.74 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 5,866.12 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631 -00- 4101 -0000 4,938.47 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 631 -00- 4121 - 0000 358.03 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4122 -0000 314.03 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4131 -0000 78.85 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 631 -00- 4151 -0000 176.74 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,866.12 5,86612 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700 -00- 1010 - 0000 63,160.47 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700 -00 -2170 -0000 0.00 31,741.68 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700 -00- 2171 -0000 0.00 6,885.45 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700 -00- 2172 -0000 0.00 4,015.52 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2173 -0000 0.00 1,822.08 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2174 -0000 0.00 7,099.22 FICA /MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700 -00- 2175 -0000 0.00 6,237.90 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2176 -0000 0.00 2,025.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2177 -0000 0.00 966.68 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700 -00 -2179 -0000 0.00 192.00 SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE 700 -00- 2183 -0000 0.00 1,288.05 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 700 -00 -2184- 0000 0.00 478.89 DENTAL DELTA 700 -00- 2185 -0000 0.00 408.00 DENTAL - UNION FUND Total: 63,160.47 63,160.47 Report Total: 126,678.84 1265678.84 PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/22/2014 - 12:05 PM) Page 3 Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: Mnguyen Batch: 00001.10.2014 - PAYROLL- 10062014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 47,588.70 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101 -13- 4101 -0000 7,226.95 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -13 -4121 -0000 499.03 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4122 -0000 545.93 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE I01 -13- 4131 -0000 1,106.32 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -13- 4151 -0000 23.92 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -15- 4101 -0000 4.224.08 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101 -15- 4121 -0000 306.24 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4122 -0000 308.73 0.00 FICA CONPRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15 -4131 -0000 422.60 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -15- 4151 -0000 14.30 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -18- 4101 -0000 5,097.46 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -18- 4121 -0000 369.56 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4122 -0000 363.50 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4131 -0000 851.33 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -18- 4151 -0000 26.83 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -24- 4101 -0000 3,818.36 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -24- 4121 -0000 276.83 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4122 -0000 245.21 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4131 -0000 450.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -24- 4151 -0000 22.74 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -32- 4101 -0000 11,908.87 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -32- 4102 -0000 143.09 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -32- 4105 -0000 257.30 0.00 STREET PAGER PAY 101 -32- 4121 - 0000 892.41 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4122 -0000 841.78 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4131 -0000 1,494.68 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -32- 4151 -0000 609.15 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -52- 4101 -0000 2,396.24 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -52- 4103 -0000 540.00 0.00 PART -TIME 1.01 -52 -4121 -0000 173.73 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4122 -0000 241.03 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4131 -0000 717.38 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -52- 4151 -0000 146.94 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR - G/L Distribution Report (10/06/2014 - 10:33 AM) Page 1 Account Number DebitAmount Credit Amount Description 101 -53- 4101 -0000 875.75 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -53- 4121 -0000 63.49 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4122 -0000 65.80 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4131 -0000 17.72 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -53 -4151 -0000 3.42 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 47,588.70 47,588.70 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 1,201.47 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201 -00 -4101 -0000 590.53 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 201 -00- 4102.0000 245.70 0.00 OVERTIME 201 -00- 4103 -0000 225.00 0.00 PART -TIME 201 -00- 4121 -0000 60.64 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4122 -0000 76.74 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00 -4151 -0000 2.86 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,201.47 1,201.47 FUND 601 Water Utility 601 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 5,248.29 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601 -00- 4101 -0000 3,553.77 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 601 -00- 4102 -0000 92.40 0.00 OVERTIME 601 -00- 4105 -0000 154.00 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601 -00 -41.21 -0000 275.50 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4122 -0000 284.96 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4131 -0000 772.32 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 601 -00 -4151 -0000 115.34 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,248.29 5,248.29 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 5,231.02 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611 -00- 4101 -0000 3,639.45 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 611 -00- 4105 -0000 154.00 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611 -00- 4121 -0000 275.03 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4122 -0000 291.73 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4131 -0000 772.32 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 611 -00 -4151 -0000 98.49 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,231.02 5,231.02 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 464.41 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621 -00- 4101 -0000 354.44 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR PR - GIL Distribution Report (1010612014 - 10:33 AM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 621 -00- 4121 -0000 25.69 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4122 -0000 21.28 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4131 -0000 63.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY FUND Total: 464.41 464.41 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 2,319.62 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631 -00- 4101 -0000 1,930.06 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 631 -00- 4121 -0000 139.95 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4122 -0000 133.59 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00 -4131 -0000 78.85 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 631 -00 -4151 -0000 37.17 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 2,319.62 2,319.62 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700 -00- 1010 - 0000 61,673.86 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700 -00- 2170 -0000 0.00 29,910.83 GROSS PAYROLL, CLEARING 700 -00- 2171 -0000 0.00 6,894.70 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700 -00- 2172 -0000 0.00 3,948.93 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2173 -0000 0.00 1,801.80 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2174 -0000 0.00 6,840.56 FICA /MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700 -00- 2175 -0000 0.00 6,253.02 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2176 -0000 0.00 2,025.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2177 -0000 0.00 1,101.16 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700 -00 -2179 -0000 0.00 192.00 SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE 700 -00- 2180 -0000 0.00 393.46 LIFE INSURANCE 700 -00 -2181 -0000 0.00 712.03 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700 -00- 2182 -0000 0.00 312.32 UNION DUES 700 -00- 2183 -0000 0.00 1,288.05 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT FUND Total: 61,673.86 61,673.86 Report Total: 123,727.37 123,727.37 PR - G/L Distribution Report (10/06/2014 - 10:33 AM) Page 3 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 09/24/2014 - 12:22PM Check Number Check Date Amount 4 - AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account 0 09/22/2014 Inv October -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Dental - Union- October 700 -00 -2185 -0000 408.00 Inv October -2014 Total 408.00 0 Total 4 - AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Total: 12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION Line Item Account 60787 09/22/2014 Inv October -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 09/08/2014 PR Batch 00001.09.201.4 Union Dues - October Inv October -2014 Total 60787 Total: 12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION Total: 3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Line Item Account 0 09/22/2014 Inv October -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Dental - Non Union - October Inv October -2014 Total 0 Total Line Item Account 700 -00 -2182 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00 -2184 -0000 408.00 408.00 312.32 312.32 312.32 312.32 478.89 478.89 478.89 3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Total: 478.89 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 09/22/2014 AP -Check Detail (9 /24/2014 - 12:22 PM) Page 1 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 09/22/2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Federal Income Tax 700 -00- 2172 -0000 4,015.52 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 FICA Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 2,876.78 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 FICA Employer Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 2,876.78 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Medicare Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 672.83 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Medicare Employer Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 672.83 Inv 09/22/2014 Total 11,114.74 0 Total: 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 6 - HEALTH PARTNERS Line Item Account 60788 09/22/2014 Inv October -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 09/08/2014 PR Batch 0000 1.09.2014 Health Ins - CoPay 09/08/2014 PR Batch 00001.09.2014 Health Insurance -HSA 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Health Ins - CoPay 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Health Insurance -HSA Inv October -2014 Total 60788 Total: 6 - HEALTH PARTNERS Total: 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account 60789 09/22/2014 Inv 09/22/2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Deferred Comp Flat Amomzt Inv 09/22/2014 Total 60789 Total: Line Item Account 700 -00 -2171 -0000 700 -00- 2171 -0000 700 -00 -2171 -0000 700 -00- 2171 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00- 2176 -0000 11,114.74 11,114.74 2,208.10 4,586.50 2,298.95 4,586.50 13,680.05 13,680.05 13,680.05 2,025.00 2,025.00 2,025.00 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Total: 2,025.00 7 - MINNESOTA LIFE. Line Item Account 0 09/22/2014 Inv October -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 09/08/2014 PR Batch 0000 1.09.2014 Life Insurance - October 700 -00- 2180 -0000 377.46 Inv October -2014 Total 377.46 AP -Check Detail (9/24/2014 - 12:22 PM) Page 2 Check Number Check Date Amount 0 Total: 7 - MINNESOTA LIFE Total: 11 - MN DEPT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 09/22/2014 Inv 09/22/2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 State Income Tax Inv 09/22/2014 Total 0 Total: 11 - MN DEPT OF REVENUE Total: 16 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Line Item Account 60790 09/22/2014 Inv October -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Descri to ion 09/08/2014 PR Batch 0000 1.09.2014 PERA Life -Oct Inv October -2014 Total 60790 Total: 10 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Total: 9 - PERA Lane Item Account 0 09/22/2014 Inv 09/22/2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 MN -PERA Deduction 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 MN PERA Benefit Employer Inv 09/22/2014 Total 0 Total: Line Item Account 700 -00- 2173 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00 -2180 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00- 2175 -0000 700 -00- 2175 -0000 377.46 377.46 1,822.08 1,822.08 1,822.08 1,822.08 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 2,887.93 3,349.97 6,237.90 6,237.90 9 - PERA Total: 6,237.90 8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Line Item Account 60791 09/22/2014 Inv October -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account AP -Check Detail (9/24/2014 - 12:22 PM) Page 3 Check Number Check Date Amount 09/08/2014 PR Batch 0000 1.09.2014 Long Term Disability 700 -00 -2181 -0000 280.07 09/08/2014 PR Batch 00001.09.2014 Short Term Disability 700 -00- 2181 -0000 431.96 Inv October -2014 Total 712.03 6079I Total: 712.03 8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Total: 712.03 1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account 0 09/22/2014 Inv 09/22/2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 09/22/2014 PR Batch 00002.09.2014 Health Savings Account 700 -00- 2183 -0000 1,288.05 Inv 09/22/2014 Total 1,288.05 0 Total: 1,288.05 1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: 1,288.05 Total: 38,472.52 AP -Check Detail (9 /24/2014 - 12:22 PM) Page 4 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 09/29/2014 - 2:52PM Check Number Check Date Amount UB *00006 - Carrington Title Services, LLC Line Item Account 60792 09/25/2014 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Descri tp ion Line Item Account 09/25/2014 Refund Check 611 -00- 2010 -0000 2.01 09/25/2014 Refired Check 621 -00 -2010 -0000 14.45 09/25/2014 Refund Check 631 -00 -2010 -0000 6.87 Inv Total 23.33 60792 Total: 23.33 U13*00006 - Carrington Title Services, LLC Total: 23.33 Total: 23.33 AP -Check Detail (9/29/2014 - 2:52 PM) Page 1 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 09/29/201.4 - 2:53PM Check Number Check Date Amount UB *00007 - Boyum, Nancy & Darryl Line Item Account 60793 10/01/2014 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 09/26/2014 Refund Check 601 -00 -2610 -0000 26.89 09/26/2014 Refund Check 611 -00- 2010 -0000 26.89 09/26/2014 Refund Check 621 -00- 2010 -0000 11.52 09/26/2014 Refund Check 631 -00- 2010 -0000 11.53 Inv Total 60793 Total: UB *00007 - Boymn, Nancy & Darryl Total: 526 - FRANSEN, ROBERT & MELANIE Line Item Account 60794 10/01/2014 Inv 27970SmithtownR Line Item Date Line Item Description 10/01/2014 27970 Smithtown Road - Escrow Refund Inv 27970SmithtownR Total 60794 Total: 526 - F.RANSEN, ROBERT & MELANIE Total: Total 76.83 76.83 76.83 Line Item Account 880 -00- 2200 -0000 9,045.00 9,045.00 9,045.00 9,045.00 9,121.83 AP -Check Detail (9 /29/2014 - 2:53 PM) Page 1 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 1.0/07/2014 - 12:20PM Check Number Check Date Amount 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 10/06/2014 Inv 10062014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001.10.2014 Federal Income Tax 700 -00- 2172 -0000 3,948.93 1.0/06/201.4 PR Batch 00001. 10.2014 FICA Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 2,771.98 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001. 10.2014 FICA Employer Portion 700 -00 -2174 -0000 2,771.98 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001.10.2014 Medicare Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 648.30 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001.10.2014 Medicare Employer Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 648.30 Inv 10062014 Total 10,789.49 0 Total: 10,789.49 5 - EFT'PS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 10,789.49 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account 60796 10/06/2014 Inv 1.0062014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001.10.2014 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700 -00- 2176 -0000 2,025.00 Inv 10062014 Total 2,025.00 60796 Total: 2,025.00 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Total: 2,025.00 286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Line Item Account 0 10/06/2014 Inv 3rd Qtr- 2014 -UB Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 09/30/2014 Utility - Postage -3rd Qtr 601 -00- 4208 -0000 359.84 09/30/2014 Utility -Svc- 3rd Qtr 601 -00 -4400 -0000 95.88 09/30/2014 Utility - Postage- 3rd Qtr 611 -00- 4208 -0000 359.84 09/30/2014 Utility- Svc - 3rd Qtr 611 -00- 4400 -0000 95.88 09/30/2014 Utility- Postage - 3rd Qtr 621 -00- 4208 -0000 359.84 09/30/2014 Utility -Svc- 3rd Qtr 621 -00- 4400 -0000 95.88 09/30/2014 Utility- Postage- 3rd Qtr 631 -00- 4208 -0000 359.84 09/30/2014 Utility -Svc- 3rd Qtr 631 -00- 4400 -0000 95.89 AP -Check Detail (10/7/2014 - 12:20 PM) Page I Check Number Check Date Inv 3rd Qtr- 2014 -UB Total 0 Total: 286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Total: 11- MN DEPT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 10/06/2014 Inv 10062014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001.10.2014 State Income Tax Inv 10062014 Total 0 Total: 11- MN DEPT OF REVENUE Total: 9 - PERA Line Item Account 0 10/06/2014 Inv 10062014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001.10.2014 MN -PERA Deduction 10/06/2014 PR Batch 00001.10 -2014 MN PERA Benefit Employer Inv 10062014 Total 0 Total: 9 - PERA Total: 1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account 0 10/06/2014 Inv 10062014 Line Item Date Line Item Description 10/06/2014 PR ,Batch 00001. 10.2014 Health Savings Account Inv 10062014 Total 0 Total: 1- WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: Line Item Account 700 -00- 2173 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00- 2175 -0000 700 -00 -2175 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00- 2183 -0000 Amount 1,822.89 1,822.89 1,822.89 1,801.80 1,801.80 1,801.80 1,801.80 2,894.92 3,358.10 6,253.02 6,253.02 6,253.02 1,288.05 1,288.05 1,288.05 1,288.05 AP -Check Detail (10 /7/2014 - 12:20 PM) Page 2 Check Number Check Date Total: Amount 23,980.25 AP -Check Detail (10 /7/2014 - 12:20 PM) Page 3 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 10/07/2014 - 12:21 PM Check Number Check Date Amount 471- HENN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX Line Item Account 60797 10/07/2014 Inv 2014 -2nd Hatt' Line Item Date Line Item Descripton Line Item Account 10/07/2014 2014 -2nd Half -5975 Country Club Road 450 -00- 4437 -0000 1,640.03 Inv 2014 -2nd Half Total 60797 Total: 471 - HENN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX Total: 528 - STON.EWOOD, LLC Line Item Account 60798 10/07/2014 Inv 270IOEdgewdRd Line Item Date Line Item Description 10/07/2014 27010 Edgewood Road - Escrow Refund Inv 27010EdgewdRd Total 60798 Total: 528 - STONEWOOD, LLC Total: Total: 1,640.03 1,640.03 1,640.03 Line Item Account 880 -00- 2200 -0000 31,650.00 31,650.00 31,650.00 31,650.00 33,290.03 AP -Check Detail (10 /7/2014 - 12:21 PM) Page 1 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 10/08/2014 - 3:14PM Check Number Check Date 495 - JOYNES, WILLIAM Line Item Account 0 10/08/2014 Inv Sept -2014 Line Item Date Line Itern Description 09/30/2014 Admin Svc - Sept Inv Sept -2014 Total 0 Total: 495 - JOYNES, WILLIAM Total: Total: Amount Line Item Account 101 -13 -4400 -0000 9,475.00 9,475.00 9,475.00 9,475.00 9,475.00 AP -Check Detail (10 /8/2014 - 3:14 PM) Page I Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Mnguyen Printed: 10/09/2014 -11:51 AM Batch: 00005.10.2014 - COUNCIL- 10132014 -3 Invoice No Description Vendor: 104 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC CENTERPOINT ENERGY 915210 2,086.67 Building Inspection - CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 80000150112- 093014 6974 - 235181 Check Total: 67.29 Vendor: 112 AMERICAN LEGAL PUBLISHING CORPORATI Vendor: 530 0100904 20630 Manor Rd -08/21 -09/22 Code of Ordinances - 10/29/14- 10/29/15 AVE Acrobat 233.90 PK71736 Clieck Total: 450.00 Vendor: 496 SUSAN BELISLE -CUKLA 952- 474 - 9605- Amesbury 10/06/2014 952- 474 -9606- Amesbury Shared Belly Dance Class - Session End 09 /17/14 Check Total: 312.11 Vendor: 144 CITY OF EXCELSIOR Check 'total: 45.00 Vendor: 122 BLANCHARD CATERING INC 2014- Octoberfes 10/03/14 Octoberfest Meals Check Total: 408.46 Vendor: 508 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. City of Shorewood Amount Payment Date Acct Number Check Sequence: 1 67.29 10/06/2014 101 -19- 4400 -0000 450.00 45.00 408.46 4515 Freeman Park Regrade 2,086.67 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Check Total: 2,086.67 Vendor: 134 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 80000150112- 093014 6974 - 235181 Hydraulic Hoses 160.18 80000150112 -- 093014 Check Total: 160.18 Vendor: 530 CDW GOVERNMENT 20630 Manor Rd -08/21 -09/22 PK71736 AVE Acrobat 233.90 PK71736 AVE Acrobat 233.90 Check Sequence: 2 10/13/2014 101 -13 -4400 -0000 Check Sequence:3 10/13/2014 101 -53- 4246 -0000 Check Sequence: 4 10/13/2014 101 -53- 4246 -0000 Check Sequence: 5 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4245 -0000 Check Sequence: 6 10/13/2014 101 -32 -4221 -0000 Check Sequence:7 10/06/2014 101 -15- 4200 -0000 10/06/2014 101 -18- 4200 -0000 Check Total: 467.80 Vendor: 136 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 79456885- 092414 5735 Country Club Rd -08/21 -09/22 80000150112 -- 093014 20405 Knighsbridge Rd -08/21 -09/22 80000150112- 093014 28125 Boulder Bridge -08/21 -09/22 80000150112 -- 093014 24200 Smithtown Rd - 08/21 -09/22 80000150112 -- 093014 5745 Ctry Club & 25200 Hwy 7 - 08/21 -09/22 80000150112 -- 093014 5755 Country Club Rd - 08/21 -09/22 86501806- 092414 20630 Manor Rd -08/21 -09/22 36.43 Check Total: 278.24 Vendor: 137 CENTURY LINK 9524702294 -Sel4 952- 470 - 2294 -PW 9524706340 -Sel4 952 -474- 6340 -CH 9524709605 -Sel4 952- 474 - 9605- Amesbury 9524709606 -SE14 952- 474 -9606- Amesbury 118.11 Check Total: 312.11 Vendor: 144 CITY OF EXCELSIOR Check Sequence: 2 10/13/2014 101 -13 -4400 -0000 Check Sequence:3 10/13/2014 101 -53- 4246 -0000 Check Sequence: 4 10/13/2014 101 -53- 4246 -0000 Check Sequence: 5 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4245 -0000 Check Sequence: 6 10/13/2014 101 -32 -4221 -0000 Check Sequence:7 10/06/2014 101 -15- 4200 -0000 10/06/2014 101 -18- 4200 -0000 3rd Qh- 2014 -UB Quarterly Water Usage - 3rd qtr 5,614.29 Check Total: 5,614.29 Check Sequence: 10 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4261 -0000 Fund Dept General Mun Bldg General Admin General Recreation General Recreation General Park Maint General Pub Works General Pin General Planning SSC Non -Dept Check Sequence: 8 37.77 10/13/2014 201 -00- 4380 -0000 1193 10/13/2014 601 -00 -4394 -0000 64.09 10/13/2014 601 -00 -4396 -0000 66.47 10/13/2014 101 -32 -4380 -0000 44.29 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 36.43 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4380 -0000 15.26 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 Check Sequence: 9 55.94 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4321 -0000 118.11 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4321 -0000 69.03 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 69.03 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 3rd Qh- 2014 -UB Quarterly Water Usage - 3rd qtr 5,614.29 Check Total: 5,614.29 Check Sequence: 10 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4261 -0000 Fund Dept General Mun Bldg General Admin General Recreation General Recreation General Park Maint General Pub Works General Pin General Planning SSC Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept General Pub Works General Park Maint General Mom Bldg General Park Maint General Pub Works General Mutt Bldg Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Vendor: 146 CITY OF MINNETONKA 3rd Qtr -2014 5350 Vine Hill Rd - 3rd Qtr 3rd Qtr -2014 5366 Vine Hill Rd - 3rd Qtr 3rd Qtr -2014 5490 Vine Hill Rd - 3rd Qtr Water Check Total: Vendor: 147 CPI'Y OF MOUND 4th Qtr -2014 2014 - Fire Payment - 4th Qtr Non -Dept Check Total: Vendor: 149 CITY OF TONKA BAY 3rd Qtr -2014 Quarterly Water - 3rd Qtr 3rd Qtr -2014 Quarterly Sewer - 3rd Qtr Check Total: Vendor: 154 CONSTANT CONTACT INC GFY6PGDAB27214 User Name: southshorecenter - Email Check Total: Vendor: 158 CUB FOODS - SHOREWOOD 09/23/14 City /School District Meeting 09/23/14 Fire Check Total: Vendor: 159 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER September -2014 Drinking Water - Sept Check Total: Vendor: 161 BRUCE DeJONG GFOA -2014 Wells Fargo Investment Seminar 09/23 - Mileage GFOA -2014 MN GFOA - Dinner GFOA -2014 MN GFOA - Hotel GFOA -2014 MN GFOA - Registration 10/06/2014 611 -00- 4400 -0000 Check Total: Vendor: 167 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 148497 Notice of Absentee Voting 148693 Notice of Absentee Voting Check Total: Vendor: 219 ELLY PIEPER 10/06/2014 Tablecloths 204.00 Check Total: Vendor: 174 RON ERDMAN -LUNTZ 10/01/201.4 'Tai Chi Class - Session End 09/22/14 Check Total: Vendor: 176 EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC 1552 Double Net Straw Blanket - Freeman Park Reg, ade 1563 Doable Net Straw Blanket- Freeman Park Regrade Check Total: Vendor: 179 EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT 4th Qtr -2014 Building- 4th Qtr 4th Qtr -2014 Operations- 4th On Check Total: Vendor: 185 FEDEX KINKO'S 062100009666 Lamination - Election Check Total: Vendor: 188 FLEETPRIDE TRUCK & TRAILER PARTS 63960239 Brake Parts for Dump Trick 54.77 Check Total: Check Sequence: 11 393.28 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4262 -0000 Water Non -Dept 306.15 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4262 -0000 Water Non -Dept 56.98 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4262 -0000 Water Non -Dept 756.41 Check Sequence: 12 5,893.25 10/13/2014 101 -22- 4400 -0000 General Fire 5,893.25 Check Sequence: 13 645.84 10/06/2014 601 -00- 4260 -0000 Water Non -Dept 380.07 10/06/2014 611 -00- 4400 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 1,025.91 Check Sequence: 14 204.00 10/13/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 204.00 Check Sequence: 15 13.54 10/13/2014 101 -11 -4331 -0000 General Council 13.54 Check Sequence: 16 54.77 10/1312014 101 -19- 4245 -0000 General Mon Bldg 54.77 Check Sequence: 17 161.84 10/13/2014 101 -15- 4331 -0000 General Fin 11.61 10/13/2014 101 -15- 4331 -0000 General Fin 346.29 10/13/2014 101 -15- 4331 -0000 General Fin 225.00 10/13/2014 101 -15- 4331 -0000 General Fin 744.74 Check Sequence: 18 47.88 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4351 -0000 General Admin 34.70 10/06/2014 101 -13- 4351 -0000 General Admin 82.58 Check Sequence: 19 88.00 10/13/2014 201 -00 -4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 88.00 Check Sequence: 20 180.00 10/13/2014 201 -00- 4246 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 180.00 Check Sequence: 21 300.00 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4245 -0000 General Park Maint 192.00 10/13/2014 101 -52 -4245 -0000 General Park Maint 492.00 Check Sequence: 22 69,605.66 10/13/2014 101 -22 -4620 -0000 General Fire 81,303.90 10/13/2014101 -22- 4400 -0000 General Fire 150,909.56 Check Sequence: 23 54.00 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4351 -0000 General Admin 54.00 Check Sequence: 24 760.70 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 General Pub Works 760.70 Vendor: 192 G & K SERVICES Check Sequence: 25 September -2014 P.W. 1,246.02 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4400 -0000 General Pub Works September -2014 C.H. 209.14 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4400 -0000 General Mun Bldg September -2014 SSCC 102.00 10/13/2014 201 -00 -4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 1,557.16 Vendor: 200 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Check Sequence: 26 124615 Sept Svc 153.78 10/13/2014 601 -00 - 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept 124615 Sept Svc 153.79 10/13/2014 611 -00 -4400 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 124615 SeptSvc 153.83 10/13/2014 631 -00- 4400 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept Check Total: 461.40 Vendor: 206 TWILA GROUT Check Sequence: 27 10/03/2014 Octoberfest -Cub Food 52.72 10/13/2014 101 -53- 4246 -0000 General Recreation Check Total: 52.72 Vendor: 211 HAWKINS INC Check Sequence: 28 3649533 -RI Chlorine 105.00 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4245 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 105.00 Vendor: 215 HENN CO INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT Check Sequence: 29 1000050119 800 Mhz Radio - Sept 111.30 10/13/2014 101 -32 -4321 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 111.30 Vendor: 527 BRENT HISLOP Check Sequence: 30 6000StrawberryL 5990/6000 Strawbeny Lane- Escrow Refund 100.00 10/13/2014 880 -00- 2200 -0000 Escrow Non -Dept Check Total: 100.00 Vendor: 224 INFRATECH Check Sequence: 31 PR140679 Televise Drain at Smithtown & Cajed -08/29 1,462.50 10/13/2014 631 -00- 4400 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept Check'fotal: 1,462.50 Vendor: 226 INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY Check Sequence: 32 60167 Alain System Svc 2,672.00 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4223 -0000 General Mon Bldg Check Total: 2,672.00 Vendor: 424 JOEY NOVA'S Check Sequence: 33 09/23/2014 School Disctric & City Meeting - 09/23/14 86.85 10/13/2014 101 -11- 4331 -0000 General Council 09/23/2014 School Disctrie & City Meeting - 09/23/14 - GRAT 15,00 10/13/2014 101 -11- 4331 -0000 General Council Check Total: 101.85 Vendor: 243 KLM ENGINEERING INC Check Sequence: 34 5381 AT &T -East Tower Drawing Review 1,500.00 10/13/2014 101 -00- 3714 -0000 General Non -Dept Check Total: 1,500.00 Vendor: 245 PAMELA KOLTES Check Sequence: 35 10/07/2014 Shared Zumba Fitness- Session End 109/29/14 221.25 10/13/2014 101 -53- 4246 -0000 General Recreation Check Total: 221.25 Vendor: 247 DREW KRIESEL Check Sequence: 36 425866 Sept Svc 708.00 10/13/2014 201 -00 -4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 425867 Sept Svc - Funeral 75.00 10/13/2014 201 -00 -4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 783.00 Vendor: 531 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Check Sequence: 37 203870 Scott Zerby - 2014 Regional Meeting 11 /13/14 40.00 10/13/2014 101 -11- 4331 -0000 General Council Check Total: 40.00 Vendor: 532 LIQUI- SYSTEMS, INC Check Sequence: 38 243684 Spare Parts Kits 362.45 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4245 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 362.45 Vendor: 279 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (WASTEWATER) Check Sequence: 39 0001037625 Waste Water Svc - Oct 45,684.54 10/13/2014 611 -00- 4385 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Check Total: 45,684.54 Vendor: 453 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (SAC) Check Sequence: 40 3rd Qtr-2014 Quarterly SAC Svc- 3rd Qtr 12,300.75 10/13/2014 611 -00- 2082 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Check Total: 12,300.75 Vendor: 303 MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE- NOTAR` Check Sequence: 41 2014 - Notary Notary Commission: J. Panchyshyn, P. I-Ielgesen, Fa 480.00 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4433 -0000 General Admin Check Total: 480,00 Vendor: 298 MN DEPT OE LABOR & INDUSTRY Check Sequence: 42 20987053220 Quarterly Surcharge Permit - 3rd Qtr 3,483.52 10/06/2014 101 -00- 2085 -0000 General Non -Dept Check Total: 3,483.52 Vendor: 11 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Sequence: 43 3rd Qtr -2014 Quarterly Water Sales Tax - 3rd Qtr 1,086.00 10/13/2014 601 -00- 2081 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 1,086.00 Vendor: 305 MNSPECT INC Check Sequence: 44 6406 Sept Inspection Svc 175,00 10/06/2014101 -24- 4400 -0000 General Insp Check Total: 175.00 Vendor: 284 MRS. M Check Sequence: 45 10/03/2014 Octoberfest Supplies Expense Reimburesement 70.35 10/13/2014 101 -53 -4246 -0000 General Recreation Clieck'Ibtal: 70.35 Vendor: 313 MICHELLE NGUYEN Check Sequence: 46 September -2014 Mileage - Sept 89.60 10/13/2014101 -15 -4331 -0000 General Fin Check Total: 89.60 Vendor: 322 OFFICE DEPOT Check Sequence: 47 731528042001 General Office Supplies 25195 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin 731530694001 Small Binder Clip 4.92 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin 731530695001 Paper Clips 21.98 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin 731676770001 Cover Report 11.00 10/13/2014 101 -13 -4200 -0000 General Admin Check Total: 289.85 Vendor: 325 ON SITE SANITATION INC Check Sequence: 48 560361 Manor Park Road 39.28 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4410 -0000 General Park Maint Check Total: 39.28 Vendor: 240 KENNETH POTTS, PA Check Sequence: 49 September -2014 Prosechuion Svc - Sept 2,500.00 10/13/2014 101 -16- 4304 -0000 General Prof Svcs Check Total: 2,500.00 Vendor: 336 PURCHASE POWER Check Sequence: 50 18439537863- 092114 Acct #8000-9000-0743-8223 - Annual Account Ace 49.99 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4433 -0000 General Admin Check Total: 49.99 Vendor: 108 REPUBLIC SERVICES No.894 Check Sequence: 51 0894003619927 Recycling Svc - Oct 13,741.20 10/13/2014 621 -00- 4400 -0000 Recycling Non -Dept Check Total: 13,741.20 Vendor: 346 SAFETY SIGNS Check Sequence: 52 14202731 Flood at Shday Island Road - Barricade & Demobili: 291.60 10/13/2014 631 -00- 4499 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept Check Total: 291.60 Vendor: 347 SAM'S CLUB Check Sequence: 53 008866 C.H. Exp - 09/25/14 81.45 10/06/2014 101 -19- 4245 -0000 General Mon Bldg 008866 P.W. Exp - 09/25/14 234.27 10/06/2014 101 -32 -4245 -0000 General Pub Works 008866 Late & Finance Charge Refimd -30,99 10/06/2014 101 -19- 4245 -0000 General Mun Bldg Check Total: 284.73 Vendor: 529 STEVE & JULIE SHERF Check Sequence: 54 5315 Eurekand 5315 Eureka Road - Escrow Refund 3,000.00 10/06/2014 880 -00- 2200 -0000 Escrow Non -Dept Check Total: 3,000.00 Vendor: 354 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Check Sequence: 55 121451 Bolts 1.32 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4245 -0000 General Pub Works 121460 Bolts 0.74 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4245 -0000 General Pub Works 121603 Signs 39.98 10/13/2014 101 -32 -4245 -0000 General Pub Works 121614 Plumbing parts 36.04 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4245 -0000 Water Non -Dept 121635 Hex Bashing 22.55 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4245 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 100.63 Vendor: 360 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPT. Check Sequence: 56 4th Qtr- 2014 -1-P Lease Payment - 4th Qtr 57,441.00 10/13/2014 101 -21- 4620 -0000 General Police Octr- 2014 -OBE Operating Budget Exp - Oct 86,879.67 10/13/2014 101 -21- 4400 -0000 General Police Check Total: 144,320.67 Vendor: 296 STATE OF MN -MN DEPT. OF HEALTI I Check Sequence: 57 3rd Qtr -2014 Water Surcharges- 3rd Qtr 2,155.00 10/13/2014 601 -00- 2081 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 2,155.00 Vendor: 368 STONESCAPES Check Sequence: 58 4785 Garden Maint. - Sept 210.00 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4223 -0000 General Man Bldg Check Total: 210.00 Vendor: 376 THE MULCH STORE Check Sequence: 59 16487 Brush Disposal - Sept 408.00 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4400 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 408.00 Vendor: 384 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES Check Sequence: 60 10047 Newsletters - Oct Svc 663.50 10/13/2014 101 -13 -4400 -0000 General Admin 10047 SSCC Insert- Oct 132.00 10/13/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 10047 Oktoberfest Insert - Oct 118.50 10/13/2014 101 -53- 4400 -0000 General Recreation 10047 Election Insert - Oct 118.50 10/13/2014 101 -13- 4400 -0000 General Admin Check Total: 1,032.50 Vendor: 386 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC Check Sequence: 61 5656 Montldv Bacteria Svc 100.00 10/06/2014 601 -00- 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 100.00 Vendor: 421 VERIZON WIRELESS Check Sequence: 62 9731945964 Brad's Cell -612 -865- 3582 - 08/13 -09/12 47.55 10/13/2014 101 -18- 4321 -0000 General Planning 9732488936 L.S. Phones - Acct985338397- 08/22 -09/21 189.75 10/13/2014 611 -00- 4321 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Check Total: 237.30 Vendor: 396 VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC Check Sequence: 63 3114 Tree Removal at parks 1,700.00 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4400 -0000 General Park Maint Check Total: 1,700.00 Vendor: 398 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS INC Check Sequence: 64 869293803439 Closing Date 09 /24/14 3,552.50 10/13/2014 101 -32 -4212 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 3,552.50 Vendor: 415 WARNER CONNECT Check Sequence: 65 29919719 Comp Maint -Oct 2,553.40 10/13/2014 101 -19 -4221 -0000 General Mun Bldg 29919997 Comp Maint - Springbrook Employee Self Svc 135.00 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4221 -0000 General Man Bldg Check Total: 2,688.40 Vendor: 401 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN Check Sequence: 66 593001095915938 24200 Smithtown Rd -Oct 445.23 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4400 -0000 General Pub Works 593030991115939 5735 Country Club Rd - Sept 190.23 10/13/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 635.46 Vendor: 327 WINDSTREAM Check Sequence: 67 57758743 CH Service 112.83 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4321 -0000 General Man Bldg 57758743 PW Service 50.65 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4321 -0000 General Pub Works 57758743 Boulder Bridge Well Svc 53.30 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept 57758743 Badger Well Service 106.60 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4395 -0000 Water Non -Dept 57758743 Parks Service 161.57 10/13/2014 101 -52 -4321 -0000 General Park Maint 57758743 West Water Tower Service 50.65 10/13/2014 601 -00 -4321 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 535.60 Vendor: 408 WM MUEL,L.ER & SONS INC Check Sequence: 68 197400 Road Maint 928.00 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 197451 Road Maint 464.00 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 197566 Road Maint 2,323.48 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 1.97691 Road Maint 1,393.16 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 197744 Road Maint 1,390.84 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 197853 Road Maint 1,738.26 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 8,237.74 Vendor: 410 WSB AND ASSOCIATES INC Check Sequence: 69 01459 - 350-42 GIS & CAD Support - July 83.00 10/13/2014 101 -31- 4303 -0000 General Engineering 01459 - 690 -23 Smithtown Rd Trl - July 4,822.50 10/13/2014 406 -00- 4620 -0001 Trail Non -Dept 01459- 700 -22 MCES Forcemain - July 6,131.25 10/13/2014 611 -00- 4680 -0001 Sewer Non -Dept 01459- 760 -15 Valleywood Area St - July 8,541.25 10/13/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0003 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459- 810 -14 GalpinLkRdTit - July 17,107.25 10/13/2014 406 -00- 4620 -0002 Trail Non -Dept 01459 -830 -9 Summit Woods Development - July 108.75 10/13/2014101 -31 -4303 -0000 General Engineering 01459 -840 -7 Badger Park Prelim D & E - July 938.50 10/13/2014 402 -00 -4680 -0000 Park Cap Non -Dept 01459 -850 -7 Sunnyvale Ln hnprovements - July 8,573.50 10/13/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0004 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459 -860 -5 Lift Station No. I I Rehab - July 1,853.50 10/13/2014 611 -00- 4680 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 01459 -870 -7 Gen Eng Svc - July 4,000.00 10/13/2014 101 -31- 4400 -0000 General Engineering 01459 -880 -5 Pass Thru - Minnewashta School -July 463.50 10/13/2014 101 -00- 3414 -0000 General Non -Dept 01459 -890 -6 Wellhead Protection Plan Amend -July 374.75 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4303 -0000 Water Non -Dept 01459 -900 -5 Misc. Engineering Support - July 2,067.75 10/13/2014 101 -31 -4303 -0000 General Engineering 01459 -910 -2 Sealcoat Project -July 889.00 10/13/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0006 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459 -920 -2 DataLink Implementation -July 1,357.33 10/13/2014 611 -00- 4303 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 01459 -920 -2 DataLink Implementation -July 1,357.34 10/13/2014 631 -00- 4303 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept 01459 -920 -2 DataLink Implementation -Judy 1,357.33 10/13/2014 601 -00 -4303 -0000 Water Non -Dept 01459 -930 -2 Mill & Overlay - July 657.00 10/13/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0005 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459 -940 -1 Smithtown Rd East Sidewalk Extensionl - July 92.50 10/13/2014 406 -00 - 4620 -0001 Trail Non -Dept 01459 -950 -1 Pavement Marking - July 575.00 10/13/2014 101 -31 -4245 -0000 General Engineering Check Total: 61,351.00 Vendor: 411 XCEL ENERGY Check Sequence: 70 Stmt #426613101 5655 Merry Lane - 08/07 -09/08 23.87 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 General Park Maint Start #428243718 C.H. Svcs - 07/23-09/21 493.57 10/13/2014 101 -19- 4380 -0000 General Mun Bldg Stmt #428243718 P.W. Bldg Svc - 07/23 -09/21 573.00 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4380 -0000 General Pub Works Stmt #428243718 P.W. Street Lights Svc - 07/23 -09/21 4,613.47 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works Stmt #428243718 Parks -07/23 -09/21 368.26 10/13/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 General Park Maint Stmt #428243718 Amesbury Svc - 07/23 -09/21 1,308.89 10/13/2014 601 -00 -4394 -0000 Water Non -Dept Sant #428243718 Boulder Bridge Svc - 07/23 -09/21 2,381.59 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept Stmt#428243718 S.E. Area Svc -07/23 -09/21 3,228.90 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4398 -0000 Water Non -Dept Stmt #428243718 Street Lights- 07/23 -09/21 521.65 10/13/2014 611 -00 -4380 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Sant#428628474 24253 Smithtown Rd - 08/23 -09/22 382.27 10/13/2014 601 -00- 4395 -0000 Water Non -Dept Stmt#428650500 5735 County Club Rd -08/23 -09/22 635.98 10/13/2014 201 -00- 4380 -0000 SSC Non -Dept Stmt #428945034 5700 County Rd 19 - 08/26 -09/25 32.42 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works Sant #428945034 5700 County Rd 19 - Unit Light- 08/26 -09/25 20622 10/13/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 14,770.09 Total for Check Run: 506,281.43 Total of Number of Checks: 70 #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Recycling Contract Extension Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Julie Moore, Recycling Coordinator CC: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Tim Keane, City Attorney Attachments: Contract Background: The City of Shorewood is coming to the end of a five -year contract with Republic Services (aka Allied Waste) for single sort recycling services in the city. As per the contract, we have the option to extend the contract for five years. The service cost would go down, due much to the elimination of the Recyclebank Rewards program. Residents who use the program will still keep their points, and can add points to their account through online programs via the Recyclebank web site, but would no longer receive points for recycling. Republic Services has come to the conclusion that the use of the program did not meet the cost, so they have eliminated participation in Recyclebank with all new contracts. Financial: The current per household charge in Shorewood is $4.95 per household. Under the new contract, the fee is reduced to $3.45 per household for the first year, and the price would increase 1.5% each of the five years as indicated in the contract. Based upon what other cities around us are paying for recycling services, this contract price is extremely fair and over the past five year period we have generally been pleased with the service and with the response of the contractor. During budget discussions, Council can determine how to adjust the rate structure for the reduced fee. Recommendation / Action Requested: A motion to extend the Recycling Contract with Republic Services for a five year period January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2019. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CONTRACT FOR RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING SERVICES 1. CONTRACT PREAMBLE This Residential Recycling Services Contract (hereinafter the "Contract ") is made this day of October, 2014, between the City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 (hereinafter the "City ") and Republic Services, d /b /a Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities- Eden Prairie, authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, with its current local place of business at 9813 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347, (hereinafter the "Contractor "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City supports a comprehensive residential recycling program and desires that high - quality recycling services be available to all its residents; and WHEREAS, the City supports Curbside recycling as part of an overall landfill abatement program; and WHEREAS, the City intends to maximize the fullest recovery possible of Recyclable Materials from all residents in the City; and WHEREAS, the City intends to contract for a full service recycling program that provides the most cost - effective and best value recycling services possible to all City residents; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has funding available for such residential recycling services; and WHEREAS, the Contractor submitted a proposal for such recycling services to the City in response request for proposals (RFP) for residential recycling services. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Contractor mutually agree as follows, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Aluminum Cans Disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum, commonly used for soda, beer, juice, water or other beverages. 2.2 Contractor Allied Waste, which shall provide the services contemplated in this Contract. 2.3 Curbside The area of public right -of -way between the property line and the curb or edge of the street, but not on the street. 2.4 Curbside Recycling Container A 68 -gallon blue container with a gray lid on wheels provided and owned by Contractor delivered to residents by the Contractor. 2.5 Curbside Recycling Service The recycling collection service, together with related public education and other customer services, specified within this Contract utilizing Curbside Recycling Service. 2.6 Fiber As part of a dual- stream collection program, Fiber includes the following paper items: Old Newspapers including inserts (ONP); Household Office Paper and Mail; Old Boxboard (OBB); Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC); phone books, paperback books, and notebooks; brown paper bags; Old Magazines (OMG); and catalogs. 2.7 Glass Jars and Bottles Unbroken glass jars, bottles, and containers (lids /caps and pumps removed) that are primarily used for packing and bottling of food and beverages. 2.8 Household Office Paper and Mail (HOPM) Mail, advertisements, office paper, school papers, envelopes, etc. 2.9 Household Units Household Units shall mean single family, two family, three family and four family residential dwellings located within the legal boundary limits of the City. For purposes of this Contract, a two family dwelling shall equal two Household Units, a three family dwelling shall equal three Household Units and a four family dwelling shall equal four Household Units. 2.10 Markets Any person or company that buys (or charges) for recycling of Recyclables and may include, but are not limited to: end - markets, intermediate processors, brokers and other Recyclable Material reclaimers. 2.11 Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) A recycling facility in which Recyclable Materials are processed. The facility will conform to all applicable rules, regulations and laws of state, local or other jurisdictions. 2.12 Multi - Family Dwellings (MFD) Multi- Family Dwellings (MFD) shall be defined herein as residential dwellings having five or more units per building. Multi - Family Dwellings are not included in this Contract and shall not receive Curbside Recycling Services under this Contract. Condominiums and townhouses that contain less than five units per building are not included in the definition of MFD and are considered part of this Contract and shall receive Curbside Recycling Services hereunder. 2 2.13 Non - Targeted Materials Non - recyclable materials that are not included in the City's recycling program and are not subject to Curbside Recycling Service. Examples of typical Non - Targeted Materials include (but are not limited to): pumps on Plastic Bottles, ceramic material in glass streams, pizza boxes in paper streams, plastic tubs in the plastic streams, etc. 2.14 Old Boxboard (OBB) Boxes including cereal, cake, chip, and cracker boxes. 2.15 Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) Cardboard material with double -wall construction and corrugated separation between walls. Does not include plastic, wax or other coated cardboard. 2.16 Old Magazines (OMG) Glossy and non - glossy magazines and catalogs. 2.17 Old Newspaper (ONP) Newspapers including inserts. 2.18 Plastic Bottles Plastic bottles shaped with a neck. Plastic lids, caps, rings and pumps are not included in this definition. Recyclable Plastic Bottles shall be identified on the bottom with the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) plastic codes 41 (PET) and 42 (HDPE) including bottles containing: liquor, milk, juice, soft drinks, water, certain foods, soap and cosmetics. 2.19 Process Residuals The normal amount of material that cannot be economically recycled due to material characteristics such as size, shape, color, cross - material contamination, etc. and must be disposed as mixed municipal solid waste. Process Residuals include subcategories of Process Residuals including but not limited to bulky items, contaminants, sorted tailings, floor sweepings and rejects from specific processing equipment (e.g., materials cleaned from screens, etc). Process Residuals does not include clean, separated products that are normally processed and prepared for shipment to Markets as commodities but are of relatively low -value because of depressed market demand conditions. 2.20 Processing The sorting, volume reduction, baling, containment or other preparation of Recyclable Materials delivered to the Processing Center for transportation or marketing purposes. 2.21 Processing Center A recycling facility in which Recyclable Materials are processed. The facility will conform to all applicable rules, regulations and laws of state, local or other jurisdictions. 3 2.22 Recyclable Materials or Recyclables For purposes of this Contract, the following Recyclable Materials are subject to Curbside Recycling Service: Aluminum Cans; Steel Cans; Glass Jars and Bottles; Plastic Bottles with a neck; newspapers; magazines; boxboard; phone books; paperback books; shredded paper; notebooks; Household Office Paper and Mail; and Old Corrugated Cardboard. Materials may be added to this definition of Recyclable Materials or Recyclables from time to time upon mutual agreement of the parties. 2.23 Recycled Content Products Products or goods, including roadbed or other aggregate products, which are openly marketed and have positive value. Recycled Content Products do not include use of any commodity as landfill cover. 2.24 Steel Cans Disposable containers fabricated primarily of steel or tin used for food or beverages. 2.25 Waste Any Recyclable Material determined by the Processing Center not to be marketable as a Recycled Content Product. Typical "Waste" in this context includes pumps on Plastic Bottles, ceramic material in glass streams, frozen pizza boxes in paper stream, etc. Waste is specifically excluded from the definition of Recyclables and shall not be subject to Curbside Recycling Service. 3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL COLLECTIONS 3.1 Contractor Service Requirements Republic Services has introduced Single Sort Recycling to the City of Shorewood and its residents. Single Sort recycling means there is no need to separate paper /fiber materials from the glass, cans & plastic recyclable materials. All recycled materials are placed together in the recycling cart. Republic Services will continue to provide the Single Sort carts for use in this recycling program and will own the containers throughout the term of the contract. The Contractor will keep an inventory of new and replacement containers and will be required to service and repair damaged containers during the term of the agreement. Contractor shall maintain sufficient cart inventory of various sizes to meet supply and demand needs for the entire term of the contract. The standard cart size shall be approximately 68- gallons. The carts shall be uniform and consistent in color and design and have a recycling symbol. More than one 68 -gallon or 95- gallon cart will be provided at no extra charge to residents who request them. 3.2 Contractor Licensing Requirements Contractor must have a license issued by the City to haul Recyclable Materials as governed by Chapter 503 of the City Code. 3.3 Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements All collection vehicles used in performance of this Contract by Contractor shall be duly licensed and inspected by the State of Minnesota and shall operate within the weight allowed by 11 Minnesota Statutes. Per the City's Code (Sec. 503.07), there is no distinction made between vehicles used in collecting Recyclables and vehicles used for collecting refuse or garbage. All vehicles that are used shall be in proper working condition and prevent loss of liquid or solid cargo in transit. All vehicles shall be kept clean and as free from offensive odors as reasonably possible. Each collection vehicle shall be equipped with the following a. Two -way communications device. b. First aid kit. c. An approved 2AIOBC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher. d. Warning flashers. e. Warning alarms to indicate movement in reverse. f Signs on the rear of the vehicle which states "This Vehicle Makes Frequent Stops ". g. A broom and shovel for cleaning up spills. All of the required equipment must be in proper working order and all vehicles must be clearly identified on both sides with Contractor's name and telephone number. 3.4 Personnel Requirements Contractor shall retain sufficient personnel and equipment to fulfill the requirements of the services described in this Contract. The Contractor will provide a Route Supervisor to oversee the recycling route drivers servicing the City under this Contract. The Route Supervisor will be available to address customer complaints each day. The Contractor shall have on duty Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. a dispatch customer service representative to receive customer calls and route issues. The Contractor shall provide a 24 -hour answering service line or device to receive customer calls. The Route Supervisor and all collection vehicles must be equipped with 2 -way communication devices. Contractor's personnel will be trained both in program operations and in customer service and insure that all personnel maintain a positive attitude with the public and in the work place and shall: a) Conduct themselves at all times in a courteous manner and use no abusive or foul language. b) Perform their duties in accordance with all existing laws and ordinances and future amendments thereto of the Federal, State of Minnesota, and local governing boards. c) Be clean and presentable in appearance, as so far as possible. d) Wear a uniform and employee identification badge or name tag. e) Drive in a safe and considerate manner. f) Manage containers in a careful manner, by picking them up, emptying their contents into the collection vehicle, and placing — not throwing or sliding — the container back in its Curbside location so as to avoid spillage and littering or damage to the container. g) Monitor for any spillage and be responsible for cleaning up any litter or breakage. h) Avoid damage to property. i) Not perform their duties or operate vehicles while consuming alcohol or using illegally controlled substances or while under the influence of alcohol and /or such substances. 5 j) Be in possession of a valid Minnesota Commercial Driver's License (CDL). 3.5 Point of Collection Except as specified by the City for collection from the municipal facilities, all Recyclable Materials collection service will occur at the Curbside. 3.6 Recycling Containers The standard cart size shall be approximately 68- gallons. The carts shall be uniform and consistent in color and design and have a recycling symbol in the lid. More than one 68 -gallon or 95 -gallon cart will be provided at no extra charge to residents who request them. For the municipal facilities to be served hereunder, the Contractor will provide standard 68- gallon containers as determined by need. 3.7 Collection Recyclable Materials shall be placed at Curbside by each Household Unit in Curbside Recycling Containers, or any other container that can be reasonably identified as containing Recyclable Materials, by 7:00 a.m. on the designated collection day. On the designated collection day, Contractor shall empty all Recyclable Materials from the Curbside Recycling and shall replace the Curbside Recycling Container at Curbside. Contractor shall provide Curbside Recycling Service once every other week. 3.8 City Retains Right to Specify Resident Preparation Instructions It shall be the City's sole right and obligation to clearly specify the Household Unit's sorting and setout requirements consistent with this Contract. Such information shall be included in the City's public education flyers and web pages as well as any public education pieces distributed by the Contractor as detailed in Section 3.23.2 of this Contract. 3.9 Procedure for Unacceptable Recyclable Materials If the Contractor determines that a Household Unit has set out unacceptable or Non - Targeted Recyclable Materials, the driver shall use the following procedures: 3.9.1 Driver Education Ta Contractor shall leave the Non - Targeted Materials in the Household Unit's Curbside Recycling Container and leave a City approved "education tag" indicating acceptable materials and the proper method of preparation. 3.9.2 Recording Addresses with Unacceptable Materials Contractor's drivers shall record the address on forms acceptable to the City. Contractor shall report the address to the City at the end of each collection week. If this procedure for handling Non - Targeted Materials is not feasible for single- stream collection systems, the Contractor must so specify and explain an alternative public education system to maintain and improve the quality of Recyclable Materials set out by Household Units. I 3.10 Collection Days The Contractor shall collect Recyclables on designated collection days once every other week. As of the date of execution of this Contract, designated collection days are Wednesday for the ,'mainland" and Thursday on "The Islands ". 3.11 Collection Hours Contractor shall maintain sufficient equipment and personnel to assure that all collection operations commence no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and are completed by 6:00 p.m. on the scheduled collection day. 3.12 Cleanup Responsibilities Contractor shall adequately clean up any materials spilled or blown during the course of collection and /or hauling operations. As stated in Sec. 3.3 of this Contract, all collection vehicles shall be equipped with a broom and shovel for use in cleaning up any spills. Any unacceptable materials left behind should be secured within the Household Unit's Curbside Recycling Container. The Contractor's driver shall take all precautions possible to prevent littering by Contractor of unacceptable Recyclable Materials. Contractor shall have no responsibility to remove any items that are not Recyclable Materials and may reject the collection of any Curbside Recycling Container containing unacceptable material. 3.13 Missed Collection Policy & Procedures In the City's public education information, Household Units will be directed to call the Contractor for missed collections and other service issues. The Contractor shall designate a staff person as an account representative for the City. A direct phone number (e.g., cellular phone, etc.) shall be provided for City staff to use for purposes of communicating immediate service needs. The Contractor shall also designate a back -up contact person, including a corresponding second, direct phone number. These Contractor phone numbers will not be published in public education literature, but rather used by City administrative staff The Contractor shall have a duty to pick up missed collections provided that the Household Unit has complied with all setout requirements. Contractor agrees to pick up all missed collections on the same day that the Contractor receives notice of a missed collection, provided notice is received by Contractor before 11:00 a.m. on a business day. With respect to all notices of a missed collection received after 11:00 a.m. on a business day, Contractor agrees to pick up that missed collection before 6:00 p.m. on the business day immediately following. Contractor shall provide staffing of a telephone- equipped office to receive missed collection complaints between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, except holidays. The Contractor shall have an answering machine or voice mail system activated to receive phone calls after hours. Contractor shall keep a log of all calls, including the subject matter, the date and time received, the Contractor's response, and the date and time of response. This information shall be provided to the City in a monthly report. 3.14 Non - Completion of Collection and Extension of Collection Hours If Contractor determines that the collection of Recyclable Materials will not be completed by 6:00 p.m. on the scheduled collection day, Contractor shall notify the City contact person by 4:00 7 p.m., and request an extension of the collection hours. Contractor shall inform the City of the areas not completed, the reason for non - completion, and the expected time of completion. 3.15 Severe Weather Curbside Recycling Service may be postponed due to severe weather at the sole discretion of the Contractor. Upon postponement, collection will be made on a day agreed upon between the Contractor and the City. 3.16 Holidays The City shall inform Household Units of alternate collection days for holidays. Holidays refers to any of the following: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and any other holidays mutually agreed to by the City and Contractor. In no instance will there be more than one holiday during a collection week. When the scheduled collection day falls on a holiday, collection for that day will be collected one day later. 3.17 Weighing of Loads Contractor will keep accurate records consisting of an approved weight slip or electronic equivalent with the date, time, collection route, driver's identification, vehicle number, tare weight, gross weight, net weight, and number of recycling stops for each loaded vehicle. Collection vehicles will be weighed quarterly or semi - annually to obtain a tare weight. Paper or electronic versions of each weight ticket shall be maintained on file by the Contractor for at least three years in the event of an audit by the City. 3.18 Unauthorized Collection Contractor shall be the exclusive provider for the collection, removal and disposal of Recyclable Materials from Household Units within the City for the term of this Contract. The Contractor's employees may not collect or scavenge through recycling in any manner that interferes with Curbside Recycling Services. The City shall take all necessary actions to enforce the Contractor's exclusive right to provide the services contemplated herein. The Contractor shall report to the City any instances of suspected scavenging or unauthorized removal of Recyclable Materials from any collection containers. 3.19 Utilities The Contractor shall be obligated to prevent damage by Contractor to all public and private utilities whether occupying street or public or private property. If such utilities are damaged by reason of the Contractor's operations in performing its obligations hereunder, Contractor shall repair or replace the same or, failing to do so promptly, the City shall cause repairs or replacement to be made and the cost of doing so shall be deducted from payment to be made to the Contractor. 3.20 Damage to Property The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect public and private property. Except for reasonable wear and tear, the Contractor shall repair or replace any private or public property, including, but not limited to sod, mailboxes, or Curbside Recycling Container, which are damaged by the Contractor. Such property damage shall be addressed for repair or replacement, at no charge to the property owner, within forty -eight (48) hours with property of the same or equivalent value at the time of the damage. If the Contractor fails to address the repair or replacement of damaged property within forty - eight (48) hours, the City may, but shall not be obligated to, repair or replace such damaged property, and the Contractor shall fully reimburse the City for any of its reasonably incurred expenses. The Contractor shall reimburse the City for any such expenses within ten (10) days of receipt of the City's invoice. 3.21 Municipal Facilities The Contractor will provide free recycling service, at least every other week at each City municipal building as follows: Municipal Facilities to Receive Recycling Service City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Southshore Center 5735 Country Club Road Public Works 24200 Smithtown Road Cathcart Park 26655 W. 62nd Street Freeman Park 6000 Eureka Road Silverwood Park 5755 Covington Road Badger Park 5745 Country Club Road Manor Park 20630 Manor Rd South Shore Park* 5355 St. Alban's Bay Rd mixed paper, cans, glass, plastic, cardboard mixed paper, cans, glass, plastic, cardboard mixed paper, cans, glass, plastic, cardboard cans, glass, plastic containers cans, glass, plastic containers cans, glass, plastic containers cans, glass, plastic containers cans, glass, plastic containers cans, glass, plastic containers *Only requires recycling services May through October; not all parks will require every other week pick- up. Contractor and City will agree upon a mutually agreeable pick -up schedule, number of bins, and bin location according to park needs. Adjustments may be made to pick -up frequency throughout the season as needed for park events and park usage. The Contractor will provide carts (wheeled carts with lids, with approximately 68- gallons capacity) or other mutually agreed upon containers to facilitate that service. The carts shall be labeled by the Contractor with appropriate stickers to identify the acceptable recyclable commodities. 3.22 Reports and Meetings 3.22.1 Materials Reports Materials Reports The Contractor will report, on a monthly and yearly basis, the following information regarding the City recyclable materials quantities (in tons): • Number of curbside recycling "stops" (i.e., number of households with recyclables set out of the curb) per collection (i.e., bi- weekly stop count); • Gross amounts of materials collected, by recyclable material; • Net amounts of materials marketed, by recyclable material; • Amounts of process residuals disposed; and, Composition of process residuals disposed. Monthly reports shall be due to the City by the 151h day of each month for material collected by the Contractor during the preceding calendar month. Annual reports to the City shall be due by the last day of January for materials received by the Contractor during the preceding calendar year. The Contractor is encouraged to include in its annual report recommendations for z continuous improvement in the City recycling programs (e.g., public education, re- education of non - targeted materials, adding materials, frequency, etc.). 3.22.2 Annual Performance Review Meeting Upon receipt of the Contactors annual report, the City shall schedule an annual meeting with the Contractor. The purpose and objectives include, but are not limited to, • Review Contractor's annual report, including trends in recovery rate and participation. • Efforts the Contractor has made to expand recyclable markets. • Review Contractor's performance based on feedback from residents to City staff • Review Contractor's recommendations for improvement in the City recycling program, including enhanced public education and other opportunities. • Review staff recommendations for improving Contractor's service. • Discuss other opportunities for improvement with the remaining years under the current contract. • Discuss the effectiveness of the RecycleBank program. 3.23 Publicity, Promotion, and Education City provided Public Education The City shall prepare and distribute recycling information to residents each year. For example, the City may produce brochures with the annual calendar of recycling collection dates, include articles in their municipal newsletter, and /or include recycling instructions on their website. Contractor-provided Public Education The Contactor shall conduct its own promotions and public education to increase participation and improve compliance with City - specified resident preparation instructions. At a minimum, this shall include distribution of resident education tags to be left by curbside collection crews if any non - targeted material is rejected and left at the curb. The Contractor shall submit a draft of any public education literature for approval by the City at least one (1) month before printing and distribution of any such literature. 4. MATERIALS PROCESSING AND MARKETING 4.1 Processing Facilities Must Be Specified It is intended that all recyclable materials collected by the Contractor will go to recycling markets to be manufactured into recycled content products. The Contractor shall assure the City that adequate recyclable material processing capacity will be provided for material collected. The proposals must clearly specify the location(s) of its recyclable materials processing facility (or subcontractor's facility) where material collected from the City will be delivered and /or processed. The Contractor shall provide written notice to the City at least 60 days in advance of any substantial change in these or subsequent plans for receiving and processing recyclable materials collected from the City. Upon collection, the Contractor shall deliver the designated recyclable materials to a recyclable materials processing center, an end market for sale or reuse, or to an intermediate person to transport for disposal or to dispose of designated non - recyclable materials in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility. 10 Contractor shall assure that all recyclable materials collected in the City are not land filled, composted or incinerated except for process residuals as defined in Section II of this RFP. The Contractor shall dispose of no more than 7% of material (by weight) as process residuals as part of recyclable materials processing operations. No recyclable materials will be land filled, composted or incinerated by the Contractor without written authorization from the City and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency /Office of Environmental Assistance. 4.2 Lack of Adequate Market Demand In the event that the market for a particular recyclable material ceases to exist, or becomes so economically depressed that it becomes economically unfeasible to continue collection, processing and marketing of that particular material, the Contractor shall give written notice to the City. The notice shall include information demonstrating the effort the Contractor has made to find market sources, and the financial information justifying the conclusion that the market is economically unfeasible. At such conclusion, the City and the Contractor will both agree in writing that it is no longer appropriate to collect such item before collection ceases. Contractor shall pay the costs of all disposal of any item collected that is deemed not recyclable by Contractor and the City due to adequate market demand. The City and Contractor shall specify a date in the written agreement to cease collection of the recyclable material in question Contractor shall at all times be under a duty to minimize recyclable materials ending up in landfill or incineration. If such disposal becomes necessary, Contractor shall dispose of the materials at a facility specified in writing by the City or an alternative agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. 4.3 Estimating Materials Composition as Collected The Contractor shall conduct at least one materials composition analysis of the City's Recyclable Materials each year to estimate the relative amount by weight of each type of Recyclable Material by grade or offer a suitable alternative to a composition analysis. The results of this analysis shall include: (1) percent by weight of each type of Recyclable Material by grade as collected by Contractor from within the City; (2) relative change compared to the previous year's composition; and (3) a description of the methodology used to calculate the composition, including number of samples, dates weighed, and City's route(s) used for sampling. The Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of each analysis. City staff will help coordinate the sampling and shall be invited by the Contractor to be present for the sorting. 4.4 Estimating Process Residuals The Contractor shall provide the City a written description of the means to estimate Process Residuals, as defined in 2.18, derived from the City's Recyclable Materials. This written description shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the City. This written description shall be updated by the Contractor immediately after any significant changes to the Processing facilities used by the Contractor. 4.5 Performance Monitoring The City will monitor the performance of the Contractor against goals and performance standards required within this Contract. Substandard performance as determined by the City will constitute non - compliance. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by the Contractor within 60 days after written notice from the City, the City may initiate the Contract termination procedures described herein. 11 4.6 End Market Certification The Contractor shall provide written certification to the City that all Recyclable Materials will be recycled and not disposed of through landfill, incineration, or other method. Upon request by the City, the Contractor shall provide the City with reasonable documentation that all Recyclable Materials have been recycled. 5. PAYMENT AND DAMAGES 5.1 Compensation for Services The City shall pay the Contractor for services provided pursuant to this Contract on a monthly basis at the rates set forth herein. The payment is due to the Contractor within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. The rates payable by the City to Contractor shall be $3.45 per Household Unit, per month (the "Per Household Unit Rate ") for the first year of this agreement. The rates for the subsequent years are as follows: year 2 is $3.50; Year 3 is $3.55; Year 4 is $3.60 and Year 5 is $3.65. Rates may also be increased to reflect any increased costs actually incurred by Contractor due to (a) any change, interpretation or imposition of any law, rule or regulation; (b) the imposition of any governmental tax or surcharge on the cost of providing the services contemplated herein not in effect at the time of the original agreement. Any such increase shall be evidenced by documentation provided by Contractor to the City, upon request of the City made at the time of the increase. On or about November I" of each year of this Contract, the City will review the number of Household Units and notify Contractor of any changes. The current Household Unit count is 2,796. The parties shall use City records and a physical count of the number of Household Units to determine the total number of Household Units the Contractor shall provide Curbside Recycling Service. A physical house count shall be conclusive as to the official count of Household Units receiving collection service in the event the City's records and a physical house count are inconsistent (the "Official House Count "). The Official House Count may be adjusted monthly to reflect the actual number of Household Units being serviced hereunder. Contractor shall submit itemized bills for Curbside Recycling Services rendered to the City on a monthly basis and the City shall pay the Contractor no later than 30 days from the date of the invoice The Contractor shall submit the monthly documentation and reports as detailed in Section 4.22 with the monthly bill. Payment to the Contractor will not be released unless the required paperwork is included in the monthly bill or submitted separately according to the deadlines as specified in Section 4.22. 5.2 Liquidated Damages The Contractor shall agree, in addition to any other remedies available to the City, that the City may withhold payment to the Contractor in the amounts specified below as liquidated damages for failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations. 12 It is understood by both parties that the City shall only withhold such liquidated damages as a last resort to resolve a repeated problem with the Contractor's service. As soon as it learns of a service problem, the City shall communicate the problem to the Contractor both verbally via telephone and in writing. This communication shall itemize the known data about the problem and a proposed resolution. Notwithstanding the above communication procedures, the following acts or omissions shall be considered a breach of this Contract: a) Failure to respond to legitimate service complaints within 24 hours in a reasonable and professional manner - $50 per incident. b) Failure to collect properly notified missed collections (per Section 3.13 of this Contract) - $250 per incident. c) Failure to provide monthly and annual reports (per Section 3.22 of this Contract) - $100 per incident. d) Failure to complete the collections within the specified timeframes (per Sections 3.11 and 3.14 of this Contract) - $100 per incident e) Failure to clean up from spills during collection operations (per Section 3.12 of this Contract) - $250 per incident f) Failure to report on changes in location of Recyclable Materials Processing operations (per Section 4.1 of this Contract) - $250 per incident. g) Exceeding the maximum Process Residuals rate (per Section 4.1 of this Contract) - $1,000 per exceedence (defined as a percentage of total weight). h) Failure to receive a City's written approval of changes to the recycling collection and Processing systems prior to implementing any such change (per Sections 3.6, 3.7, 3. 10, and 4.1 of this Contract) - $5,000. i) Failure to conduct annual composition analysis or agreed upon alternative (as specified in Section 4.4 of this Contract) - $5,000 per incident. j) Failure to provide written description of the means to estimate relative amount of Process Residuals derived from the City's Recyclable Materials (as per Section 4.5 of this Contract) - $100 per incident. k) Failure to attend annual review meetings - $500 per incident. The Contractor shall be liable for liquidated damages amount(s) upon determination of the City that performance has occurred that is not consistent with the provisions of the Contract. The City shall notify Contractor in writing or electronically of each act or omission discovered by the City. It shall be the duty of the Contractor to take whatever steps or action may be necessary to remedy the cause of the complaint. The City may deduct the full amount of any damages from any payment due to the Contractor. The remedy available to the City under this paragraph shall be in addition to all other remedies which the City may have under law or at equity. Exceptions: For the purposes of this Contract, the Contractor shall not be deemed to be liable for penalties where its inability to perform Curbside Recycling Services is the result of conditions beyond the control of the Contractor, including but not limited to civil disorder, acts of God, 13 inclement weather severe enough that trucks cannot safely take collections, labor disputes, provided however, that the Contractor shall obtain the approval for the delay from the City's contact person(s) or its designee(s) prior to 4:00 p.m. of the scheduled collection day, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 6. INSURANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Insurance Insurance secured by the Contractor shall be issued by insurance companies acceptable to the City and admitted in Minnesota. The insurance specified may be in a policy or policies of insurance, primary or excess. Such insurance shall be in force on the date of execution of the contract and shall remain continuously in force for the duration of the contract. The Contractor must obtain the following insurance coverage with these minimum levels of coverage (or in amounts at least as much as those specified in Minn. Stat. 466.04 for each year of the contract).: Worker's Compensation Insurance Statutory Contractor's Public Liability Insurance $500,000 each /person; $1,500,000 each/occurrence Property Damage $500,000 each /person; $1,500,000 each/occurrence Automotive Insurance: $1,500,000 aggregate 6.2 Worker's Compensation The Contractor shall provide evidence of Workers Compensation insurance covering all employees of the Contractor and subcontractors engaged in the performance of this Contract, in accordance with the Minnesota Workers Compensation Law. 6.3 Employee Working Conditions and Respondent's Safety Procedures The Contractor will ensure adequate working conditions and safety procedures are in place to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The City reserves the right to inspect on a random basis all trucks, equipment, facilities, working conditions, training manuals, records of claims for Worker's Compensation or safety violations and standard operating procedures documents. 6.4 Equal Opportunity During the performance of this Contract, the Contractor, in compliance with Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 and Department of Labor Regulations 41 CFR, Part 60, shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Contractor shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants for employment are qualified, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such prohibition against discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 14 In the event of noncompliance with the non - discrimination clauses of this Contract, this Contract may be terminated, or suspended, in whole or part, in addition to other remedies as provided by law. 6.5 Compliance with Laws & Regulations In providing services hereunder the Contractor shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provision of services to be provided by Contractor hereunder. Any material violation shall constitute a material breach of this Contract. 6.6 Governing Law The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all interpretations of this Contract, and the appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation which may arise hereunder will be in those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, regardless of the place of business, residence or incorporation of the Contractor. 6.7 Waiver Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of the executed Contract shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of the executed Contract. 6.8 Termination The City may terminate this Contract if the Contractor fails to fulfill its obligations under this Contract in a proper and timely manner (except if Contractor is excused from performance as provided herein), or otherwise violates the terms of this Contract if the default has not been cured after 30 days written notice has been provided by the City or if a longer period of time is required to cure and Contractor has not commenced to cure such breach and diligently pursued to remedy such breach within 30 days of written notice from the City or such period of time which may be extended by the City. The City shall pay Contractor for services rendered on and prior to the date of termination less any reasonable damages and costs incurred by the City as a result of the breach by Contractor. If the Contract is terminated, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, maps, models, photographs, reports or other materials prepared by the Contractor as specified in this Contract shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and the Contractor shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents or materials prior to the termination. Contractor may terminate contract for cause or breach by the City. Contractor may terminate upon the City's breach after City has had the opportunity to cure the breach within 90 days after written notification to the City. 6.9 Severability The provisions of this Contract are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction, to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the same Contract. 6.10 Accounting Standards The Contractor agrees to maintain the necessary source documentation and enforce sufficient internal controls as dictated by generally accepted accounting practices to properly account for expenses incurred under this Contract. 15 6.11 Retention of Records The Contractor shall retain all records pertinent to expenditures incurred under this Contract for a period of three years after the resolution of all audit findings. Records for non - expendable property acquired with funds under this Contract shall be retained for three years after final disposition of such property. 6.12 Data Practices The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws relating to data privacy or confidentiality. A party must immediately report to the other party any requests from third parties for information relating to this Contract and the other party agrees to respond promptly to inquiries from the first party concerning data requests. 6.13 Inspection of Records and Disclosure All Contractor records with respect to any matters as specified in this Contract shall be made available to the City or its duly authorized agents at any time during normal business hours, as often as the City deem necessary to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts of all relevant data. 6.14 Independent Contractor Nothing contained herein is intended to, nor shall be construed in any manner, as creating or establishing the relationship of employer /employee between the parties. The Contractor shall at all times remain an independent contractor with respect to the services to be performed under this Contract. Any and all employees of Contractor or other persons engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Contractor under this Contract shall be considered employees or sub - contractors of the Contractor only and not of the City; and any and all claims that might arise, including Worker's Compensation claims under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota or any other state, on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of Contractor. 6.15 Transfer of Interest The Contractor shall not assign any interest in the Contract, and shall not transfer any interest in this Contract either by assignment or notation, without the prior written approval of the City. The Contractor shall not subcontract any services under this Contract without prior written approval of the City. Failure to obtain such written approval by the City prior to any such assignment or subcontract shall be grounds for immediate termination hereof. 6.16 Non - Assignability The parties hereby agree that, except by operation of law, Contractor shall have no right to assign or transfer its rights and obligations without written approval from the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a sale of 51 % or more of Contractor's business shall require consent from the City. 16 6.17 Bankruptcy In the event the Contractor, its successors or assigns files for Bankruptcy as provided by federal law, this Contract shall be immediately terminated relieving all parties of their Contract rights and obligations. 6.18 Indemnification The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees, from any liabilities, claims, damages, costs, judgments, and expenses, including attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission of the Contractor, its employees, its agents, or employees of subcontractors, in the performance of the services provided by this Contract or by reason of the failure of the Contractor to fully perform, in any respect, any of its obligations under this Contract. 6.19 Performance & Payment Bond Contractor shall execute and deliver to the City a Performance and Payment Bond with the corporate surety in the sum of $25,000 or equal ( "equal" may include a Letter of Credit from a banking institute approved by each City). This Contract shall not become effective until such a bond, in a form acceptable to the City, has been delivered to the City and approved by its City Attorney. This Contract shall be subject to termination by the City at any time if said bond shall be cancelled or the surety thereon relieved from liability for any reason. The term of such performance bond shall be for the life of this Contract. Extensions or renewals shall require the execution and delivery of a performance bond in the above amount to cover the period of extension or renewal. 6.20 Conflict of Interest Contractor agrees that no member, officer, or employee of the City shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the execution of this Contractor or the proceeds thereof. Violation of this provision shall cause this Contract to be terminated by the City. 6.21 Entire Contract This Contract, the Contractor's proposal in response to the RFP and the RFP constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all verbal agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Contract shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. If any provision of the Contract, the RFP or Contractor's proposal is in conflict, they shall take precedence in the following order: 1) this Contract; 2) Contractor's proposal; 3) RFP. 6.22 Contract Conditions The Bond and Certificate of Insurance shall be provided upon execution hereof. 17 7. TERM OF CONTRACT 7.1 Original Term of This Contract The initial term of this Contract shall be for a period of 60 months, commencing January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2019. 7.2 Contract Extension This Contract may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. The term of any extension shall be discussed and agreed -to by both parties at or near the end of the agreement. 8. CONTRACT AMENDMENTS This Contract forms the full and complete agreement of the parties of the matters contemplated herein. Any amendments to this Contract shall be valid only when reduced to writing, and duly signed by the parties. 9. SIGNATURES TO EXECUTE THIS CONTRACT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names as of the date first written. The Contractor: Republic Services City of Shorewood: By Scott Zerby, Mayor By William Joynes, City Administrator APPROVED TO FORM By Timothy J. Keane, City Attorney IV k,\ ;\ �l Title / Subject: Meeting Date: Prepared by: Reviewed by: Attachments: City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Tobacco License Renewals October 13, 2014 Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Resolution #3C MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Background: This Resolution issues the annual license for the sale of tobacco products to Cub Foods, the Holiday Stationstore, Lucky's Station LLC #7, and Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. in Shorewood. The current licenses expire on October 31, 2014. All establishments have submitted appropriate documentation for license renewals. The renewal license period is November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2015. Staff is not aware of any tobacco license violations during the past year; however, a background investigation by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department is in process. Options: 1) Adopt the Resolution approving licenses to sell tobacco products to Cub Foods, Holiday Stationstore, Lucky's Station LLC #7, and Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. in Shorewood, contingent upon receipt of satisfactory background investigations. 2) Do not adopt the Resolution Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council adopt the Resolution approving licenses to sell tobacco products to Cub Foods, the Holiday Stationstore, Lucky's Station LLC #7, and Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. in Shorewood, contingent upon receipt of satisfactory background investigations. Next Steps and Timelines: Upon receipt of the satisfactory background investigations, the licenses will be issued. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION APPROVING LICENSES TO RETAILERS TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 302 and 1301 provide for the licensing of the sale of tobacco products in the City; and WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, and shall pay a licensing fee; and WHEREAS, the following applicants have satisfactorily completed an application and paid the appropriate fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That a License for the sale of tobacco products be issued for a term of one year, from November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2015, consistent with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 302 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicants: Applicant Address Cub Foods Shorewood 23800 State Highway 7 Holiday Stationstore 412 19955 State Highway 7 Lucky's Station LLC 47 24365 Smithtown Road Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. 23710 State Highway 7 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 13th day of October, 2014. ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Scott Zerby, Mayor #3D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Setting the Date for the Canvassing Board meeting Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: William S. Joynes, City Administrator Attachments: Background: The Canvassing Board must meet between the 3rd and 101h day following the General Election (between Nov. 7 and Nov. 14) to approve the local Election results of the Tuesday, November 4 Election. It is recommended that this meeting take place on Monday, November 10, 2014, prior to the Work Session and Regular Council Meeting. Council Action Required: A motion setting the date of the Canvassing Board meeting for Monday, November 10, prior to the Work Session and Regular Council Meeting at Shorewood City Hall. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 #3E MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Resolution Electing To Not Waive Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn Attachment: Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City waive the statutory tort limits, waive the limits and purchase excess liability coverage, or waive the limits and not purchase excess liability coverage. Background: The City Council is required to pass a resolution annually indicating if they wish to waive or not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability insurance established by Minnesota Statute 466.04. On January 1, 2008 the statutory liability limits increased from $300,000 to $400,000 per claimant and from $1,000,000 to $1,200,000 per occurrence. If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no more than $400,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,200,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether or not the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover up to $1,200,000 on a single occurrence. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $1,200,000, regardless of the number of claimants. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Financial or Budget Considerations Waiver of the monetary limits will increase the likelihood of larger payouts which will increase insurance costs. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Options: The City Council may choose to: 1. Accept the staff recommendation and not waive the limits as shown on the attached resolution. 2. Waive the statutory limits and do not purchase excess liability insurance coverage. 3. Waive the statutory limits and purchase excess liability insurance coverage. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff is proceeding with the regular insurance renewal process for the November 1 renewal date. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management through proper insurance coverage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO NOT WAIVE STATUTORY TORT LIMITS FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE WHEREAS, pursuant to previous action taken, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has requested the City to make an election with regards to waiving or not waiving its tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and WHEREAS, the choices available are to not waive the statutory limit, to waive the limit but to keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, or to waive the limit and to add insurance to a new level; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: That the Shorewood City Council does hereby elect to not waive the statutory tort liability limit established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04 and that such election is effective until amended by further resolution of the Shorewood City Council. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of October, 2014. ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Scott Zerby, Mayor k,\ ;\ �l City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item #6A MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Report on Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) activities Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments: Paul Stelmachers, LMCC Board Representative, will be present to provide an update on recent LMCC activities. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: 2014 Mill & Overlay Improvements, City Project 14 -04 — Change Order No. 1 Additional Work Request Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Paul Hornby CC: Larry Brown Attachments: Change Order No. 1, Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1. Background: As part of the City Capital Improvement Plan and Pavement Management Plan, the City budgets for the maintenance of roadways as part of the Bituminous Mill and Overly project. The 2014 Bituminous Mill and Overlay Project includes Charleston Circle, Club Valley Road, Elbert Point, Lake Virginia Drive, McKinley Circle, Radisson Entrance, and Timber Lane. On August 11, 2014, the City Council accepted bids and awarded the construction contract for the 2014 Mill & Overlay Improvements, City Project 14 -04, to GMH Asphalt Corporation. The following items are requested to be added to the project to mitigate flood damage to Enchanted Lane, and represent out of scope work from the contract as bid: 1. Mobilization, end mill match points for each damaged segment, and light grading preparation work of patched areas; 2. Bituminous Tack Coat; 3. Bituminous Pavement; 4. Manhole Adjustment; GMH Asphalt Corporation has submitted the change order detailing the additional work items. The change order has been reviewed by staff with regard to the work scope and additional costs, and recommends approval. Financial or Budget Considerations: The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of $299,922.00. Change Order No. 1 will increase the contract $55,796.00, from $299,922.00 to $355,718.00, approximately 18.6% above the original contract amount. Staff anticipates reimbursement for the majority of this change order through FEMA. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1. Payment for this change order will be made under future contractor payment request. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 2014 MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND APPURTENANT 10/9/2014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD WSB PROJECT NO. 1459 -93 OWNER CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 CONTRACTOR: GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION 9180 LAKETOWN ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ENCHANTED LANE TO INCLUDE EDGE MILLING TO TIE INTO EXISTING PAVEMENTS, FULL WIDTH BITUMINOUS OVERLAY, AND SANITARY SEWER CASTING ADJUSTMENTS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER PAID AT ACTUAL WORK COMPLETED BASED ON UNIT PRICES. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER INCLUDES ALL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK ELEMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: $299,922.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME: 10/31/2014 PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: $0.00 NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NONE CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: $299,922.00 CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: 10/31/2014 NET INCREASE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: $55,796.00 NET INCREASE WITH CHANGE ORDER: NONE CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS: $355,718.00 CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS 10/31/2014 RECOMMENDED BY: PAUL HORNBY. P.E.. PROJECT MANAGER APPROVED BY: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEER CITY OF SHOREWOOD DATE APPROVED BY: CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION CONTRACTOR K:101459 -930L4 dminlConstruction Adminl1459 -93 Change Order 1 100914CO -1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DETAIL 2014 MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND APPURTENANT CITY OF SHOREWOOD WSB PROJECT NO. 1459 -93 ADDED ITEMS iG7F'7kZ11E,I Item No. Mat. No. Description Unit Price Qty Extended Amount 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $ 8,750.00 1.00 $8,750.00 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $ 3.80 180.00 $684.00 2360.501 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) TON $ 72.52 600.00 $43,512.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH $ 475.00 6.00 $2,850.00 TOTAL ADDED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 REDUCED ITEMS $55,796.00 Item No. Mat. No. Description Unit Price Qty Extended Amount TOTAL REDUCED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $0.00 TOTAL ADJUSTMENT TO ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $55,796.00 K,101459- 9301AdminlConstruction Admin11459 -93 Change Order 1 100914COI Detail CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR 2014 MILL & OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 14 -04 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the 2014 Mill & Overlay Improvements, City Project 14 -04 to GMH Asphalt Corporation of Chaska, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Plan provides $264,000 for the improvement project; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 1 is necessary to construct additional improvements and associated work; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 1 will increase the project construction costs in the amount of $55,796.00, from the original contract amount of $299,922.00 to $355,718.00; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: Change Order No. lin the amount of $55,796.00 is hereby approved. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of October, 2014 ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Scott Zerby, Mayor #9B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Petition for Local Improvement — Connection to City Water System Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Petition for Local Improvement; Resolution Accepting Petition and Authorizing a Residential Connection to the City Water Distribution System Background: The City received a petition from a residential property owner located on Nelsine Drive at Eureka Road. The petition is a request to connect and extend a water service to an existing house at 25580 Nelsine Drive. Upon acceptance of the petition, and approval of the request, City staff will request a contractor quote, and if acceptable, retain the contractor to extend a water service to the right of way of the petitioned property. City staff will perform observation of the water service extension and connection during construction. Financial or Budget Considerations: The Applicant will be responsible for payment to the City the watermain connection fee (currently $10,000) and any construction costs incurred by the City that exceed the connection fee amount. The Applicant will be credited the amount of previous watermain assessment when the watermain was installed. The Resolution does provide a statement that the petitioner can withdraw their request if the cost to extend water service to the property is not acceptable. The City will not proceed with extension of the water service until the petitioner notifies staff in writing that the construction quote is acceptable. Options: 1. Approve the Resolution Accepting the Petition and Authorizing a Residential Connection to the City Water Distribution System 2. Take no Action at this time Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval the Resolution Accepting the Petition and Authorizing a Residential Connection to the City Water Distribution System. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT City of Shorewood October 13, 2014 State of Minnesota To the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota: WE THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS of the real property described as: PID: 3311723220006; 25580 Nelsine Drive, Shorewood, MN 55331 hearby petition, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, for the following public improvements: Extension of City water service to 25580. Nelsine Drive, Shorewood, MN 55331 EACH OWNER FURTHER AGREES, in consideration of the City action at our request to cause construction of the above - described improvement, to pay such sums as may be determined by the City to be a fair and reasonable apportionment of the costs of said improvement. OWNER EXPRESSLY WAIVES OBJECTION to any irregularity with regard to the malting of the improvement or assessment of the cost thereof; waives any claim that the amount thereof levied against owner's property is excessive; and waives all rights of appeal in the courts. 2. Date Signature of Owner Print Name of Owner Description of Property - "Leonard Poppenhagen _ Residential Parcel Residential Parcel Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the owners of the above - stated quantity of property by the making of the improvement petitioned for. City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND AUTHORIZING A RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION TO THE CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (City) has been petitioned for a single family residential water service extension and connection to the City water distribution; and WHEREAS, the petition is made by Leonard Poppenhagen for property identified as P.I.D. 3311723220006; and address 25580 Nelsine Drive, City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City will contract with a local contractor to extend watermain and /or service to the right of way of the petitioner property as necessitated by the petition; and WHEREAS, the petitioner will reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City to extend the water service to the right of way of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City connection fee for connection to the water system is $10,000, less previously paid assessment for watermain construction improvements; and WHEREAS, the petitioner shall pay the City the connection fee and will reimburse the City for all costs incurred exceeding the connection fee to extend water service; and WHEREAS, the City will provide a quote to construct the water service extension to the petitioner and the petitioner will have the option to request the City accept the quote and construct the water service or to withdraw the petition for connection to the water system. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shorewood City Council hereby receives the petition and approves the connection to the water distribution system. The City Engineer and Public Works Director are authorized to obtain contractor quotes and to construct the water service to serve the petitioned property. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 13th day of October, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #1OA MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Review of Proposals for RFP for Renewable Energy Alternatives, City Project 14 -09 Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Reviewed by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Brad Nielsen, Planning Director Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments Original RFP and 9 Proposals in response to RFP Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood enter into a contract with a consultant to explore alternative energy sources and infrastructure? Background: The City Council authorized publication of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Renewable Energy Alternatives. The RFP has been included as Attachment 1 to this memorandum. In response, the City received 9 responses to the RFP. These have been included as Attachments 2 -10, and are as follows: Barr Engineering CR Planning Engan Associates Gausman and Moore Green Circuit - Telamon LHB Inc. RedWind Consulting Sebesta SolarStone - WSB and Associates Staff has reviewed and critiqued the proposals based upon the following criteria: ✓ Did the proposal meet the requirements of the RFP? ✓ Did the proposed team exhibit the experience that would best serve the City? ✓ Did the proposal appear to cover a broad spectrum of alternative energies? ✓ Was the proposal clear regarding costs? ✓ Was the proposal clear as to what the deliverables were to be? ✓ What was the timing of the final product ✓ Generally, what were the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Based upon the above criteria, staff was able to short list the proposals down to the following candidates for the Councils consideration. While the proposed fees and timelines proposed are key items to include in consideration of each proposal, these items were not the deciding factors on selection. We believe any one of the following four candidates is capable of fulfilling the Council's intent. A formal agreement would need to be put in place with the consultant, with the ultimate conditions of the contract negotiated. They are, in no particular order: Table 1 Firm Proposed Fee Timing of Product Barr Engineering $55,000 8 Months LHB Inc. $46,250 Not Stated Sebesta $25,400 Not Stated SolarStone /WSB and Associates $ 32,000 3 Months Financial Considerations: Costs for this proposal are to be determined. Options: 1. Select a proposal, as presented. 2. Direct Staff to pursue additional information and / or schedule interviews for the Council. 3. Reject the proposals as presented and provide further direction. Recommendation: Invite Council selected firms for interview. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RENEWABLE ENERGYAL TERNA TIVES STUDY CITY PROJECT 14 -09 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Shorewood is Requesting Proposals (RFP) for professional services necessary to successfully perform a renewable energy alternatives analysis and study for City facilities and other facilities. In general, the requested study will review renewable energy alternatives that will provide cost effective energy system(s) that will reduce City costs for energy, will have a financial benefit lifecycle, is considered a "renewable" or "green" energy technology, and is practical for Municipal facilities, with potential to serve other properties and /or facilities as practical. The City is requesting consultants with experience in renewable energy resources respond to this RFP. The City does not want manufacturers to submit proposals specific to their products. The RFP is to review renewable energy alternatives and the City may decide to issue future RFP(s) for specific implementation. A. RFP Content. This RFP contains the following sections: I. Introduction II. Project Information III. Proposal B. Addenda /Clarifications. Any changes to this RFP will be made by written addendum. Verbal modification will not be binding. C. Pre - Contractual Expenses. The City will not be responsible for any pre - Contractual expenses. Pre - contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by the Consultant in: 1. Preparing its proposal in response to this RFP; 2. Submitting that proposal to the City of Shorewood; 3. Negotiating with the City of Shorewood any matter related to this proposal; or 4. Any other expenses incurred by the Consultant prior to the date of execution of the Proposed Agreement. D. Contract Award. Issuance of this RFP and receipt of proposals does not commit the City of Shorewood to award a contract. The City of Shorewood reserves the right to postpone reviewing proposals for its own convenience, to accept or reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFP, to negotiate with other than the selected Consultant should negotiations with the Page 1 of 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RENEWABLE ENERGYAL TERNA TIVES STUDY CITY PROJECT 14 -09 selected be terminated, to negotiate with more than one Consultant simultaneously, or to cancel any part or all of this RFP. E. Contact Person. The Consultant's contact for specific questions regarding information in this proposal is Paul Hornby, City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Rd, Shorewood MN 55331, or by email at phornby(@ci.shorewood.mn.us. 11111. PROJECT INFORMATION A. City Facilities for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I. City Facilities that are to be considered for Renewable Energy applications include: a. City Hall b. South Shore Center c. Public Works building d. Police Station e. Fire Station f. Badger Park g. Badger well house h. Manor Park i. Freeman Park j. Silverwood Park k. Silverwood well house I. Cathcart Park m. Boulder Bridge well house n. Eleven sanitary sewer lift stations II. Private facilities that may also be considered for Renewable Energy (depending upon the energy type, incentive programs available, lifecycle, etc...) include: a. Residential properties b. Commercial properties The successful consultant is required to familiarize themselves with the City facilities and associated activities at each site and adjacent areas for private applications, to provide a comprehensive analysis of renewable energy alternatives. III. Renewable Energy Alternatives The City of Shorewood is a GreenStep City and is interested in efficient, effective and practical renewable energy resources that will have a positive Page 2 of 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RENEWABLE ENERGYAL TERNA TIVES STUDY CITY PROJECT 14 -09 payback within its lifecycle. The City is aware of some programs available for renewable energy, but is interested in a broad review of alternatives available that make practical sense for a municipality. Renewable energy alternatives to consider through study are to include (but are not limited to): a. Solar Energy b. Wind Energy c. Geothermal Energy d. others B. Project Scope. The objective is to provide a comprehensive review and study of City facilities and determine in report format that details each renewable energy alternative and the practical application for municipal use including: 1. Project kick -off meeting a. Meet with City staff members to discuss City facilities b. Review City facilities 2. Review Renewable Energy Alternatives and potential applications to City facilities a. Provide practical applications for public facilities b. Potential to sublet/subscribe energy to benefit to residential and commercial properties 3. Prepare Financial benefit analysis for renewable energy alternatives a. Opinion of installation cost b. Operational costs c. Maintenance costs d. System(s) reliability evaluation e. Anticipated lifecycle costs f. Cost Benefit analysis g. Financial incentive programs h. Consultant's recommendation for applicability 4. Project Management Deliverables: Periodic progress reports, project meeting agendas, handouts and meeting minutes. 5. Prepare draft study report for staff review. a. Attend Council work session to discuss draft findings 6. Prepare final study report including consultant recommendation, and comments of Council and staff, as directed. Page 3 of 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RENEWABLE ENERGYAL TERNA TIVES STUDY CITY PROJECT 14 -09 11111111. PROPOSAL A. Submission of Proposal. Submit the proposal to: Paul Hornby, P.E., City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd Shorewood, MN 55331 Proposals shall be received by the end of the business day (4:30 P.M.), Friday, September 12, 2014. Proposals received after this time will not be accepted. B. Proposal Format. Proposals shall be prepared to print on 8'/2" x 11" paper, with all text clear of binding. The proposal shall be clear and understandable when reproduced in black and white. Please limit the proposal to 20 pages. Include, at a minimum, the following: 1. Identification of the offering firm(s), including name, address and telephone number of each firm. 2. Acknowledgement of receipt of RFP addenda, if any, and 3. Name, title, address, email address and telephone and fax numbers of contact person during period of proposal evaluation. E. Consultant Team. Identify all team members and areas of responsibility. Resumes may be requested by City staff during proposal review. F. Understanding of the Project. The Consultant shall provide a brief, concise description that demonstrates the Consultant's understanding of the project and what needs to be done to successfully complete the work scope. G. Consultant Fee. The Consultant shall provide the proposed fee and clearly identify the detailed scope of services by task, and all reimbursable expenses. A total fee, not to be exceeded, for all work shall be included. H. Exceptions and Deviations. The Consultant may include other services outside the scope of this proposal that the firm feels maybe needed. The Consultant also may propose cost - saving items. Any exceptions to the requirements in this RFP, including the language in the contractual terms, must be included in the proposal. Page 4 of 4 Submitted by Barr Engineering Company September 12, 2014 resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants September 12, 2014 Paul Hornby, PE City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study City Project 14 -09 Dear Mr. Hornby: On behalf of Barr Engineering Co., we are pleased to provide our proposal to the City of Shorewood (City) for a renewable energy alternatives study. Our proposal is based on the information in your request for - proposal, answers to questions we've submitted during the proposal process, and our experience on similar projects. We believe that choosing Barr can provide the City with several benefits. • Barr's project team and our collaboration with a diverse group of experts in renewable energy project scoping and implementation will provide you with a useful and detailed renewable energy alternatives study. • Our experience on similar renewable energy alternatives studies for cities, watershed districts, a military base, and an Indian tribe gives us the experience necessary to successfully carry out your project in a timely manner. • You can count on a non - partisan and cost - effective review of multiple renewable energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, CHP, and other energy options. We thank you for the opportunity to propose on this project and look forward to working with you if fortunate enough to be awarded the work. If you have any questions about our proposal or would like additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Rachel Walker Project Manager, Point of Contact rwalker barr.com, 952 - 832 -2849 Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 452.832.2600 www.barr.com Contents understanding of the work 1 workscope .................................................................................................... ............................... 2 Task 1: client communications ............................................................... ............................... 2 Task 2: renewable energy assessment ................................................... ..............................2 Task 2.1: solar energy assessment ...................................................... ..............................3 Task 2.2 geothermal /ground- source heat pump assessment ...... ............................... 3 Task 2.3 combined heat and power energy assessment ............... ..............................4 Task 2.4 wind energy assessment ...................................................... ............................... 4 Task 3: energy-load analysis 5 Task 4: strategic energy study development 5 deliverables................................................................................................... ............................... 7 Task 1 client communications 7 . : ............................................................... ............................... Task 2: renewable energy alternatives ................................................. ............................... 7 Task 3: renewable energy cost benefit analysis 7 Task 4: development of strategic energy study ................................... ............................... 7 i proposed team 8 fee................................................................................................................. ............................... 13 schedule....................................................................................................... ............................... 14 Attachment A: project examples Attachment B: letters of recommendation ,A/ R03 1, 21 . A 4 understanding of the work Barr understands that the City of Shorewood (City) is considering undertaking a renewable energy alternatives study for City facilities and potentially other properties within the City. The Study will: ■ Incorporate City staff input to evaluate the feasibility and potential lifecycle payback of several paths for developing renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, combined heat and power (CHP)) at the 24 City facilities listed in the City's request for proposals (RFP City Project 14 -09). • Compile energy -use data to estimate the City facilities' energy loads and assess the magnitude of potential demand that can be met with renewable development. • Synthesize and present the results of the renewable energy assessment and energy -load analysis to identify prioritized projects, potential environmental benefits, and energy tradeoffs and cost savings associated with development options. We understand that the City's ultimate objective is to carry out a broad review of renewable energy alternatives that are practical. In our eyes, this takes the shape of short -term actionable projects prioritized by payback period and also provides the City with considerations and value as a long - term guide to manage energy use and identify future opportunities. We also understand that investigation of building energy efficiency retrofits are outside the scope of this work, due in part to the City's active commitment to the GreenSteps program. We propose teaming with All Energy Solar, Hunt Electric Corporation, and Chinook Wind to help complete the analyses of wind and solar power, respectively, as outlined below. In addition, Nelson - Rudie & Associates, Inc. will serve as a ground- source heat pump expert on this project. The team composition is intended to provide the City decision makers with access to expertise in each of the technologies being evaluated, with Barr leading the team and formulating the approach. Based on the results of screening -level energy assessments, we will work with the City staff and City engineers to develop a clear and streamlined strategic- energy plan for each renewable resource at the identified candidate sites —wind, solar, geothermal, CHP, and other load management —that will highlight critical issues, quantify cost and benefits (both economic and environmental), estimate payback period for the investment, and assess potential flaws. Each technology and site will present unique equipment ownership, grid interconnect, and insurance considerations. It is our goal to help the City understand these tradeoffs at a high level and develop a short list of prioritized implementation steps as well as items to consider during future detailed evaluations. Our project team includes Kurt Leuthold (principal), Rachel Walker (project manager), Matt Metzger, ENV SP (civil and sustainability engineer), Bill Bangsund (senior geologist), Louise Segroves (environmental specialist), John Wachtler (environmental specialist), Corey Schwartz (electrical engineer), Bruce Browers (senior consultant), Kirk Stopenhagen (Chinook Wind), Michael Allen (All Energy Solar), Dawn Eimers (Hunt Electric), Mike Woehrle (Nelson - Rudie). Stuart Stephens (senior electrical engineer) of Barr has experience working on the City of Shorewood's electric distribution system and can be called on, as needed, for the project. These individuals' qualifications and experience are summarized in the proposed team section of this proposal. i work scope This work plan is based on our understanding of the project described above. client communications Task I Up to three Barr team members will attend a kickoff meeting with City staff members to discuss the project, information needs, and expectations. Throughout the project, Barr's project manager will provide informal email or telephone updates to community staff as needed. We will also implement a secure project website so City staff can have ongoing access to all data and other information developed for the project. The City will receive periodic progress reports, meeting agendas, and summaries of meeting minutes. 2. Review technology options. A wide variety of wind - turbine sizes and models, solar technologies and manufacturers, and CHP options are available. Based on the information gathered in Step 1, we will evaluate a broad set of options and narrow the list to technologies suitable for further assessment. 3. Assess implementation feasibility. This step will focus on a feasibility evaluation of technologies identified in Step 2. For each resource, the following key issues will be examined: a) Implementation scenarios. Based on the quantity and quality of the resource and viable technological options, one feasible implementation scenario may be developed for each resource at each candidate sites, as agreed to by the City staff. b) development costs and barriers. For each candidate site, we will assess upper and lower bounds for potential energy production, opinion of capital costs, anticipated cost of energy, and overall technical and economic feasibility. c) Environmental and regulatory considerations. For each candidate site, life -cycle payback and environmental benefits will be assessed. This may include potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) and water footprint achieved by offsetting traditional grid -based power with onsite renewable power generation. In addition, potential environmental risks, permitting issues, equipment ownership models, insurance issues, zoning, and environmental- review requirements will be identified. d) Economic Payback. Implementation opportunities identified at candidate sites may be prioritized based on economic payback period. A key component of this step is an !I assessment of rates and relevant government incentive programs that may provide a source of funding for implementation. The financial benefits analysis will prioritize implementation opportunities based on: • Anticipated life -cycle cost, based on opinion of installation cost and estimated operational and maintenance cost. • A system reliability evaluation. • A cost - benefit analysis, with consideration of footprint reduction benefits. • Financial incentive programs. Task 2.1: solar energy assessment Barr proposes to carry out a desktop review of all 24 City Facilities listed in the RFP. Based on that review, Barr intends to carry out one visit to each of the 24 sites. Options that we would explore include both rooftop and free - standing arrays to maximize potential resource configurations. Barr would provide a conceptual siting of the proposed solar locations. The rooftop assessments will include high -level consideration of: • Structural type and span of roof - support structure. • Type and age of roofing materials and height and location of roof- mounted HVAC equipment. • Parapets, communication equipment, and other potential shading obstructions. • Electrical infrastructure and potential point(s) of coupling, incorporating the requirements of the serving electrical utility. • Evaluation of systems in terms of maximizing the payback all year (not just in the summer months). • Data analysis using industry software such as PVSyst or Ret Screen. Data collected during the rooftop site assessments will be used to estimate the annual generation capabilities of the maximum system size; identify appropriate technologies; and assess implementation, operational, and maintenance costs. We will also review facility energy demands (annual, seasonal, and time of use) for the last 12 months of electrical energy bills and the City's priorities for usage - percentage offset. Finally, we will examine incentive programs that could be tapped to off -set costs and reduce pay -back periods, such as Made in Minnesota (MiM) and Xcel Energy Solar *Rewards. Task 2.2 geothermal /ground- source heat pump assessment The geothermal assessment will be based on analysis of ground source heat pumps (GSHP), land availability, soil conditions, and electricity and fuel costs. Based on data provided by City staff or publically available data, Barr will compile an inventory of City structures, their heating and cooling requirements, and the age and condition of the HVAC systems. Ideally, multiple City facilities could be serviced by a single GSHP system designed for multiple buildings, thereby increasing the efficiency of the overall system. Barr will review the Minnesota Geological Survey's Hennepin County Geologic Atlas and the Minnesota County Well Index to assess the ground conditions. While the systems are called "ground i i source," groundwater is an important factor. Installing the heat transfer tubing below the water table allows the moving groundwater to improve the transfer of heat. Barr will prepare an analysis of land use adjacent to City facilities to assess the availability of land for installation of a GSHP system. There are several different options for the ground loops used in GSHPs: • Vertical wells have a relatively small footprint but are generally more expensive to install. • Coils of tubing can be installed in relatively shallow trenches and are inexpensive to install, but these require a large footprint. Also, if installed above the water table, these systems will have a reduced heat transfer capability. • If available and allowed by local rules and regulations, heat transfer coils can be installed in a lake or pond. Barr will also prepare a summary of current and projected costs of electricity and other fuel currently being used in City facilities that might be offset by GSHP and consider whether GSHP is cost - effective relative to other renewable energy alternatives. Task 2.3 combined rassessment The combined heat and power (CHP) energy assessment will review the City's listed sites to determine if any of the sites are good candidates for exploring a CHP retrofit. For candidate sites, the CHP assessment will review economic and logistical tradeoffs of fueling CHP systems with natural gas versus biomass. Fuel availability, delivery, ash handling, and cost must all be considered in selecting a fuel source for CHP systems. Generally speaking, natural gas CHP systems, although not a renewable technology, can still prove highly efficient under some circumstances. Task 2.4 wind energy assess ment The wind energy assessment for this study will include an evaluation of the best sites for a wind project on City - controlled property. The tasks proposed are to develop a site -visit checklist to gather information to rank sites, evaluate the site visit results, obtain nearby wind data to conduct a desktop analysis of each site's wind energy potential, and present the results and recommendations. Specifically, the analysis will combine the results from the site visit with wind data from multiple sources, normalized to long -term climatic trends, to provide preliminary energy estimates. The intent of the study is to provide the City with insight on the site's production potential to determine the feasibility of wind energy (compared to that of other sustainable - energy sources). For the desktop wind- resource modeling evaluation, we will complete the following tasks. prepare site visit checklist A detailed checklist will be developed by an experienced wind energy meteorologist to be used by the siting trip personnel to obtain information on each prospective location. This will be used to identify locations suitable for installing wind turbines on City property based on industry standard turbine siting guidelines, including setbacks from adjoining property, and City building and zoning codes and height restrictions. Information gathered will include location and heights of buildings, obstructions, terrain, trees, and other local surroundings. We will also take photographs to be evaluated by the meteorologist to rank the sites in order of wind resource potential. i evaluate site visit results The sites will be ranked according to their wind energy potential. Locations that are best suited will be further analyzed by conducting a desktop analysis of local wind data. �I perform desktop analysis A screening -level desktop analysis is proposed for opportunity sites identified following site visits. Local wind speed data from various sources such as the National Weather Service, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and NOAA will be obtained and analyzed. Since short -term weather data may not reflect long -term climatic averages, the local wind data will be adjusted to a long -term average by correlation with datasets of more than five years in duration. Depending on professional judgment of the long -term reference data, multiple datasets may be used to determine long -term wind speed. Modern Era Retrospective - Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) at a record length of 30 years, local Automated Surface - Observation Station (ASOS) data from nearby National Weather Service stations, and other available local wind data may also be used. If the desktop analysis warrants further clarification of wind potential, we will recommend additional steps for onsite wind data collection to better quantify wind generating potential. Onsite wind data collection is outside the scope of this proposal but may include data collection for 6 -12 months. Barr will work with the City staff to assemble a summary of energy -use data. Ideally, this effort will target energy use on a monthly basis for up to four recent calendar years to provide an adequate representation of the City facilities' energy -use patterns. It is anticipated that the City engineer will provide Barr with the required raw data. Barr will summarize the data by facility and verify the City's primary areas of energy demand. We will focus on these areas of energy demand and provide a summary of potential advantages and disadvantages of each strategy that can be used by the City to identify options that may merit more detailed investigation. Current energy status, including current use and potential resource development • The City's energy goals as a GreenStep city • Initial action plan to achieve energy goals The outcomes of Tasks 2 and 3 will be used to prepare a study that addresses the City's current energy status and potential resource development. i In addition to the proposed scope and budget, we can discuss expanding the investigation to include candidate sites on commercial and private properties identified as opportunities. Also, at the request of the City, we can discuss evaluating the feasibility of somewhat more exotic power generation and energy storage options by: • Investigating if battery storage provides improved system reliability • Investigating the potential benefits of onsite fuel cells • Exploring the scale of City organics collection and possible biogas power generation • Exploring the benefits of upgrading existing supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems at City -owned facilities to interface with power generation technologies • Reviewing existing backup -power and standby generators to assess if any load- shedding arrangements with power utilities have an acceptable payback period • Reviewing how City energy decisions may be viewed favorably in the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) Envision rating system We propose presenting initial findings to the City staff at a meeting that allows for discussion and i consideration of the City's energy mission and goals. Following this working session, Barr would prepare a draft study based on feedback from that meeting and receive feedback on the draft before making a final presentation to the City Council. The final strategic energy study would incorporate feedback from the City Council and any additional input from City staff. deliverables Barr anticipates that the following deliverables will be produced, grouped by the proposed tasks in the work plan, summarized and bundled in the final report: Task I-. client communications ■ Project team kickoff meeting with the City's staff to discuss City facilities ® Email and phone progress reports as needed throughout the project a Periodic email progress reports, meeting agendas, and summaries of meeting minutes Task 4.- development of strategic energy study • One draft strategic energy study and one presentation to City Council and staff • Documentation of comments received from City Staff and City Council • One final strategic energy study incorporating feedback from City Council and staff proposed team Details about the primary Barr personnel and proposed subconsultants who will be used to perform the services offered, along with their qualifications and relevant project examples, are below. At Barr's discretion, other engineers, scientists, and technicians may be utilized on the project to meet the schedule and work plan. To learn more about Barr`s relevant project experience as well as letters of recommendation from our clients, see Attachments A and B, respectively. Barr Engineering Co. Kurt Leuthold, PE Vice President • Kurt Leuthold has 26 years of experience in hydrology, hydraulics, stormwater management, and land development. He has designed surface - water management projects for cities, water management organizations, watershed districts, private industries, developers, and universities and colleges. In the last 14 years, Kurt's emphasis has been on sustainability and the design of alternative stormwater management, low- impact development, green infrastructure, and green building projects. He understands the interaction of water, soils, and plants, and how urban and suburban infrastructure can support biodiversity and provide environmental protection. He frequently uses this experience to teach workshops and give presentations about the latest in alternative stormwater management planning, design, operations, and maintenance. Barr Engineering Co. Matthew Metzger, P Civil Engineer Matt Metzger is a civil engineer with 10 years of design engineering experience related to water resources and infrastructure design. He has worked extensively on infrastructure design, site planning, flood -risk reduction systems, low- impact green infrastructure, cost estimating, and project visualizations for clients in the public and private sectors. Matt regularly serves as both a technical lead and project manager on civil, water and energy infrastructure projects ranging from small sites to projects exceeding $1 billion. Matt has experience in sustainable systems engineering and life -cycle assessment to help clients understand the tradeoffs and sustainable value profile of project alternatives. Barr Engineering Co. Bruce's nearly 40 years of experience in engineering, operations, development, and construction include more than 25 years at Minnesota Power, where his roles included managing generation development, fuels, and engineering for independent power projects. His background also includes conducting technical and feasibility studies for biomass - fueled power plants, and designing and constructing combined heat -and -power (CHP) plants. At Barr, Bruce specializes in working with the power - generation and process -steam industries. Before joining Barr in 2008, Bruce served as president of Browers Consulting for five years. He specialized in assessing the feasibility of prospective U.S. power industry investment in developing nations, including Tanzania. From 1977 to 2003, he served in managerial roles at Minnesota Power. Barr Engineering Co. Bill Bangsund, PG Bill Bangsund has more than 24 years of experience in landfill permitting and monitoring, contamination studies, groundwater resources, and vibration analysis. He has provided oversight for long -term monitoring and assistance with ongoing site remedial investigations and has worked on geological investigations and assessments of geological hazards for over 100 windpower development projects across the country. Prior to joining Barr, Bill served as a project officer and hydrogeologist with the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency for groundwater- contamination assessments, waste management studies, and hazardous -waste site assessments nationwide. Barr Engineering Co. Stuart Stephens, PE r► qawd Stuart Stephens has more than 34 years of experience in the design, build, installation, and startup of power generation systems, power distribution systems, and real -time process controls and instrumentation for municipalities and industry. His project experience includes over 50 water and wastewater treatment plants, 75 wellhouses, and numerous water towers, wastewater lift stations, and street - lighting and park - lighting projects. System designs have included standby power, distributed control systems, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), personal- computer -based monitoring, system control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, and telemetry systems using fiber -optic cable and radio. Stuart has broad experience with the selection, design, and installation of AC and DC motor controls; AC power circuits and motor controls, including variable frequency drives (VFDs); stationary and portable emergency power generators; PLCs; operator interface panels; high -speed data acquisition equipment; field instrumentation, including temperature, pressure, flow, and level; gas monitoring equipment; and pneumatic, hydraulic and electric control valves for gas, steam, and fluids. Nelson -Rudie & Associates, Inc. 9100 -49th Ave N Minneapolis, MN 55428 763 - 367 -7630 Michael D. Woehrle, Engineer Principal Chief Mechanical Mr. Woehrle has over thirty years of experience in mechanical engineering involving design, coordination, meetings, shop drawing review, and field inspections. During this time, he has designed various types of buildings, including educational, retail, commercial, industrial, and residential. Mr. Woehrle is a LEED accredited design professional and is a national leader in ice arena dehumidification design. Mr. Woehrle is a principal at Nelson -Rudie & Associates, Inc. and is the chief mechanical engineer responsible for all mechanical engineering functions in the firm. -Y jlisaooli I'b ind Kirk Sfopenhagen Meteorologist Wind Chinook Wind is a multi - disciplinary consulting firm specializing in wind Lunde Rd energy applications. Their experienced staff of independent engineers has Ever Everson, WA a broad range of expertise that allows them to see the big picture. Chinook 98247 analyzes technical details to extract practical information that can be used for critical business decision making. They work collaboratively with a 425 -985 -2655 variety of engineers and other consultants to provide a full range of services. Chinook is a member of the American Wind Energy Association and represents the United States on the IEC committee currently revising the wind turbine power performance testing standard. Clients trust them to provide confidential, high - quality service. fee Barr proposes to perform the services described in the work plan on a lump -sum (fixed -fee) basis as outlined below: 1.0 Client Communications 2.1 Solar Energy Assessment 2.2 CHP and Geothermal Energy Assessment 2.3 Wind Energy Assessment 3.0 Energy -Load Analysis 4.0 Development of Strategic Energy Plan $5,000 to $6,000 $15,000 to $17,000 $10,000 to $12,000 $5,000 to $7,000 $3,000 to $4,000 $7,000 to $9,000 The estimated cost range is intended to provide the City flexibility in customizing parts of this proposal to meet their needs, with our team adjusting budget to meet expectations. i i i schedule Barr proposes to perform the services described in the work plan in accordance with the preliminary schedule outlined below: 1.0 Client Communications 2.1 Solar Energy Assessment 2.2 CHP and Geothermal Energy Assessment 2.3 Wind Energy Assessment j 3.0 Energy -Load Analysis ,s 4.0 Development of Strategic Energy Plan Timelines presented are following official signed work order to proceed. 8 months 8 months 8 months 8 months 8 months 8 months ,_1 Attachment A. preliminary renewable energy resource evaluation client Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District location Little Canada, Minnesota services provided: • preliminary cost estimates and payback periods development • wind - resource evaluation • energy- efficiency analysis and benchmarking • renewable energy installation recommendations The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District was interested in evaluating onsite renewable energy options at its main office at 2665 Noel Drive, Little Canada, Minnesota. Based on the District's electricity use, rate structure, and available space, we developed preliminary cost estimates and payback periods for two rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) projects: a 9.7 kilowatt (kW) system and a 40 kW system. We also evaluated two independently tested small wind turbines: a 2.4 kW Skystream turbine and a 7.5 kW Bergey turbine. Payback period depends on electric rates as well as electrical production. We assumed the most valuable use of the onsite generation would be to offset electricity purchases. Therefore, our preliminary payback calculations were based both on electricity production estimates as well as the District's cost of electricity. The District's electricity costs consist of both an energy charge and a demand charge. We conservatively estimated that onsite generation would only offset energy charges because we did not have detailed demand data. Therefore, our estimate of the value of electricity generated onsite is likely to be conservatively low. The District would need detailed demand data in order to evaluate potential reductions in demand charges. Solar appeared feasible, but we recommended waiting for new incentives and better technology. The site has a poor wind resource and some site constraints. A larger wind turbine would provide more energy but could be difficult to permit. The south facing roof of the main office building, however, offered a good site for solar. Despite falling panel prices, both solar projects evaluated had a 25 -30 year payback period because state and utility incentives had lapsed in 2013. With new state solar incentives in 2014, a non - profit government incentive of 20 cents /kwh for ten years will drop the payback period in half on a 40 kW solar system to 12- 15 years. energy - planning assistance evaluation of resources and power use helps tribe develop strategic energy plan client i Prairie Island Indian Community location Minnesota services provided: • grant - application assistance • wind - resource evaluation • assessment of additional renewable- energy options • energy - efficiency analysis and benchmarking • assistance preparing strategic energy plan The Prairie Island Indian Community has a long -term goal of reducing overall energy use while increasing use of renewable energy. Barr's work for the tribe began with assistance obtaining a grant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for installing long -term wind monitoring equipment at several sites to evaluate the feasibility of an on -site wind turbine project. In addition to looking at renewable energy options, Barr helped the tribe collect and summarize data on energy use and efficiency, including electricity and propane use at its facilities. This data enabled us to benchmark these facilities' energy efficiency against that of similar facilities, and to assess: • potential efficiency improvements • utility rate - structure options • landscape- design features for reducing the use of energy and water With this information as a foundation, we helped the tribe use a BIA Energy Development grant to evaluate its renewable- energy resource options, including feasibility assessments, as well as construction- } cost estimates for a wind turbine, a biomass facility, and two types of solar collectors. We're currently helping the tribe incorporate this information into next steps for its energy plan. 23251019.00 I Attachment B. • Ramsey-Washington Metro September 2, 2014 Re: Barr's Credentials To Whom It May Concern: FUMTHWo Since 1975, Barr Engineering Co has served Ramsey-Washington K4otno Watershed District (lVVMVVD) as our engineering consultant, providing high-quality engineering services and strong commitment to our organization, They draw on their wide experience in watershed management across Minnesota to create cost- effective solutions specific to the needs nf our watershed district. Ban brings a high level of innovation to our projects. They go the extra mile to be inventive but know when to pull back and take a more traditional approach to a project when appropriate, Barr has a good team approach. In recent years, the core group of engineers and designers that provides engineering services to the RWMWD has remained largely the same. Barr excels at pulling in the right people from a large, diverse group of experts and tailoring teams to our specific project needs. In addition, Ban's staff is very responsive and accessible; we can contact any team member and find someone to help answer our questions. They listen, understand our goals well, and seek out input from our staff on key project issues along the way. If you have any questions about Barr's work for the RWMWD, or how Barr might be a good choice for your watershed district, please feel free to contact me, Sincerely, Clifton Ramsey-Washington Nhtro Watershed District / 651'792-7957 , / September 1L2814 Mr. Paul Hornby, City Engineer City of Shorewood Mx The Prairie Island Indian Community has worked successfully with Barr Engineering Company since 2008. Though the scope and nature ofthe projects has varied, two things have remained consistent: Barr has always provided high-quality engineering and excellent customer service. They have also demonstrated a strong commitment to helping our community achieve its goals. One of the Prairie Island Community's goals is reducing overall energy use while developing its own energy resources. We've asked Barr for help with energy planning and have been extraordinarily pleased with their efforts. These have included: • Assistance with grant applications to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for energy-related projects. • An evaluation of wind resources. 0 Data collection related to energy use at community facilities. • An assessment of options. • Assistance with strategic energy planning. ' \n2010,|was responsible for executing a Bureau ofIndian Affairs funded energy assessment project.| ^ / selected Barr to help us accomplish our objectives. One of Barr's"deli»erab|es" for our energy-planning work was m resource evaluation report. VVe found that report babe well-written and comprehensive. | The organization of the document, its format, and use of graphics made it easy to follow. It has been an | invaluable communication and planning tool that has helped focus our grant application and planning |n addition to quality deliverables, one of the advantages of working with Barr is their large "bench streneth." They provide access toa diverse group of experts who make aneffort to develop innovative, cost-effective ideas. We have also found Barr staff members to be very collaborative and responsive to our questions and concerns. Their customer service culture is very evident in everyday interactions, We look forward to continuing our work with Barr on ated projects and enthusiastically endorse them for similar work. if you have any questions about our experience with Barr, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ;A Grants and Contracts Coordinator Prairie Island Indian Community 5636 Sturgeon Lake Rd^ Welch, MN5508 �i (651) 385-2554~B0O-554-5473^ Fax K51\385-4180~ TTY 8OO'G27-3S2S Deaf o[ Hearing Impaired Proposal to Analyze Renewable for of • •••' September 12, 2014 A N Y, L Q City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 September 12, 2014 Dear Mr. Hornby: CR Planning is pleased to submit the following proposal to provide a comprehensive review and study of public and private facilities in Shorewood and to determine the practical application of various renewable energy technologies. We believe our team is uniquely qualified for this work, having the technical and policy knowledge, and familiarity with resources to conduct this type of assessment. Our team has been at the forefront of the energy and urban planning crossroads, and we are excited to lend our expertise to this project. We have been continually involved in projects and programs that support this study. All team members have been involved in the development and implementation of Minnesota GreenStep Cities in various capacities. CR Planning has worked throughout the Midwest, providing technical assistance on solar and wind planning, zoning, and permitting. Michael Orange, with ORANGE Environmental, brings the technical expertise that supported the Regional Indicators Initiative, executing community -wide energy use and greenhouse gas emissions assessments. Most importantly is the enthusiasm that we bring to this project as it is an opportunity to help the City determine how to best integrate renewable energy into its operations. This is an exciting time for Shorewood and we are grateful for the chance to be a part of this project. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Brian Ross, Principal CR Planning, Inc. 501 Main Street SE #711 Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-588-4904 bross@crplanning.com Renewable energy technologies are increasingly attractive alternatives for local governments to consider incorporating into the their communities. Decreased costs have improved the competitiveness of wind and solar energy, providing affordable clean energy with positive environmental benefits. Unfortunately, because of the rapid change in the renewable energy market, it can be difficult to navigate the new energy landscape. The large amounts of information can be overwhelming and serve as a barrier to action. Fortunately, Minnesota is well positioned to provide resources and tools necessary for cities to implement programs for community members and to determine which technologies would be appropriate for city operations. The City of Shorewood is seeking assistance to better understand its renewable energy resources and opportunities to utilize available clean energy for city operations as well as for its residents and businesses. As a GreenStep City, Shorewood has a solid foundation to implement renewable energy best practices. The City is specifically looking at three areas to determine renewable energy best practices: 1. Determining which city facilities are best suited for renewable energy. ,L. OoPortun�t�es for renewable ener�� deve oor? ent on ?rfvate a_ sector rac lities (resideitia , co n nerCial, 3 risti. utsona !and uses.. . Assessment of renewable energy resources and tecnnolog es appuca le to horewo.ods s lag° d use assets. CR Planning, along with ORANGE Environmental, have the knowledge and expertise to provide the City with a comprehensive energy use and renewable energy analysis. Moreover, our team is able to connect the City with several technical assistance programs that can help meet some of the City's RIP requirements at little or no additional cost. These programs, outlined below, can provide assistance with assessing opportunities and risks, meeting additional City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal ( 1 GreenStep City best practices, and implementing some renewable energy actions. A number of alternatives are also available to Shorewood for linking the renewable energy investigation to assessment of energy efficiency opportunities, financing programs, and other environmental assessment tools. Opportunities include: 1. Public Facilities: A. The Minnesota B3 Benchmarking is a building energy management tool available for public buildings in the state. The program allows users to enter energy information into the database to compare performance to a baseline for building type and use. As part of this study, the project team will assist the City in getting its B3 data completed and up to date. B. The Guaranteed Energy Savings Program (GESP) is available for all Minnesota cities. GESP is a no cost technical assistance program offered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources and is available to help cities assess the energy consumption of municipal buildings and prioritize efficiency and renewable energy upgrades. The consultant team will work to connect Shorewood to this resource. 2. Private Facilities (residential and commercial): A. CR Planning is part of a team that has been awarded a federal grant from the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to communities in the Midwest wishing to reduce soft costs and regulatory barriers to solar installations. At no cost to the City, CR Planning will conduct a review of current city regulations (planning, permitting, and zoning), and provide recommendations for the city to better enable solar installations. B. Michal Orange is a staff member of the Minnesota Retiree Environmental Technical Assistance Program (RETAP), which employs skilled, retired professionals to provide facility assessments and community sustainability assitsinance to small businesses, institutions, and communities in Minnesota. 3. Renewable Energy Alternatives A. University of Minnesota graduate students recently developed the Minnesota Solar Suitability Application that displays the solar potential for every location in the state of Minnesota. This is a valuable resource in determining whether a site is worth getting a solar more in -depth assessment. B. There are numerous financing and incentive programs available for renewable energy technology. The State has several programs aimed at bringing down the cost of projects, including, but not limited to, the Made in Minnesota Solar Rebate Program, the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PEKE) program available to non - public entities, and GESP, available to public entities. Further, the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE) is a national tool that provides a complete inventory of incentives available within a state. CR Planning and ORANGE Environmental bring extensive knowledge and experience with local government energy programs. We have successfully assisted over two dozen communities in energy use and renewable energy assessments and best practice recommendations. The consultant team is familiar with local, state, and national programs that will prove useful for this study. We believe our experience and knowledge is commensurate with Shorewood's needs, and we look forward to the opportunity to work with the City to provide a comprehensive study of its renewable energy alternative potential- 2 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood CR Planning, Inc. provides consultant services in the following disciplines for local governments, state agencies, and non- governmental organizations: Energy Planning and Policy Sustainable Development and Natural Resources Planning Zoning and Development Regulations and Programs Geographic Information Systems Mapping and Analysis Comprehensive and Land Use Planning Facilitation and Public and Stakeholder Engagement ® Economic Development Planning CR Planning has facilitated planning processes and creation of development regulation and programs on behalf of township, city, county, and state governments in rural and urban areas and in metropolitan regions. Firm Philosophy and Background CR Planning, Inc. was formed in 2003 by individuals committed to inclusive, stakeholder - driven planning processes. Tapping into a community's primary resource, its people, CR Planning facilitates local and regional decisions about natural and built resources. The firm is committed to ensuring that community stakeholders make informed choices, thus promoting the sustainable management of local resources for economic development, protection of community character, and maintenance of natural systems. CR Planning advocates for planning goals that belong to the entire community. We believe the full range of community stakeholders should participate in all steps of the planning process, including: Development of assumptions and criteria; Refinement of alternatives; Selection of preferred solutions; and Implementation of the preferred solutions. 2 Project 'Fear CR Planning staff bring extensive experience in facilitation and planning processes to meet clients' needs, in addition to technical expertise and knowledge of how communities can tailor solutions to their unique problems and priorities. We help communities transform individual stakeholder priorities into a coherent long- term vision that guides community investment choices, shapes infrastructure, and directs development to meet community priorities. CR Planning also specializes in moving communities from planning to implementation, from policies to reality, through our ordinance and program development projects. Firm Capacity CR Planning works collaboratively with a large number of professionals in a variety of fields. We have developed a network for teaming with small and large design and engineering firms to allow maximum flexibility for meeting each client's specific needs. Our firm's flexible approach to project management and team creation keeps overhead costs low and allows clients to achieve their project goals without buying more technical capacity than necessary. City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal 1 3 \� \ o \ \ a J1111 41 VI ti N M IFE N . Since 2007, Michael Orange has worked as a private consultant with ORANGE Environmental, LLC. Michael has completed countless analyses ranging from carbon baseline assessments, sustainability practices, and urban planning studies. ORANGE Environmental, has worked within the public realm at the local, county, and state levels, providing detailed technical analysis on the following projects: • Prepared carbon baseline assessments for 22 Minnesota cities and counties (most through the Regional Indicators Initiative (http://regionalindicatorsmn.uli.org/). • Prepared the "West Saint Paul Sustainability Assessment" for the City of West St. Paul and the report, "Sustainable Zoning for the City of West St. Paul." • Prepared the "Analysis of Possible Zoning Approaches for the Ford Plant Site" for the City of Saint Paul. • Prepared the "Farmington Recycling Study" for the City of Farmington. • Developed and taught a graduate - level, "Sustainability City Planning" course at the Urban and Regional Studies Institute of Minnesota State University, Mankato, fall semester, 2010 & 2012. • From 1976 to 2006, served the citizens and City of Minneapolis (City) as a city planner and environmental manager. In collaboration with others, accomplished the following: • Wrote the first draft of the Minneapolis Sustainability Plan, which informed the version the City adopted and integrated into its comprehensive plan. • Developed a detailed analysis of downtown transportation and parking policy for the City, the "Transit First Plan for Downtown Minneapolis." • Prepared and presented hundreds of environmental and planning reports that guided decision making by City officials, private developers, and citizen groups. 4 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood 3 Proposed Work We have developed the following proposed work program comprised of seven primary tasks. Detailed task descriptions are included as well as a proposed timeline. Task 1 Project Initiation and Management Summary The goal of this task is to ensure the project is completed on time and within budget. Project initiation includes finalizing the work plan, budget and schedule, and preparing contracts. Project manage- ment and quality control review will occur throughout the project at regular intervals through progress reports and review of intermediate products. Coordination with the City to schedule conference calls and in- person meetings, as needed. btss 1.1 Facilitate a discussion with city staff on the details of the project scope and timeline. 1.2 Coordinate the exchange of information and project updates. 1.3 Meet with city staff as needed throughout the course of the project. 1.4 Submit monthly reports and invoices to project manger. Deliverables • Final work plan • Progress reports and invoices City Responsibiliq • Manage development of final work plan • Coordinate any future meetings with city staff and council member City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal 1 5 W Conduct a City Facility Energy Analysis Summ zary The consultant team is proposing two options for this task. Option 1: The consultant team will conduct an energy consumption assessment for City -owned buildings and facilities. The energy assessment will lay the foundation for making informed decisions about which renewable energy technologies to pursue in Task 4. btss: 2.1 Collect and analyze energy consumption data for city - owned buildings and facilities. 2.2 Assist city staff with updating energy information of public buildings and facilities into B3 database. 2.3 Connect city staff with GESP technical assistance resources including the Minnesota Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs) and the Minnesota Department of Commerce. 2.4 Participate in Midwest Solar Energy Partnership Grow Solar program to identify and help implement best practices for local governments to invest in solar on public spaces. 2.5 Meet with city staff to discuss findings. ez'vebes • Updated B3 database • Draft and final energy assessment • Presentation of findings City- Responsibilin, • Provide energy consumption data for City -owned buildings and facilities that consumer electricity, natural gas, and other fuels, or renewable energy. Data will cover 3 years. • Work with consultant team to import energy data into B3 • Coordinate meetings to review findings. Option 2: We propose to conduct an assessment of all city operations' energy use and carbon emissions consistent with ICLEI Local Government standards for setting a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory. This includes all the energy consumption data as described in Option 1, plus additional categories of energy use, consistent with the ICLEI protocols and enabling the City to meet additional GreenStep Cities best practices. An additional option to consider is to be part of the Regional Indicators Initiative, which would allow the City to see the data in a dashboard that provides a baseline assessment of energy and water consumption. Sub tasks: 2.1 Estimate associated GHG emissions from: • City -owned facilities • City transportation activities and employee travel. • Contracted services • Employee travel Deliverables • Final assessment of City operations energy and greenhouse gas inventory • Presentation of findings ft Responsibility • Provide consultant with 3 years of data regarding transportation fuel usage, contracted services, city employee travel for City business and commute, and total full -time equivalent City jobs. 6 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood Task 3: Conduct a Residential and Commercial Renewable Energy Analysis Summary The consultant team will assess private sector (commercial/ residential) energy use and develop a comprehensive analysis of residential and commercial opportunities for renewable energy applications. Subrash's 3.1 Review city permitting, zoning, and planning regulations for barriers to and opportunities for renewable energy development as part of Solar Challenge Phase II program. 3.2 Inventory and analyze community -wide energy data. 3.3 Identify opportunities to enable community solar within the city. 3.4 Provide a comprehensive list of financing programs and resources available to residents and business owners. 3.5 Meet with staff to discuss residential and commercial renewable energy opportunities. Deliverables • Memo detailing renewable energy barriers and opportunities within city regulatory framework • Detailed analysis of community -wide energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions • A single document containing financial resources for renewable energy installations Cif esponsi iiiity • Assist consultant in obtaining and providing residential and commercial energy consumption information from utility. • Provide consultant with monthly data for potable water delivered to city customers and separate data for sales to other cities (if applicable). • Coordinate meetings with staff to discuss findings. Conduct an Analysis of Renewable Energy Alternatives r The consultant team will analyze renewable energy resources within the community, based on the comprehensive review of city facilities developed in Tasks 2 and 3. The analysis will include assessment of technologies and location applications for both city and private properties. Findings will be presented to City staff and Council, where priorities for financial analysis (Task 5) will be identified. Subtasks 4.1 Assess Shorewood solar energy resources using GIS data, including recently developed statewide solar resource dataset. 4.2 Use available wind resource data sets to determine wind energy feasibility. 4.3 Explore ground source heat pump (geo- thermal) technology opportunities. 4.4 Identify how the city might host community renewable energy projects for residents to participate in. 4.5 Compile findings and present to city staff and council members in series of 3 -4 meetings. Deliverables • GIS based assessment of community -wide solar resource • Assessment of community wind resources based on existing data • Ground source heat pump (geo- thermal) analysis • Recommendations for community projects • Progress reports updating findings City Responsibillity • Participate in on -going meetings to review findings. City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal 17 Task 5: Conduct financial benefit Analysis r° Based on potential projects and priorities identified in Task 4, the project team will complete a financial benefit analysis for renewable energy alternatives. Subtasks 5.1 Conduct a financial analysis of any renewable energy projects recommended in Task 4, including: • Installation costs • Operation and Maintenance costs • System reliability • Anticipated life cycle costs • Cost benefit analysis • Available financial incentive programs 5.2 Prepare recommendations, including financial analysis, to be included as part of the study. DeliverrabIes • Complete financial analysis to be incorporated into study Task 6: Prepare and Present Draft Study Summary In this task the consultant team will create a draft study that includes analyses for renewable energy alternatives for the City of Shorewood. The study will compile and organized findings from Tasks 2 -5, al- lowing the community to make informed decisions regarding future renewable energy installation. Sah-tasks 6.1 Develop draft study based on background assessments and analysis (Tasks 2 -5) and city input and recommendations. 6.2 Submit draft report to city staff and council member for review. 6.3 Present findings to city staff and council members. Deliverables • Presentation to city staff and council members • Draft of study including all elements from Tasks 2 -5 Task 7: Prepare and deliver final study —Summary Based on feedback from city staff and council members, the consul- tant team will prepare the final study to be presented and delivered to the City. Subtasks 7.1 Review input and comments from city staff and council member and incorporate them into final study. 7.2 Make revisions and additional recommendations consistent with encourage renewable energy adoption in Shorewood. Deliverables • Final study 8 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood 4 Project Schedule and Statement of Ability to Complete Project CR Planning and Orange Environmental have the ability and have committed resources to complete the proposed process within the prescribed timeframe. 06 Discussion and Presentations Documents Beginning & End Points City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal 1 9 E City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Assessment Estimated Cost of Services CR Planning, Inc. Total Hours 48 78 12 89 $112.00 227 Hourly Rate $100 $75 $50 $80 Total Labor Cost $4,800 $5,850 $600 $7,120 $18,370 Project Direct Expenses $112.00 $112.00 Budget Breakdown Proposed Scope of Work Option 2, Task 2 - Set GHG Baseline for City Opertations Optional Participation in Regional Indicator Assessment Assessment of GESP, other financing tools Assessment and imiplementation of solar policy, zoning, permitting Total Labor Cost and Expenses Total Costs with Optional Tasks (not including In -kind) $18,482 $4,400 $3,500 In -kind 5°_500 In -kind S2 500 $18,482 $26,382 10 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood 6 Team Member Resumes Resumes for the principal team members, detailing each team member's experience and skills, are provided on the following pages. CIR Planning, Inc. Brian Ross, AICP, LEED GA, Project Manager Abby Finis ORANGE Environmental, LLC J. Michael Orange City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal I I I D Brian Ross, AICP, LEED GA SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT /ENERGY /LAND USE/ FACILITATION Brian Ross leads CR Planning's work in community-based planning processes, sustainable development, and energy policy. EDUCATION M. A. Urban & Regional Planning, University of Iowa, 1986 B.A. Anthropology, Grinnell College, 1982 EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE Principal/Owner, CR Planning, Inc., Minneapolis, MN Principal/Owner, Biko Associates, Inc., Minneapolis, MN Director of Policy and Programs, Citizens Utility Board, Illinois Director of Energy Programs, Urban Coalition Housing Group, New York, NY Director of Energy Unit, New York City Office of Business Development, New York, NY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS/ACTIVITIES Government Training Services Faculty - 2007-10, Shoreland Regulation, Conservation Development - 2006-9, Comprehensive Planning, Sustainable Development - 2011-12, Sustainable Development, Renewable Energy USGBC Member, National and Minnesota Chapter Member Community Environmental Advisory Commission, Minneapolis Minnesota Renewable Energy Society Midwest Renewable Energy Association American Solar Energy Society RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS Planning for Solar, American Planning Association, April 2014. Chapters 1,3, 6 Solar Energy and Land Use Regulation, Zoning Practice, APA, November 2010 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Local Government Energy Planning. Brian Ross has worked with many types of communities, including cities, counties, state agencies, and non-profit organizations on sustainable land use, renewable energy, energy efficiency; water infrastructure, waste reduction, and sustainable economic development. Minnesota Solar Challenge Program, 2012 - 2013. Directed the local government assistance on planning, zonin;e, and F e litting best practi ces for solar e velopment to over 20 o governments for Minnesota's Rooftop Solar Challenge program. Assessed state policy strengths and weaknesses and recommended new policy directions. Conducted six half-day trainings for local government officials, and assisted in management of a statewide campaign to promote local government solar development market transformation. Developed model solar permitting and zoning templates for statewide dissemination. Minneapolis Energy Pathways, 2013-2014. Worked with City Council, staff, citizens committees, businesses, NGOs and a consultant team to develop a comprehensive enemy vision for the Cto guide franchise negotiations with its enemy utilities. Facilitated stakeholder discussion and decision making, assessed state and local models from across the nation for achieving long term energy and climate goals, and provided technical context the potential pathways forward. Minngegol' Saint Paul Solar Cities Program, 2009 - 2012. anaged the "Solar Cities" project for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, funded by a U.S. Department of Energy grant. Managed a team of professionals working to transform the regional market for solar energy, including removing regulatory barriers, creating unified marketing and communication efforts, and creating new state policy initiatives. Work included modifying and streamlining local regulatory processes, creating guidance documents for use by homeowners, contra, ri d city staff, managing technical analyses to support state policy initiatives, and communicating to a variety of technical and non-technical audiences. 12 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood • Minnesota Value of So&r Thermal Study, 2014. For City of Burnsville Energy and GHG Reduction Planning, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, managed 2010 -2012. Managed a local governmental planning the stakeholder outreach, assisted in the development of process to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions technical analysis and policy recommendations for market and encourage development of renewable energy. The City transformation. of Burnsville, in Minnesota's metropolitan area, retained CR Planning to direct data gathering, analysis, and facilitate • Distributed Wind Market Study, 2014. Conducted decision making to help these local governments achieve roundtable discussions and interviews with market their sustainability goals relating to energy use and climate pparticipants in Minnesota's distributed wind industry. The protection. findings guided decision - making on policy priorities and potential new programs to strengthen consumer protections in the market and support expansion of Minnesota manufacturers and value chain suppliers. Douglas County Renewable Energy Ordinance, 2014. Mr. Ross directed the development of an innovative renewable energy ordinance to implement the County's Comprehensive Plan policies on local and renewable energy development. The ordinance incorporates Minnesota's first wind energy overlay district, and includes provisions for community solar gardens. Washington County Energy Plan, 2011. Managed the development of a comprehensive energy policy pfan and Thegas emission study for Washington County. The Plan included an assessment of GHG emissions for County operations, description of state and federal programs and policies, guiding principles, goals, and strategies. The initiative addresses strategies from communication tools to skills training for county employees to technical program development covering transportation, buildings, land use, and energy policy. Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program, 2008 - 2014, Worked with the Great Plains Institute, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, University of Minnesota's Clean Energy Resource Teams, and other stakeholder organizations to create Minnesota's award- wining "green city recognition program. Researched and wrote over 160 best practice actions for large and small cities, created a program design, developed programmatic materials, and led training programs and workshops on sustainability. Helped participating communities develop "return on investment" metrics that documented program benefits. City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal 1 13 LOCAL GOVERNMENT Abby Finis has worked closely with local governments for nearly 4 years. She has experience in program management, technical assis- tance, and project support. She especially focuses on energy programs and policy, sustainability, and opportunity assessment. EDUCATION M. A. Urban & Regional Planning, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 2009 B.A. Political Science, University of Oregon, 2005 EMPLOIENT EXPERIENCE 2013 - Present, Senior Planner CR Planning, Inc., Minneapolis, MN 2009 - 2013, State Program Administrator Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources PROJECT EXPERIENCE ® Solar Challenge Phase Il• Midwest Grow Solar Partnership. CR Planning is part of the team representing Minnesota in the Midwest Grow Solar Partnership, funded by the DOE as part of the Solar Challenge Phase II program. Abby will work with communities throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois to identify opportunities for soft cost reductions that will help enable solar development. ® MRES Community Solar Project. The Minnesota Renewable Energy Society received grant funding from Xcel Energy to develop two community solar sites in order to compare demand and costs for rural vs. urban installations. Abby will support project management efforts. • Distributed Wind Market Study. Abby organized around table event with wind energy industry participants and is currently updating the State's wind energy database of installations. 14 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal GreenStep Cities - Return on Investment Analysis. Abby developed case studies and quantified the "return on investment" (ROI) value for GreenStep Cities best practices. The ROI includes both economic and quality of life returns. Abby prepared the reports for the Building Benchmarking and Local Food best practices. ® Value of Solar ? hermal Study. In the fall of 2013, CR Planning worked with Meister Consultants to conduct a study of the value of solar thermal technology in the state of Minnesota. Abby engaged key stakeholders, facilitated small groups, and helped produce the final report. ® Minneapolis Energy Pathways The City of Minneapolis conducted a study to determine its energy future. CR Planning worked with a variety of stakeholders to create an energy vision that reflected the perspective of multiple stakeholders. Abby organized and helped facilitate the stakeholder engagement process and worked to analyze the feedback to support the vision. ® Energy Conservation and Block Grant (EECBG). In 2009, Minnesota received more than $10 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the EECBG program. Abby managed the grant program that distributed funds to more than 75 communities throughout the state. Projects included public facility energy efficiency improvements, programs aimed at reducing energy consumption and new renewable energy production. • State Energy Program ARRA. Minnesota received additional stimulus funding for local governments and commercial and industrial entities to conduct energy efficiency programs. Abby was instrumental in the execution of these programs providing grants to more than 70 local governments and nearly 50 commercial and industrial businesses. ® Minnesota GreenStep Cities. Abby served as the Division of Energy Resources' representative on the GreenStep Cities Steering Committee. As part of the steering committee, Abby was involved in programmatic decision- making including best practice modification, determining levels of achievement, and future program goals. • Clean Energy Resource Teams. Abby was the CERTs program manager, working on contract agreements and serving as the CERTs/ DER staff person. Abby primarily worked with CERTs to support local governments throughout the state to help them achieve energy savings and inform them about grant and financing programs available. • Prior Lake Sustainability Ordinances, As a capstone project at the Humphrey School of public Affairs, students worked with the City of Prior Lake to integrate sustainability into its comprehensive plan and regulatory framework. Abby developed implementation tools to conserve energy and increase renewable energy installations. City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal i 1 J. Michael Orange SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS • Since 2006, as a private consultant, completed 44 analyses for 29 different Minnesota cities and counties including carbon baseline assessments; environmental, planning, and zoning studies; and cost - benefit analyses and plans to manage the emerald ash borer infestation. • Formed his own company, ORANGE Environmental, LLC. • Developed and taught Sustainable City Planning, a graduate - level course at Minnesota State University, Mankato in 2010 and 2012. • From 1976 to 2006, served the citizens and City of Minneapolis as a city planner and environmental manager. • Awarded a Masters of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning; Minnesota State University, Mankato. • Proficient in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and digital photography. EDUCATION • Masters of Arts, Urban and Regional Studies; Minnesota State University, Mankato; Mankato, Minnesota. • Competed nationally, and was selected as one of fifteen community leaders to participate in the National Endowment for the Humanities three-month seminar on cities in Manhattan. • Completed the 120 -hour City of Minneapolis Leadership Development Program. • Completed the 120 -hour National Development Council's Financing Community Development Program. SKILLS AND ACCOMPLISHMENT Environmental • Since 2006, as a private consultant, completed the following analyses for Minnesota local governments and businesses 16 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal (available upon request): • Carbon baseline assessments for 21 Minnesota cities and Washington County • The following reports for the City of West St. Paul: • West Saint Paul Sustainability Assessment • Sustainable Zoning for West Saint Paul • Analysis of the Robert Street Market Project • Considerations Regarding the Carbon Footprint of the Proposed Minnesota Steel Industries' Facilities and Possible Mitigating Measures for Minnesota Steel Industries • Analysis of Possible Zoning Approaches for the Ford Plant Site for the City of St. Paul • Farmington Recycling Study for the City of Farmington • Energy Storage, Integration, and Production Project • Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) Future Model of Sustainability: Progressing from Policy to Practice for the City of Arden Hills • Peer Review and Summary of the Minnesota Green Step Cities Program for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Developed and taught Sustainable City Planning, a graduate -level course at Minnesota State University, Mankato in 2010 and 2012. • From 1976 to 2006, served the citizens and City of Minneapolis (City) as a city planner and environmental manager. In collaboration with others, accomplished the following: • Wrote the first draft of the Minneapolis Sustainability Plan, which informed the version the City adopted and integrated into its comprehensive plan. • Developed a detailed analysis of downtown transportation and parking policy for the City, the Transit First Plan for Downtown Minneapolis. • Managed Minneapolis and St. Paul's participation in a pioneering international environmental program, the Minneapolis -St. Paul Urban CO2 Reduction Project. • Directed the City's Office of Environmental Management and supervised the implementation of the Urban CO2 Project Plan and the City as Example Program. • Represented the City at international environmental conferences and meetings in four US cities, Sweden, Germany, and at the United Nations. • In collaboration with Public Works staff, developed and implemented the City's Travel Demand Management Program, and presented a paper on the program at the 2001 National Conference of the American Planning Association. Between 1997 and 2001, the program leveraged over twelve million dollars in private development investments that benefit the alternatives to driving alone. The program earned the 2001 "Commuter Choice Award." • Staffed the Minneapolis Environment Commission and its six standing committees. • Served on the Minneapolis Environmental Coordinating Team and three of its work groups (Green Buildings, Green Energy, and Green Transportation). Organized and led a citizen group that, over a six -year period, convinced the staff and Commissioners of Dakota County to cancel plans to build a massive garbage burner and to instead invest primarily in waste reduction, recycling, and composting. Since then, the County has been a national leader in recycling, and, according to County staff, this course change saved the County millions of dollars. Participated in an international debate in Halifax regarding the environmental impacts of garbage incineration and alternative waste management strategies. Published a paper on garbage incineration and its alternatives in the Hamline University Journal of Law and Public Policy. City Planning • While on a strict deadline, researched and developed reports that evaluated over 240 projects that required land use permits. The Minneapolis City Council and Planning Commission based their permitting decisions primarily on his reports and presentations. • In collaboration with others, wrote portions of the Minneapolis Zoning Code including the Stormwater Management Ordinance and the nation's first building - density bonus for high - performance buildings. • Developed and taught a course on planning and citizen participation at the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Served as guest lecturer for classes at the U of M, St. Thomas University, St. Catherine University, and several community colleges and high schools on topics involving city planning, sustainability, and urban transportation. • Served for eight years as a community organizer for the City of Minneapolis. • Wrote grant applications that secured over eleven million dollars for Minneapolis - sponsored projects. City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal j 17 7 Related Project Experience and References Our team has extensive experience working with local governments on solar planning. We are highlighting the following projects as demonstrating our experience working on projects with similar issues scope and magnitude as the Pilot Local Government Soft Costs Workshop. • GreenStep Cities Program • Value of Solar Thermal Study • Solar Challenge • Douglas County • Burnsville, Minnesota A list of references follows the project descriptions. 18 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood CR Planning, assisting the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, I ZD the Clean Energy, Resource Teams, and other NGOs and agencies, helped develop the GreenStep Cities Program. The effort grew out ofZD legislation in 2008 to recognize cities that were working to help meet Minnesotas greenhouse gas reduction goals. 'The program ZD now addresses a wide range of quality, of life and economic oppor- tunity practices. For the initial recommendations and report, CR Planninc, devel- oped the land use element and facilitated recommendations from city stakeholders on sustainable land use best practices. Subse- quently, CR Planning helped develop over 160 best practice actions covering five areas of city operation, management, and regulation: • Buildings and facilities • Transportation • Land use • Environmental management • Community development and job growth The full program was launched in June of 2010, and is now rec- ognized as one of the premier city sustainability, program in the nation. Over 65 Minnesota cities participate in this award-winning tl program. CR Plannin- n created the program design that identifies different sustainability opportunities for cities of different sizes, resources, and landscapes. CR Planning worked with cities to enter the pro- gram, helped CERTs and the MnPCA create best-practice specific workshops for cities entering the program and assisted cities in deepening their involvement. CR Planning mapped our the poten- tial for a GreenStep Counties program. CR Planning assists cities entering the program and implement- ing specific best practices, helps the NGO/agencyT partners with Z� program administration, and is developing new "return on invest- ment" documentation for local governments to claim credit for sustainability investments. GreenStep Cities Program Minnesota Pollution Control Agency= Great Plains Institute Clean Energy, Resource Team CR Planning 2008-2014 Minnesota GreenStep es Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 651-757-2594 pinuessigea,state.rrin.us City of Shorewood Renewable Ener(-,Nr Alternatives Study= Proposal I i 9 Value of Solar Thermal Study Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources CR Planning 2013 Client Contact: Stacy Miller Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 651 -282 -5091 stacy.miller@state.mn.us In 2007, the State of Minnesota established clean energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. By the year 2025, 25 percent of electricity will come from renewable sources. In response to these goals, the State is exploring how different technologies can be a part of the clean energy resource mix. In 2013, the Department of Commerce commissioned the Value of Solar Heating and Colling (SHC) in Minnesota study to asses the potential for solar thermal technology to contribute to the State's energy and climate goals. CR Planning worked with Meister Consultants Group to identify the technical and policy issues specific to solar thermal in Minnesota. The project team conducted a series of workshops and interviews with solar thermal industry leaders, market experts, policymakers, and other stakeholders. The information gathered from these interactions was incorporated into a final report and webinar that included recommendations that will be used to inform next steps taken by the State to spur solar thermal development in Minnesota. The recommendations include. nn e bi f hi,-h --value 1. Cr e -te or exp_ -d incenti eligi�t t v or t�_r . alu e customer segn gents. 2. Implement ; polar Ready" a S4a stal?Lards. Reclut -I solar tserrr:al __ Public ild'ings anulor the building code. F- �:�:�lore .enanclzs otlo �s. 5. Reduce Sof costs 1?v strew nlanlaa permitt ng 6. Reduce soft costs Lxv l_s=splementing a co Muni -ty aggregation puresase program. Create are on 1?n e, cons , s,t y -used outreach anct information call palgn. 8. itreate ass," atevtso =Y groin =. Enage d et . -t, re k r uel n -c g, o' r_ t oexpiore n opportunities. v. 1issess otent for Integrating solar therm al i?to �lstr?ct energy' systel mss. 70 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal City of Shorewood Every community in Minnesota has substantial, and mostly untapped, solar energy reserves. Local governments have a number of opportunities for promoting the development of this local resource and building a self sustaining solar energy industry. Few local governments, however, have incorporated solar development in their development regulation and local permitting processes. As the technical assistance provider for the Minnesota Solar Challenge, CR Planning worked with over twenty local governments to remove barriers to solar development in local regulation and identify opportunities for promoting local solar development. Z:' Best practices for local governments include incorporating the community's solar resource into plans and policies, standardizing permitting processes for addressing solar technologies, updating land use policies and zoning codes, and increasing access to financing. ZD1 Incorporating such best practices into local government operations can enable property owners to capture their solar resource consistent with community land use, aesthetic, and safety standards. Through g b the Solar Challenge program CR Planning provided technical assistance for adapting national best practices for solar development to a diverse set of communities across the state. Participating communities included: Z�' • Population centers such as Rochester, and Duluth • Rural counties such as Nicollet, Todd, and Douglas, , • Suburban communities such as Rosemount, Mounds View, and Golden Valley, and • Regional center communities including Northfield, Z!7 Bemidji, and Hutchinson. CR Plannino, conducted five half-day training workshops across the state, attended by over 70 communities, on adapting national solar best practices to Minnesota communities. CR Planning also developed model ordinances, permitting checklists, and best practice assessment tools that continue to be used by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The Minnesota Solar Challenge Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources CR Planning Z:) 2013 From Policy to Reality Client Contact: Stacy Miller Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 651.282-5091 stacy.millergstate.mn.us Citv of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal Douglas Countv Renewable Energy Ordinance Douglas County, Minnesota CR Planning 2013 Client Contact: David Rush Land and Resource Management Director 320 - 762 -3863 daveru@co.douglas.mn.us 22 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal Douglas County was seeing an increase in the number of wind energy installations, and anticipated that additional installations for both solar and wind energy would be coming before the Planning Commission. The County's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan encouraged the development of the County's non - carbon -based energy resources, but the County's ordinances had not yet been modified to incorporate renewable energy development. Douglas County hired CR Planning to develop a renewable energy ordinance that addresses large and small solar and wind energy development. As part of the ordinance writing process CR Planning worked with a task force of Planning Commissioners, citizens, agencies, businesses, and county staff to implement the Comprehensive Plan's policies in a new renewable energy ordinance. The ordinance addressed a variety of renewable energy development forms, including: • Small solar energy development, as an accessory use • Large solar energy development, as either a community solar development or a utility scale solar farm • Small individual turbine wind development • Large individual turbine wind development • Wind farms up to 5 MW in capacity The ordinance was one of the first in Minnesota to incorporate the new statutory standards for community- shared solar development. The ordinance also was the first in Minnesota to create a "wind energy overlay" for the purpose of protecting wind energy resources from incompatible development. The ordinance included a placeholder for a view -shed overlay as well, to allow the county to protect public scenic resources from conflict with tall towers. City of Shorewood The City of Burnsville adopted a Sustainability Guide Plan in 2008 that included specific recommendations for setting greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals and strategies. The City hired CR Planning and Michael Orange consulting to conduct two specific tasks: complete a GHG inventory and baseline for City operations and the community as a whole; and, facilitate the decision- making by the City Sustainability Team to set GHG reduction goals and strategy priorities to meet those goals. The CR Planning team worked with City staff and the City's utility providers to identify GHG emissions in a baseline year of 2005 and a more recent milestone year of 2009. The assessment followed the most common protocol used by cities, the ICLEI - Local Governments for Climate Protection standards, so that Burnsville could at a future date become an ICLEI member. The compilation of energy data was also conducted to allow Burnsville to submit data to the State B3 database. Facilitation of the Sustainability Team discussion took place simultaneously with the GHG assessment. CR Planning helped the Sustainability Team develop decision criteria for setting reduction goals and standards for prioritizing action steps. The Team applied those criteria and standards, and is now in the process of completing reduction goals and action priorities for the community-wide planning efforts. Key outcomes included: • Identifying progress already made since 2005 on energy use reduction and GHG mitigation. • Setting GHG reduction goals for both City operations and community-wide emission that follow the State's reduction goals set in the 2007 Next Generation Energy Act. Identifying the primary energy use in City operations, the water supply system, that creates over half the total emissions for City operations. Sets clear criteria for making future decisions about prioritizing energy and GHG reduction. Burnsville Greenhouse Gas Inventory & Reduction Strategy. City of Burnsville, MN CR Planning & ORANGE Environmental 2011 -s T ;6 0 g S 5.3 ?2 2001 sari GreenhouseGas Emissions from City Operations Per - capita Greenhouse Gases from Vehide files Traveled and Trendlyne a 2002 2003 2003 2005 2406 200' 2005 2044 Client Contact: Susan Bast Environmental Specialist City of Burnsville 13713 Frontier Court Burnsville, MN 55337 952 -895 -4524 sue.bast@ci.bumsville.mn.us City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Proposal 123 RENEWABLE ENERGY ALTERNATIVES STUDY Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal for services for the "Renewable Energy Alternatives Study," We have a 35-year track record of designing energy - efficient buildings and working with local government clients. We not only have LEED AP architects on staff, but we also volunteered to coordinate the City of Willmar's MN Greenstep Cities program, Our team also includes Martin Mechanical Design. We have a 10 -year work history with this mechanical engineering consultant. They have a great reputation for renewable energy and designed the mechanical and plumbing systems for the Science Museum of Minnesota's Science House. As a team we are used to developing existing building condition studies. These studies typically survey the building's structure, envelope, mechanical systems, and electrical systems. After the initial assessment a series of energy improvements are often discussed with our clients to empower them with knowledge on different systems and life cycle payback evaluations. This way our clients can make informed decisions on improvements to their existing buildings. We look forward to teaming with you to help improve the energy needs of your community. Acknowledgement of receipt of RFP and Addenda: Engan Associates Acknowledges the requirements of the RFP and all Addenda. RENEWABLE ENERGY ALT. STUDY �J MECIIANICAL ARTJN 9/9/14 DESIGNEWMd M K P1923.01 Engan Associates Architects and Interior Designers Engan Associates meets the needs of communities through Shared Vision and Innovative Design. The firm pays special attention to the wise use of land, concise planning, and energy efficiency. The result is design which reflects the uniqueness of its environment and is appropriate to need. Engan Associates Architects was organized in 1979 and incorporated in 1993. Richard Engan has been the principal and owner since the firm's inception. He leads a team of accomplished professionals whose strength is in their diversity of skills and approaches to providing client-focused design. We work with a number of excellent consulting professionals. In our experience, engineering consultants are of more value to the team than in-house engineers. In multidisciplinary teams, each member contributes a unique viewpoint. Each provides a different approach to the project. It is important that team members understand and respect each other. The best outcomes are achieved when all disciplines are represented from the beginning of a project. RELATIONSHIPS A relationship of trust is developed between the client and the architectural team. Open communication is stressed throughout the design process. TEAM MANAGEMENT Our in-house staff enjoys working together in a team environment. Engan Associates' offices are designed as a studio space, promoting frequent communication and creative teamwork. Direct Principal involvement in every project means supervision straight from the -top of the company. Verbal or written communication with the Owner, Consultants and Contractors is -lop priority and handled with care. This system effectively monitors design task progress, providing -the highest quality service to our clients. FIRM PROFILE 311 4 1h Street SW PO Box 956 Willmar, IVIN 56201 320.235.0860 fax .0861 Richard.Engan@Engan.com www.Engan.com Year Established —1979 Legal Status — S Corporation Ownership — Privately Owned Staffing —10 Employees 5 Architectural & Interiors* 2 Architectural & Technical Support 2 Office Support *LEEDS Accredited Professionals Specialty Consultants as needed I RENEWABLE ENERGY ALT. STUDY 9 4 /9/1 .01RANWAL TIN DI SIGN P1923101 Martin Mechanical Design Inc. Mechanical Engineers FIRM PROFILE Staffing by Discipline: En i er, I gne Senior raft ers 2 Certified Energy Manager 1 Senior Designer 1 Auto AD 31 Clerical ( j i1RENEWABLE ENERGY ALT. STUDY 9/9/14 � /MLCIIANICAL S,C N P1923.01 NOC, DENNIS MARTIN PfflNUML ENGINEER Dennis Martin has contributed to over 15,000 projects during his 40 year career as a professional engineer. Clients throughout the nation recruit his services, prosper from the results, and know they have a positive, productive, and loyal partner. He offers comprehensive experience, proven business management and leadership talents, and specialties that produce the efficient and cost effective systems that every client needs. Those specialties include: boiler systems, heating and refrigeration, commercial additions and renovations, centralized energy systems and implementation, water, construction, project management and analysis, and more. This proves Dennis to be immensely resourceful 'to all projects. He has served as principal-in-chargeformultiple industrial, governmental, commercial, and institutional facilities and projects. Not only is Dennis an industry leader, he personally fulfills every responsibility that comes with supervising and coordinating all mechanical engineering projects undertaken by the Martin Mechanical team. EDUCATION B.S., Mechanical Engineering North Dakota State University N" RTIN WE HANICAL DESIGNE,' IFiG DESIGN TEAM BRIAN MARTIN PROJECT ENGINEER Brian Martin offers over 15 years of specialized mechanical engineering and project coordination experience. He has served as lead designer and field manager on over 20 projects similar to the one at hand. His management talents complement highly specialized experience in industrial, commercial, education, and government facilities. He applies this knowledge to every project by preventing problems and resolving any that might arise. Without exception, client interests come first. Brian serves as Martin Mechanical's primary government proxy, understands every applicable regulation, and ensures that each is met. Clients know that Brian provides an implementation-minded perspective that guarantees safety, full regulatory compliance, efficiency, reduced costs, and top-quality results. B.S., Mechanical Engineering North Dakota State University RENEWABLE ENERGY ALT. STUDY 9/9/14 P1923.01 d4lt PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Our team approach to this project will start with building understanding. A kick-off meeting will be scheduled and the team will have an opportunity to review reasons and goals for the project. The outcome of the meeting will be an understanding of the philosophy of the project and what will make it successful. At this time a project statement will be drafted to document the characteristics that will make this project successful, At this time a tour of the existing facilities will be made. The consultants will review the existing facilities and existing plans of the facilities and develop a meeting summary document. During this review process, building condition studies will be prepared for each structure. This process includes reviewing the buildings envelope and 'fenestrations. The majority of beat and energy loss is often seen through the roofs, walls, doors and windows of a building. The mechanical systems will be identified including the energy source for heating. Electrical and lighting systems will be identified. Building and equipment energy loads will be reviewed. After the existing conditions are determined, opportunities for energy savings will be discussed. When 'the current energy loads are determined, the energy saving and renewable energy opportunity items are then cost-estimated and energy savings can be calculated. Many energy savings and/or renewable energy opportunities may be simple operational changes costing little or nothing to implement. The estimated cost of new equipment or construction, energy savings, and maintenance savings are blended into a payback expressed in years. These opportunities will then be discussed with city officials, business owners, or residential owners at scheduled work sessions. This study will give the building owner or staff the life cycle information needed to decide on which energy opportunities to select RENEWABLE ENERGY ALT. STUDY IN 9/9/14 'A P1 923.01 E HI L N D D 51NMI a ��s �, �� Renewable Energy AlternatIvIiE,:,s Study If ,City Project 14---09 ' Seplernt-,ef ()014 Authorized Representative Daniel J. I"ox, PE, 1-.EEI.'..) AP BEH-C, Email: Direct Phone: 65 1--604- 3 1 A Gausman & Mooie Ascockjk.-, !hC, Si. 700 Highway 36 West, /00, Puu", N/16im,"-s"'du :),j phone: 65 1 639 9606, fax- O.t,) 1 -639-9618 Gausman COVERLETTER Mechanical and Electrical Engineers September }2'2Ol4 Paul Homby,PE City Engineer City ofShorewood 37S5 Country Club Road Shorewood, k4N5533l RE: Proposal for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study City Project l4-09 Thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal to provide the City of Shorewood with a renewable energy alternatives analysis and study for the City's facilities. With Gausman & Moore, you will work with a team [hat has extensive experience performing evaluations for multiple renewable energy system types and engineering the installation of those systems, The City deserves credit for taking the initiative toward cost-effective energy systems by participating inthe Minnesota Retiree Environmental Technical Assistance Program (RETAP) and the GreenStep Cities prograrn in conjunction with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,The Gausman & Moore approach involves collaborating with City staff to gather the information you have obtained, and advance it further by focusing or) systems that are site appropriate and economically feasible, Your Mechanical Project Manager, Dan Fox, brings years u[ experience on both studies and implementation projects, His expertise includes various renewable energy sources, including solar, geothermal, rnicro-hydro, biomass, and ground source heat pump systems. Accompanying Dar) is Anthony Bascen, Electrical Project Manager, who is also well-versed in solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Dan and Anthony have also given multiple presentations about renewable energy to various professional associations, including the US Green Building Council (USGBC), American Institute of Architects (AIA), and the University of Minnesota Center for Sustainable Building Research (C3BR), We acknowledge that There was no addenda issued with the RFP, Thank you again for the opportunity to submit our results-oriented proposal, The combination of your ongoing efforts and Gounnon& Moore's expertise will produce a study [hat provides efficient, effective, and practical renewable energy resources that will serve Shorewood for many years. Please contact Dan Fox at 651-604- 3126 or via email at dfox@gausr-non.corn with any questions you may have, We look forward to working with Sincerely, Daniel J. Fox, PE, CEM, HEED AP BD+C Project Manager Direct Phone: 65\-604-3l26 Fox: 651-639-9618 Emni|:dkox4,gousmonzom 700 Rosedale Tower l70O Highway 36West St. Paul, MN55|l3 Office Phone: 65l-639-Y6O6 SECTION E - PROJECT TEAM Name & Position Daniel J. Fox, PE, CEM,BED APDD+C' Project Manager Experience 15 Years t3ausman &Moore Mechanical and Electrical Engineers For this study, Dan will serve m mechanical project manager, Dan has participated in project d*finition and early design (chonaUe) meetings on government projects and will participate in the kickoff meeting and site visits for this project. Dan has performed many solar water heating studies throughout his career, including analysis cfhot "" = "3="u�'~"`� =""''�J' ,"'=^y= U k A I I'- t:,, available area for solar collection, evaluating panel design, panel arrangement, piping design, equipt-neril sizing including pumps, valves, panels, storage tanks, heal exchangers, and controllers. Studies also include energy analysis savings calculations with site specific solar data, economic analysis including operation and maintenance within lifecycles, and summary reports. Several studies resulted in full design and implementation in construction. Dan has designed and sized solar walls with similar energy calculations for potential energy savings of heating energy avoided by pre-heating outdoor air that is required for ventilation purposes. Dan will provide research and knowledge from experience on geothermal energy systems as well as other renewable technologies including micro-hydro and biomass, Dan has designed and been involved with design of multiple ground source heat pump systems in northern climates arid has done the analysis associted with well field life cycle and associated energy and economic savings. On government projects, Dan has been involved it) numer000 review sessions inoninteractive comment arid response response period to property address every concerti. Relevant Recent 0 Corps of Engineers Wilderness Road Brigade Battalion Headquarters (LEED Platinum)' Exqperence Fort Carson, CO This project involved adopting renewable energy technologies, including photovoltaic arrays and solar domestic hot water. e Sherburne County Public Works Facility - Elk River, MN - This project incorporated in,-floor radiant heat and a computerized heating and cooling system with a heat recovery ventilation system, * Camp Ripley Education 'Complex - Little Falls, MIN - This building was designed to comply with the State of Minnesota's B3 and Sustainable Building 2030 requirements. It features solar domestic hot water, ground-coupled heat pumQs, high efficiency lighting, premium efficiency HVAC motors, and lechnologically advanced control systems that helped achieve o6O percent energy savings over code. * Corps of Engineers Army Reserve Center (Net Zero Energy) ' Binghamton, NY - This project involved designing o Pho|ovo|to|c omzy that will generate lQQ percent of the facility's annual electrical power. The project also features high-efficiency geothermal ground-coupled heat pumps, a solar domestic water heating system that offsets 60 percent of the energy required for water heating, and a solar wall consisting of a transpired solar collector with air plenum backup to preheat ventilation air in the winter. * Corps of Engineers Medium Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility (LEED Silver) -Fort Riley, KS - This project features high-efficiency boilers, in-floor radiant heat, air-to--air heat recovery, and energy recovery systems, * Renewable Energy Presentations - US Green Building Council, American Institute of ~�� Architects, University ofMinnesota Center for Sustainable Building Research SECTION E PROJECT TEAM Name & Position Anthony 800dem, PE, LBQAPBD+C- Electrical Engineer Experience 8Yeors itiausman &Moore Mechanical and Electrical Engineers For this study, Anthony will fulfill the role cf electrical project manager, Anthony coordinated with MefmTransit representatives to define the goals uf the solar capacity study to produce omkFPinsert of existing conditions that provided Metro Transit o baseline for expectations of bidder's photovoltaic proposals, His experience w x///.,mouus projects m//mu/,ue xxe sm"pv/e/xw/~mVvmeme study hzo comprehensive and practical application for public facilities. Anthony is passionate about renewable energy and through his knowledge and expertise, will guide discussions on wind energy, geothermal energy, and other renewable technologies. His involvement in the smod micro grid project would assist in discussions on vehicle charging, battery storage, and fuel cells. Anthony has been involved in similar government review processes and is able to navigate comments with the client's best interest in mind. Relevant Recent 0 Corps of Engineers Wilderness Road Brigade BattalionHeadquarters(LEEDPlatinum) - Experience Fort Carson, CO- This project involved adopting renewable energy technologies, including photovoltaic arrays and solar domestic hot water. * Metro Transit Solar Capacity Study - Twin Cities, MN - This project involved preparing a study to determine where photovollaic panels could be placed or) the rooftop of seven Metro Transit facilities, as well as projections for annual energy production at each site, * Electrical Training Institute (B|) Photovoltaic System Review (LEEDGold) ' Commerce' CA - This project involved designing a srnart microgrid for charging vehicles. The project features photovoltaic arrays, a battery energy storage system, a. nd a high-efficiency natural gas fuel cell station. * NcBean Regional Transit Center Photovoltaic Study - Santa C|odka,CA- This project was a study to install a photovoltaic array at an existing transit center shade structure. A payback analysis was provided for the photovoltaic arrays, and the payback was associated with the site's existing utility bills. * Sherburne County Public Works Facility ' Elk River, k8N' This project involved incorporating in-floor radiant heat and a computerized heating and cooling system with u heat recovery ventilation system. * Comp Ripley EducallonComplex - UttleFalis, MN - ThbboUdingwosdedgnedk> comply with the State of Minnesota's D3 and Sustainable Building 2030 requirements. |t features high efficiency lighting, pmmium efficiency HYA[ motors, and technologically advanced control systems that helped achieve a 60 percent energy savings over code, * Corps cf Engineers Medium Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility (LGfD Silver) - Fort Riley, KS - This project features high efficiency lighting, premium efficiency HVAC motors, and technologically advanced control systems that helped achieve a 60 percent energy savings over Code. * Renewable Energy Presentations - US Green Building Council, American Institute of Architects, University of Minnesota Center for Sustainable Building Research oft �����8o������^�>����8U������T�������� uausman ���_��ow��/� / PROJECT ��o�����o����������o/��� &Moore Mechanical and Electrical Engineers The City of Shorewood (the City) wishes to advance their commitment |o becoming o more sustainable and green city by evaluating how renewable energy sources could cost-effectively provide energy for City buildings and possibly residential or commercial buildings, Further, the City wishes the analysis and study be performed by a firm which has demonstrated experience with design and installation of many renewable energy source systems. The selected firm must be independent of any equipment manufacturing or saless, Gausman& Mom 's (G&M) project work plan will result inthe delivery ofostudy including ocomprehensive analysis of the technical, financial, and practical considerations for implementing the most beneficial renewable energy systerns. Within two weeks of the notice to proceed the G&M learn will initiate a kickoff meeting to discuss City facilities, present our work plan, and present or) overview of the renewable energy systems that will be included in the study, G&M will provide the project meeting agenda, handout, and meeting minutes. Ft. Snelling AHAT Facility The following week, the team will visit the City facilities and request the information (such os building and site plans, gas, water, and electric bills, RETAP energy audits) needed |o evaluate the feasibility for installing renewable energy systems. G&h\ will provide periodic progress reports osneeded, The study's intent is to evaluate possible renewable energy system types, but to focus on systems that are the most site appropriate and economically feasible. G&K4 has experience in both performing evaluations for multiple renewable energy system types and in engineering the installation of those systems. Thmfollowing renewable energy systems will ba included in the study. Photovoltaic (PV) system application will bo analyzed first, G&M recently completed n study for the Metropolitan FronsitAuthority to evaluate the capacity of their maintenance facility roots and electrical services for installing PV arrays. G&M also recently engineered large PV installations ot the Ft. Carson Colorado Brigade Headquarters (this facility is one o[ the over }8O LEEU certified buildings [hat G&M has engineered and boplatinum certification) and ot the Ft. Snelling AHAJ facility in Arden Hills. ���D Solar domestic hotwater Ft. Carson Brigade Headquarters (SDHYV)systerm can be cost effective for buildings wdh high use of hot wafer such co barracks or maintenance facilities with vehicle washing. G&M will evaluate Solar air preheating systems are typically used for facilities with high ventilation requirements such usmaintenance facilities that have large south facing side walls, Wind energy systems are very site dependent in order to be both cosheffeo|ive and safe, Wind studies have beer) prepared for mos| areas in Minnesota. G&M will evaluate possible sites and City building interconnections aswe did for the Butte, Montana Army Reserve Geothermal energy bo very site specific application just cob wind energy. G&M will investigate possible sites and building interconnections. The other renewable energy systems that will be evaluated include low- head hydroelectric, and biomass energy. NATURAL FUEL C ac 169 monocrumallse Panels ^�� �� 250W each �� � EV CHARGERS MWISBATTERY ENERGY SMRAGE SYSTEM MESS) Gausman Mechanical and Electrical Engineers Army Reserve Facility - Butte, MT G&Mmcently completed oonud mkcroghdpnojoc1o|U1eBecNcul Training |nsfi|uteinCommerce, California. This project incorporated oPV array and o natural gas fuel cell along with battery energy storogo, and sophisticated controls fn allow the facility to connect to the utility grid and feed power k> the grid or draw power from the grid whenever it was most beneficial for the building owner. G&K4 con help the City koassess where snmd grid and community grid technologies may be appropriate |o include inolonger term plan, A comprehensive draft report will be prepared for review and presented to the City, G&M will incorpoiate the City's comments generated in the City Council work session and then a final report will be prepared and presented. SECTION G - CONSULTANT FEE k3ausman &Moore Mechanical and Electrical Engineers Aow tri-ausiman SECTION - EXCEPTIONS & DEVIATIONS &Moore Mechanical and Electrical Engineers EXCEPTIONS & DEVIATIONS G&M takes no exceptions to any of the requirements or language in the City's RFP. G&k4 would be pleased I-uprovide some additional services cxto teary) with other consultants kzprovide set-vices that could benefit the C ity in reducing energy use and in their assessment of renewable energy syxtornc Examples of these services could include the following. Instrumented Testing to Diagnose Building Equipment or System Problems G&M has a creclentialed commissioning authority on staff who maintains calibrated testing equipment that we use to help determine why mechanical and electrical systems may be experiencing performance problems, Sometimes equipment or systems that are performing poorly are only creating comfort problems, but often correction of these problems also results in significant energy savings. Soil Thermal Conductivity Testing The assessment arid sizing cf ground source heat pump installations depends on the thermal conductivity of the soils, Atest well b drilled and the core b sampled todokarmine it's ability totransfer heat. If the City determines that they wish to further assess the potential for a single building or campus district ground coupled heat pump system, then G&M could coordinate the testing procedure and engineer the well field required. G&M is experienced and successful in assisting with financial grant and incentive applications, Depending on the renewable energy systeryis that the City selects to pursue, there may be foundalion grants, government grants, utility incentives and rebates, or other funding sources available. We would work with the City to identify those sources, determine which to pursue, and assist with the application processes. GRIN CIRCUIT energy solr.thoins Response to Request for Proposal and Qualifications City of Shorewood Minnesota Renewable Energy Alternatives Study September 12, 2014 3MW PV RENEWABLE ENERGY FARM IN ROCKFORD ILLINOIS FALL OF 2013 This document and the information contained herein is intended solely for the use of The City of Shorewood MN. It is to be considered extremely confidential and is not for public distribution in part or whole. © Green Circuit 2014 Page 1 Paul Hornby, P.E. City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Request for Proposal and Qualifications for a Renewable Energy Alternatives Study Dear Mr. Hornby We are excited to hear that the City of Shorewood is a GreenStep City, and also excited to that you are pursuing Renewable Energy solutions power your facilities. After years of working in the commercial and utility Renewable Energy development market on a national scale with emphasis in the Midwest, our initial recommendation to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA will be to lock in their financial model before moving ahead with construction. Especially on this scale, this involves a precise examination of the electrical usage and current electrical market conditions including incentives, the system performance engineering and local geographic, weather and site conditions, and usually results in several viable financial scenarios. From here, the financial implications can be reviewed in depth, and presented to CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA staff to choose their best scenario to meet the energy need and budgets. This recommendation is made in order to maximize production, ROI, and optimal function of your energy systems. Green Circuit is pleased to have the opportunity to propose a comprehensive Consulting Services Agreement relating to a Renewable Energy Alternatives Study and Analysis The Green Circuit - Telamon Team offers seasoned navigation toward Renewable Energy security — a roadmap for executing your Renewable Energy project. We assist you in transforming your business using renewable energy, resulting in economical and clean power. Renewable Energy is a great financial investment which also has complementary returns for social, environmental, and marketing purposes for any business. The fact that your facilities are operated using electricity primarily generated from the sun is a powerful statement. The Green Circuit - Telamon Team have been active in the renewable energy industry since 2007, in 2013 Green Circuit was named by Renewable Energy Power World Magazine a "Top Renewable Energy Contractor" with a ranking of #87. Contained within this proposal you will find all the RFP requested information and qualifications. Green Circuit is available as a resource and to answer questions related to this proposal. Sincerely, Brett D. Robinson President brett@green-circuit.com Green Circuit INC. 901 4th St STE 101 Hudson WI 54016 651.343.8477 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, Green iir een C Iii r c lil "mmI e III a Ilan o iir�i "mmI earn The Principals of the Green Circuit Telamon team have determined that by working in collaboration and drawing on each company's expertise, channel partners, techniques and experience, that together as a team we can provide the City of Shorewood a series of unique Renewable Energy Solutions. Understanding that adherence to both budget and timeline are extremely important, our solutions will address both key constraints by locating financial partners, taking advantage of grants and identifying tax benefits available through Public /Private Partnerships as well as maximizing buying potential all in conjunction with shrinking the timeline for the deployment of the solutions. Green lire en C Iii lire, lil C airn III ain Ov iir l 0`�V1,1V'!1,1114 01`VV',OIJIT is a Minnesota Corporation headquartered in Hudson, Wisconsin, and was organized in 2007 to specialize in renewable energy systems development, leveraging a similar skill set in traditional electrical engineering into the renewable energy industry. Our goal is pioneering a strong industry standard in quality that guarantees national acceptance of renewable energy technology, by providing a more economical and environmentally viable energy model for the future. Green Circuit is a renewable energy design, integration and construction management company servicing commercial, industrial and utility scale projects. Green Circuit provides hands -on expertise during all phases of renewable energy project development: design, engineering, procurement, implementation and construction management. Green Circuit has designed over 100 MW of Renewable Energy systems, performed development work and feasibility studies for over 50 MW. Green Circuit principals have managed Renewable Energy electrical projects valued at more than $300 million over a combined 40+ years of service. Green Circuit designs and calculations are trusted and tested and are integrated into projects throughout the US. The State of Illinois DCEO has awarded state incentives funds to several projects designed by Green Circuit, one sized at 1MW and one at 2.5 MW and one at 20 MW. Green Circuit served as the construction manager on "Rockford Renewable Energy Farm ", one of the largest projects in Illinois at 3.06 MW and is currently the Manager of Operations and Maintenance. We offer consulting services for Renewable Energy development, design, integration, budgeting, construction management, and financial modeling, to private and public clientele across the nation. Green Circuit provides diverse expertise within the renewable energy industry, with a focus on market ready technology for consultation and implementation on budgeting, design, and grid connectivity, as well as options for Renewable Energy modular packages and assembly. Green Circuit maintains a strong network of best -in -class Renewable Energy financial investors, manufacturers, construction professionals, and we employ sustainable renewable design implementation and construction management processes. We pride ourselves on providing the best in class value. © Green Circuit 2014 Page 3 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, �' I &II Ilan airi Carnpany Ov iir l TELAMON CORPORATION: Founded in 1985, Telamon Corporation's goal is to simplify business by increasing efficiency and streamlining operations for our customers. In addition to our energy management group, Telamon also has divisions that specialize in solutions for telecom networks, industrial assembly, business process outsourcing, and telehealth services. Telamon's energy solutions division serves as your turnkey energy partner for all things energy including Renewable Energy, conservation, management, and generation techniques and technologies. Telamon is your preferred partner for smart energy and sustainable products and solutions. We focus on helping your company improve overall energy efficiency while you focus on your bottom line. Telamon is uniquely equipped to create, deliver, and manage a comprehensive green energy program for you. We analyze your current operations to find the best ways to optimize your energy performance using a thorough process that starts with auditing your energy expenses. Our objective is to work in partnership with your company to ensure that, once completed, you will have a smarter, greener, more sustainable business. At Telamon, we strive to provide the stability and continuity your green project needs. At Telamon, our mission is to simplify your business. We specialize in solutions for telecommunication networks, business process outsourcing, energy efficiency, industrial assembly, and telehealth services. Our method of meeting our customers' needs is through the distinct concept of H2S2: honesty with our customers promotes harmony in our relationships. Simplicity in an age of complexity leads to speed in our solutions. These simple business principles are the cornerstones of how we do business and the As one of the largest private companies in Indiana, we have nine domestic locations in Indiana, California, Arkansas, Ohio (2), New Jersey, Kansas, Kentucky, and Missouri, and three international facilities in China (2) and Mexico. Telamon, which stems from the Greek word, "support ", has approximately 1,300 associates. In addition to our numerous awards, we have been ranked as one of the 500 Fastest Growing Companies in the United States for multiple years. We take pride in diversity and are a certified Minority Business Enterprise. In order to assist other companies owned by women or minorities, we formed a network with other businesses, Telamon Corporate Diversity & Minority /Women Business Enterprise Alliance and Partnership Programs. Promoting diversity in employment and throughout business operations is an important priority to Telamon. © Green Circuit 2014 Page 4 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, III roj1 e t Flersartri&I Green iir e en C Iii iir c Iil Brett Robinson Principal 2007 - Present Brett studied Electrical Engineering at Iowa State University, Brett is an electrical engineer and construction manager by trade, with over 30 years of experience estimating, designing, and managing electrical projects from concept to commission. Brett has a strong background in electrical /PV, design and construction management. He has designed and managed a range of projects varying in scope and scale: sewage treatment plants, power plants, data centers, industrial process plants and automated warehouses. He has been able to leverage electrical design and installation experience from projects that are more electrically complex than Renewable Energy Farms, to arrive at some of the best designs in class in PV Renewable Energy facilities. Brett is an Engineer, Master Electrician, and holds NABCEP certification those credentials and experience give him the ability to pioneer and lead the project with an emphasis on maximum energy delivery. In 2012 -2013, Brett led the design, construction, management and implementation of the largest Hi- Production PV facility of its kind in the Midwest. Coordinating with a Chinese international corporation from Conception to completion. Brett has designed and provided project leadership on multi - million dollar projects from an unusually early age, continuing to do so for his entire career. Zachary Robinson Vice - President 2007 - Present Background: Graduated from Indiana University Kelley School of Business at the top of his class with a Bachelor of Science in Business and Management. Zach has developed an impressive entrepreneurial and consulting resume by leading the market and financial strategy of several organizations, including a contracting company, a record label, and a non - profit where he serves as a Board Member and Executive Director. Zach has great skills in process development, team leadership, management, and information systems. These combined factors give Zach the ability to contribute the project with an emphasis on Project Information and Communication. © Green Circuit 2014 Page 5 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, III irojl ect IIFl iir airtiri &II ""I e III a Ilan o iir Kou Vincent Liu, Ph.D. Executive Vice President 1997 - Present Background: Dr. Kou Vincent Liu currently is President of Telamon Energy Solutions and Executive Vice President, Chief Strategy Officer at Telamon Corporation, Indiana, and USA. For the past 17 years with Telamon Corporation he has also served as CIO, CTO, President of Telamon International, and President of Telamon Integrated Marketing Services. Dr. Liu has more than 35 years professional experience as engineer, principle investigator, project manager with Motorola, Shell Oil, and Argonne National Laboratory under US Department of Energy. His focus has been in solar, battery, nuclear, and oil & gas R &D and E &P (exploration and production.) Dr. Liu was a faculty in 1980s at National Taiwan Institute of Technology, faculty of University Notre Dame, Indiana. He also served as advisor /consultant of Energy Lab., ITRI (Industrial Technology Research Institute) and Energy Committee at MOEA (Ministry of Economic Affair), Taiwan. Since 2008 Dr. Liu is a Board Member of Telamon Electronic Kunshan, China, Beijing Legend Digital, China, and also a Board Member for Allegiant Global Service, Indiana. Dr. Liu is a Board Member of Telamon - Sequel International, British Virgin Island. Dr. Liu is a Member of the Industrial Advisory Council, School of Engineering and Technology, Indiana University, Purdue University, Indianapolis. He has written and published numerous articles for various books and journals in field of energy, thermal science, and telecommunication. He has been a Technical Program Organizer for International Engineering Consortium annual conference held in New Orleans, LA, and Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Vincent Liu earned his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana 1978. He received his B.S.M.E. from National Taiwan University 1970. Michael Morley Energy Solutions Engineer 2008- Present Background: A Certified Energy Manager, has been with Telamon for six years and currently serves as the Energy Solutions Engineer. Prior to this position, he served as the Facility and Safety Administrator at Telamon. Mr. Morley has recently completed three active /operating Renewable Energy array projects and is currently designing 3 additional arrays. In addition to his Renewable Energy experience, Mr. Morley has vast experience in creating, delivering, and managing comprehensive green energy programs for Telamon Energy Solutions customers. FORMAL EDUCATION: B.S., Physics— Purdue University CERTIFICATIONS: Certified Energy Manager — Association of Energy Engineers — 2013, Certified Personnel Consultant — National Association of Personnel Services — 2001, Certified Quality Auditor — American Society for Quality — 2000, and Certified Quality Engineer — American Society for Quality— 1992. © Green Circuit 2014 Page 6 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, Carnpany E III eir Iii eiri ce Green iir een C Iii sir e. Iil Green Circuit has designed and managed over 100MW of Renewable Energy PV since 2007. Our designs calculations are trusted, tested, and have been integrated into projects throughout the Midwest. We design to meet client objectives, whether it is to maximize ROI' or to meet an aesthetic standard. Our designs and calculations have been approved by the state of Illinois DCEO, permitting authorities, and integrated into successful projects. Green Circuit Renewable Energy PV designs have also been tested in competitive action. In 2009 Green Circuits design service was utilized by the University of Minnesota Renewable Energy Decathlon team, in which the team placed 5th out of 20 teams in international competition. In 2008, Green Circuit was responsible for a project redesign, intelligently increasing power production on a roof top in Minnesota from 80kW DC to 95kW AC utilizing the same space yet readjusting the calculations. Besides intelligent design, we also develop projects - successfully negotiating all needed facets to bring large scale utility Renewable Energy Projects to the Midwest. These facets include PPA's, Permitting, Interconnection, and Technical grant writing, requiring a unique mix of technical, legal, and industry expertise. With 30+ years of experience in electrical construction handling diverse and complex projects, our team has a technical ability to ensure project success within budgeting, scheduling, and construction parameters. Notable projects include: • Hennepin County - 100kW PV • Chicago Energy Investments — 2MW rooftop PV • Rockford Renewable Energy Farm — 3MW PV • Rockford Renewable Energy Farm — 20MW PV Design • City of Jefferson, Wisconsin — 20MW PV Design • City of Lafayette - Feasibility and 1MW PV Design • Indiana Single Project =5MW (in process) • Illinois Multiple Projects = 10MW (in process) • Massachusetts Multiple Projects = 10MW (in process) • North Carolina Multiple Projects = 20MW (in process) © Green Circuit 2014 Page 7 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, Carnpany E Ip iirlii eiri ce ""I e III Ilan o iir Telamon is uniquely equipped to create, deliver, and manage a comprehensive green energy program for you. We analyze your current operations to find the best ways to optimize your energy performance using a thorough process that starts with auditing your energy expenses. We typically deploy Renewable Energy Solutions such as biofuels, solar power, wind, and geothermal which serve as alternative energy solutions that cut costs while improving performance and protecting our environment. We will help you refine your energy work processes and can also assist in green purchasing from alternative sources. Notable projects include: Indianapolis International Airport Phase One: Process started in 2010 & Commissioned in 2013 Size of Project: 12.5 Megawatts (D.C.) Telamon served as Project Manager and Project Coordinator Phase Two: Construction starting in August 2014 Project to be commissioned in December 2014 Size of Project: 12.5 Megawatts (D.C.) Telamon Involvement: Same as Phase One Telamon Corporation, 1000 E. 116`" St. Carmel: Project Commissioned in 2012 Size of Project: 50 Kilowatts Roof Top Installation Telamon served in all capacities Ohio State Transportation Center, Columbus Ohio: Project Commissioned in May 2013 Size of Project: 600 Kilowatts Roof Top Installation Telamon served as Project Manager & Project Coordinator. City of Carmel Water Plant 4: Project in Design Phase, anticipated construction start Fall 2014 Size of Project: 200 Kilowatts Telamon is serving in all capacities Fort Wayne International Airport: Project in Permitting Stage, anticipated completion is 2016 Size of Project: 10 to 40 Megawatts (perhaps in Phases) Telamon serving in all capacities © Green Circuit 2014 Page 8 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, John Henderson Henderson Investments (847)651 -4755 Paul Cumberland Wanxiang America (847)628 -8623 Michael Pontarelli Rockford Renewable Energy Partners (773) 370 -4026 Jonathan Nieuwsma CS2 Renewable Energy (773) 255 -0176 Rod Larkins Senior Director of Science & Technology The Agricultural Utilization Research Institute (AURI) (612) 624 -6055 or (651)338 -6839 Additional References available upon request © Green Circuit 2014 Page 9 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, F: easflbdity Study and ! in a Il i In order to efficiently move a Renewable Energy Project forward, a feasibility study is absolutely necessary. Please note our Feasibility Study and Analysis are very extensive and time consuming. They must be performed as "site specific" and involves the proper site selection, a full analysis of Renewable Energy resources available, which will lead us to the financial models and a complete understanding of the financial options available. In order to be as cost effective as possible the feasibility study and analysis will be performed in two steps or Phases The Green circuit - Telamon team will as Phase 1 first perform on -site analysis of electrical systems and building structures for each of the 13 identified locations as well as the identified sanitary sewer lift stations. Once each of the studied site locations is vetted and the non - performers are eliminated, our team will submit the remaining locations as "approved" for further study as Phase 2. The next step is to perform a conceptual design and budget for each approved location. Once all of the selected site budgets are established, the Green Circuit - Telamon team using the gathered site specific data will construct a comprehensive financial model and analysis that will illustrate the viability of each site. This is the point a where a reliable ROI (payback within the project lifecycle) can be established. The following scope is included for feasibility. Phase I Project Initial FeasibilityStudy all identified sites- • Analyze Utility terms and conditions • Local electrical market analysis and historical use • Analysis of Electricity use at each location • Site Net - metering analysis • Possible Renewable Energy off set savings • Interconnection viability and building- connection • Interim Report recommending the viable and best sites for further study and analysis. • Meeting with City Of Shorewood to select sites for further study. Phase 2 ProjectSpecific FeasibilitySt tidies on selected sites only • Conceptual RE system design and site layout including system maximum size • Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Budget Project comprehensive financial model and cost benefit analysis for each site. • Renewable Energy system /energy production analysis • Systems Reliability Analysis • Operations Cost Analysis • Maintenance Cost Analysis • Conceptual Project schedule • Incentive and Financial Partner recommendations • Technical and financial recommendations on site selection and next steps. © Green Circuit 2014 Page 10 GRIN CIRCUIT RFP Response 9.12.14 Renewable Energy Alternative Study teiamon, 1111, City of Shorewood Minnesota Project #14 -09 sin,Gl,fvino business �nerfv,efluile,,, Feasibility Deliverables to Include: • (1) Electronic copies of phase 1 feasibility study report delivered to Client no later than 30 days from phase initiation. • (2) Bound copies of phase 1 feasibility study report delivered to Client no later than 30 days from phase initiation. • Meeting to formally select sites to move into phase 2 study • (1) Electronic copies of phase 2 feasibility study report delivered to Client no later than 30 days from phase initiation. • (2) Bound copies of phase 2 feasibility study report delivered to Client no later than 30 days from phase initiation. • Conceptual Drawings to illustrate aesthetics of each selected project site • Meetings as required to illustrate phase 2 study findings • Technical recommendations to move project forward. • Financial recommendations to move project forward. • When project is Green Lighted we will assist The City of Shorewood to obtain a finance partner through the creation of a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) Green lire en C Iii lire, lil "I &I4irn airi IlF' ee FlrqposaII I Green Circuit - Telamon offers their services on a not to exceed consultant fee basis, reporting and tracking hours and expenses. We strongly urge The City of Shorewood MN. Inc. to first engage Green Circuit - Telamon in a Phase 1 Feasibility Study to determine the best and most economically advantageous way to proceed into Phase 2 Site Specific Feasibility and full analysis. This method of Feasibility Study first, rather than starting with a complete "turnkey" solution provides our clients with options and choices throughout the entire process, uncover potential pitfalls, and leads to a clear strategic and financial path to execute the construction. No matter which of the options are selected Green Circuit - Telamon operates completely open book, and the CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA team will always be in the loop helping to make all the cost /value decisions for its residents. Our goal is to help your City become a clean energy generator for generations to come. Respectfully Submitted 3MQ4-11�� Brett D. Robinson President brett@green-circuit.com Green Circuit INC. 901 4th St STE 101 Hudson W154016 651.343.8477 © Green Circuit 2014 Page 11 r September 12, 2014 Paul Hornby, PE City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 PROPOSAL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY STUDY Thank you for inviting LHB to submit a proposal for the Renewable Energy Study. As a firm specializing in high performance design with a successful history of working with our clients, we believe that our design team is uniquely qualified to meet your needs for many reasons, including the following: • The most important thing you should know about our team is that we are collaborators; LHB designs with you, rather than for you, and our team includes the client throughout the design process to make sure that the solution reflects your interests, not ours. • LHB is a leader in the field of collecting and analyzing the energy use of a variety of building types through our Performance Metrics tool. This tool was designed to understand the implicit impacts of the buildings we have designed and turn the building's consumption of resources into concrete and readable results, ultimately giving our clients the means to manage and reduce long term maintenance costs. In preparation for this project, LHB has taken our strengths and teamed with Eutectics, a nationally - recognized Minnesota company that specializes in connecting qualified clean energy projects with committed capital. Eutectics has developed an innovative clean energy financing platform that is able to leverage multiple financial models and capital sources to create the best financing and ownership structure for energy efficiency and solar projects. LHB's technical expertise and Eutectics' regulatory and financial expertise provides the perfect collaborative team to ensure the City of Shorewood can deploy a renewable energy system in a planned manner, with the least amount of risk to its taxpayers and citizens. LHB looks forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Shorewood on your project. We hope that the enclosed response to your Request for Proposal demonstrates our enthusiasm and commitment to the City. We look forward to the opportunity to engage with you on this exciting project. LHB, Inc. RICK A. CARTER, FAIR, LEED FELLOW SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT °JASON C. WEDEL, PE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING LEADER 612.752.6923 DIRECT 1 612.338.2088 FAX 612.766.2808 DIRECT 1 612.338.2088 FAX RICK.CARTERLa)LHBCORP.COM JASON.WEDEL a)LHBCORP.COM c: LHB File M:A14ProjA140521 \100 Financial \101 Pro posals \CoverLetter ShorewoodRenewable_FINAL.docx .x" °�J'Ir,,l r4dCu',rrl�7l �91v ^^„vP �f�iYi, ,l(,l �_i41�i,11k1,I'`m °[IJ " <',�RfYul 218 /,fir° 8346 '7(;b1 Avv� l , N "rh, Suah', 20 () 61-„, H 1 612 3M f'w'1 [',iJr w4',op1i.1 "xi.i`Fvt'h, °IIII�' IN") I gup riot *1 1 111'1 >9) 1"90? 1 of 20 Markets Served • Pipeline and Utilities • Public Works • Industrial • Housing • Healthcare • Government • Education • Commercial Services Provided • Civil Engineering • Electrical Engineering • Mechanical Engineering • Structural Engineering • Land Surveying • Architecture • Interior Design • Landscape Architecture + Planning • Historic Preservation • Performance Metrics" Locations 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500 Duluth, MN 55802 218.727.8446, 218.727.8456 Fax 701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.338.2029, 612.338.2088 Fax 63 East Second Street, Suite 150 Superior, WI 54880 715.392.2902, 218.727.8456 Fax E� N B V �a Z �ouN�`` PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. LHB, Inc. LHB isamulti- disciplinaryengineering, architecture, and planning firm known for our design leadership and loyalty to our clients. We go beyond good intentions and focus on measurable performance. We are experts in: public works, pipeline, industrial, housing, healthcare, government, education, and commercial design. LHB is dedicated to being environmentally responsible, reducing long term operating costs, and improving the quality of life for our clients. With a staff of 250, we provide integrated design solutions from our offices in Duluth and Minneapolis. Since 1966, our people have focused their talents and expertise on providing creative, practical and cost - effective design solutions for our clients. We create sustainable designs for all types of facilities and infrastructure to produce energy - efficient buildings; promote ecological use of materials; and utilize natural systems that provide healthy, cost - effective benefits from natural lighting to stormwater reuse. esign firms, ,ENk ,vs Record) Magazine - 2013: Top 500 Design Firirrf 300 Architecture Firm Record; Hotfirm1/mn „�Zv LHB Staff by Discipline Licensed Civil Engineers ............... 15 Licensed Mechanical Engineers ..... 13 Licensed Fire Protection Engineers.. 1 Licensed Electrical Engineers........... 6 Licensed Structural Engineers........ 14 Graduate Engineers ....................... 30 Licensed Land Surveyors ................. 2 Licensed Architects ........................ 25 Graduate Architects ....................... 15 Licensed Landscape Architects......... 5 Graduate Landscape Architects ......... 1 Certified Interior Designers ............. 3 A/E Design Technicians ................. 66 Technical Staff . ............................... 9 Administrative Staff ....................... 43 Planning and Development ............. 1 Historic Preservationist .................... 1 TOTAL LHB STAFF ................. 250 2of20 Contact lPerson David Williams, PE - LHB Sustainable Design Expert david.williamsCa)LHBcorp.com 612.338.2029 Offering Firms LHB, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.338.2029 Eutectics Consulting LLC 5045 Colfax Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55419 612.875.2546 PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. LHB is a full- service design firm providing services in architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, planning, urban design, mechanical, electrical, structural, surveying and civil engineering from our offices in Minneapolis and Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. Because we have all of the disciplines required for your projects in one firm, we can provide more cohesive, integrated projects. Rick Carter, FAIA, LEED Fellow BD +C (LHB) Project Principal Rick is the Senior Vice President in LHB's Minneapolis office where his primary responsibilities include business development, project leadership, and sustainable design on major projects. He has 26 years of experience with LHB and five years with a Washington, D.C. architecture firm and he specializes in sustainable design. Rick works extensively on issues of sustainable design by promoting improved indoor air quality, energy efficiency, and resource efficiency. He helped develop the Hennepin County /Minnesota Sustainable Design Guidelines and currently manages the Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B3) Project including execution of sustainable guidelines for the State of Minnesota. David Williams, PE, FPE, LEED AP O +M, GGP, CDT (LHB) Project Manager David has 32 years of mechanical design experience and is a Sustainable Design Specialist. He is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Operations + Maintenance (LEED O +M) accredited and is helping to write the State of Minnesotas Building, Benchmarks and Beyond (B3) sustainable design guidelines. David leads LHB's Building Performance Services initiative, which includes providing LEED consultation, energy modeling, life -cycle cost analysis, commissioning, building maintenance and asset preservation consultation. Jason Wedel, PE (LHB) Civil Engineer and Client Advocate/ Representative Jason is the Municipal Engineering Leader for the Public Works and Structures Group. Jason has proven managerial expertise related to municipal engineering and land development. He has a verifiable track record for the successful completion of multi - million dollar projects through contract negotiation, developing partnerships, and building positive rapport with architects, engineers, and state and local officials, while maintaining costs. He is versed in public speaking, administration, financial analysis, project estimating, resolving complicated entitlement and design problems, document preparation and site management. Jeremy Kalin (Eutectics) Project Financing Principal Jeremy Kalin is CEO and of Eutectics, a mission - oriented company focused on connecting qualified clean energy and water savings projects with committed capital. Kalin founded Eutectics in 2010 after serving in the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he applied his real -world knowledge and training in architecture and green building to chief - authoring the nation's strongest energy conservation standard and clean energy financing platforms. In addition to leading Eutectics, Kalin also serves as a Senior Fellow at GOVERNING Institute, building new public- private partnerships in energy and smart infrastructure, and as a Senior Advisor to the bipartisan National Caucus of Environmental Legislators on their climate and energy project. 3of20 PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. We understand the project to include the evaluation of 24 City facilities in regards to possible integration of renewable energy systems as defined by the City of Shorewood. Additionally, a high level review of private properties within the City which many also be good candidates for renewable energy systems may be evaluated. A kick off meeting with City Staff and a high level walk through of the City facilities will get our process started, but is far from the only thing we intend to do to complete this work. One of our tasks will be to understand how energy is used within each facility; this will set the bar for any renewable energy investments. We will use the State of Minnesota B3 benchmarking tool to analyze the energy consumption data and while doing that, train the City staff to use the tool for future energy management efforts. We propose to create a screening tool using Excel to help rank properties in terms of renewable energy potential, this would be similar to a tool we created for the MN DNR to select the best sites for installation of solar PV. This will allow transparent communication of evaluation criteria and the results to be communicated to stakeholders. An additional input which may be used with this tool is either satellite or aerial mapping that looks at sun and wind exposure, along with geological maps to understand ground source heat pump potential within the City. Our study of the candidate properties will focus on practical systems, not one -off experiments, to protect against future maintenance headaches. Once we have identified high probability candidates, our financial analysis team members will evaluate possible financial models for funding such projects in away that leverages the City's assets in a productive way to bring the benefits of renewable energy to the City while protecting its citizens and taxpayers. On -going reports and attendance at council meetings by LHB staffwill be important to communicate work in progress and potential solutions before a final report is produced. 4of20 PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Our total not -to- exceed proposed fee for the Renewable Energy Alternatives Study project is Forty -six Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($46,250.00). The total fee breaks down as the study being Forty -six Thousand Dollars ($46,000.00) and the proposed fee for reimbursable expenses being Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00). See the following Task Breakdown of the Study. Task Breakdown Initial review meeting and review of buildings: Energy Benchmarking and Screening Tool: Evaluation of RE resources in Shorewood: Evaluation of high potential public and private properties: Financial Modeling and Identification of Funding sources: Preliminary Financial Assessment: Financial Modeling and Identification Cost $ 2,500 $ 1,000 $10,000 $ 7,500 $ 3,000 of Financing Sources and Options: $10,000 Creation of Financing "Deal Book": $ 2,000 Preliminary Findings Report: $ 2,500 Final Report: $ 2,500 Project Management /meetings: $ 5,000 Subtotal $46,000 Reimbursables $ 250 TOTAL FEE $46,250 5of20 PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Eutectics has structured and facilitated financing for more than $32,410,000 in solar electric and energy efficiency projects in Minnesota and across the United States, with another $370 million of projects and capital in development. Eutectics' approach is unique in Minnesota and nationally. Eutectics works exclusively on financing clean energy projects as an advisor and finance partner to technical solution providers, including LHB. We have gained expertise with multiple financing tools, and we leverage that deep expertise to tailor individualized solutions for each project — from small lighting retrofits to very large renewable energy developments. Eutectics has identified multiple pathways for structuring and financing renewable energy projects at the proposed Shorewood sites: 1) Tax - exempt municipal leasing, off - balance -sheet financing with extended term; 2) Tax- exempt Green Bond and other revenue bond mechanisms; 3) Minnesota's Guaranteed Energy Savings Partnership (GESP), 4) Community Solar Gardens and 5) Third -party power purchase agreements with tax equity partners. Eutectics will work with the City of Shorewood and LHB to craft the ultimate financing solution that best matches the City's credit capacity, capital budget and long -term planning, accounting practices, ownership preference, risk appetite and, finally, overall environmental and facilities planning goals. Eutectics' work will be structured in three phases: 1) Preliminary financing assessment for the City's sites, including: • General motivation for and interest in the renewable energy projects; • Overview of City's historic approaches to structuring energy improvement and broader sustainability projects across the City's buildings and overall operations; • Ensuring alignment of the City's budget and finance practices with Eutectics' solar financing models, and • Establishing general risk, debt and visibility parameters for the project's legal and financial structure(s). 6of20 PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. 2) Determine the best financial and legal structure(s) for the multiple installation options at each site, including: • Identification of the best incentives to fit the energy and financial circumstances of each site; • Identification of the challenges and likelihood of success in securing state, utility and (if applicable) federal incentives for each installation; • Recommendation of legal ownership structure for the systems and the best financial vehicle for the systems (third -party lease and power - purchase agreement; capital lease; capital purchase; etc...); • Identification of and recommendation for any required debt and ongoing cash -flow management required, including: • 1) Tax- exempt municipal leasing, off - balance -sheet financing with extended term; • 2) Tax- exempt Green Bond and other revenue bond mechanisms; • 3) Minnesotas Guaranteed Energy Savings Partnership (GESP); • 4) Community Solar Gardens; and • 5) Third -party power purchase agreements with tax equity partners. • Create pro formas for each possible financing and legal structure; and • Prequalify the City's renewable energy projects for likely funders/ lenders for each of the recommended financing options. 3) Create a "Deal Book" including Project Financing Assessments and Recommendation, including: • Outline of recommended financing tools and project legal structures; • Comprehensive cash flows for each option; and • Full annotation of every line item and assumption made, based on the previous two steps. 7of20 PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. The Eutectics team is deeply familiar with the process for maximizing Minnesota's electric regulatory structure and available federal, state and utility incentives. Eutectics' CEO Jeremy Kalin chief - authored Minnesota's first solar incentive, the SolarRewards program established in 2009, along with several landmark clean energy policies and financing platforms. Eutectics' Senior Advisor, Jeremy de Fiebre, worked for the Minnesota State Energy Office for 33 years, the last ten of which were as lead staffer for financing and grants. Eutectics' Chief Legal Advisor, Julie Padilla, has represented the U.S. Green Building Council Minnesota Chapter, the Mall of America, and several Minnesota suburban cities and is one of the most respected land use, public finance and regulatory attorneys in the region. Minnesota's landmark 2013 solar legislation established an aggressive solar standard for the state and approved a suite of incentives for specific segments of the solar market. While Eutectics has helped secure incentives for dozens of projects to date, we approach incentives differently than nearly all other clean energy developers and advisors. Eutectics' believes that the wisest approach is to focus first on structuring the best overall return — at the lowest risk — for the City. We focus on reducing overall system prices, reducing uncertainties that arise due to lack of financing and prioritizing technologies that produce the greater amount of solar electricity. For the City, Eutectics' preliminary financing assessment will identify the City's current credit rating, risk appetite and budget and finance practices. We will then assess how much value can be gained through a broader portfolio approach to all of the projects from the perspectives of system cost, efficient financing, and leveraged incentives. If required, Eutectics and LHB have multiple options to pursue, including a third - party, tax- equity partner who would: a) own the system for at least five years; b) lease the roof from the City; c) sell the solar electricity to the City; and then d) sell the system to the City at a minimal price in the sixth year. Further, Eutectics has developed a new tax equity solar partnership that could be a strong fit for the City, depending on a variety of factors. 8of20 PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. At the state level, Xcel Energy's Made in Minnesota solar incentive is intended to incent solar systems like the City to incorporate Minnesota - manufactured solar panels into their projects. Public entities like the City is considering can receive an incentive equal to approximately $8,600 /year for 10 years for using Bloomington, MN -based tenKsolar's panels. However, this incentive is only available for systems sized smaller than 40 kilowatts and is rewarded only by a random drawing held annually on February 28th. Some City facilities will fit this project size very nicely, while others may be able to support much larger packages. Eutectics and LHB will work together to determine whether to pursue this Made in Minnesota incentive, as well as Xcel Energy's new but more limited Solar *Rewards incentive, which is targeted toward even smaller projects under 20 kilowatts. For larger systems, Minnesota's new capacity credit incentive equal as much as $515 per month for a 100 kilowatt system, with the credit placed on the owner's Xcel electric utility bill. Some City facilities will be strong candidates for this capacity credit. Further, Minnesota is considering a Value of Solar Tariff that could pay the City a significantly higher rate for the solar produced as compared to the City's current retail rate paid to Xcel Energy. However, Xcel must first apply to the Public Utilities Commission to initiate the Value of Solar Tariff within the state, and Xcel has suggested it will be at least one or two years until they consider such a request. Finally, Eutectics is supporting the development of several megawatts of Community Solar Gardens, a new solar development model ready for deployment in early 2015 in Minnesota. Under the Community Solar Garden model, either the City or a third -party developer would construct, own, operate and maintain the solar system, either directly or via contracted services. Once each project is approved, Xcel Energy is required to accept all energy produced by the solar system. In a structure similar to the Community Supported Agriculture model, subscribers pay a subscription fee to the solar operator, and in exchange, they receive a proportional solar energy bill credit from Xcel Energy every month. Community Solar Gardens pose both opportunity and substantial risk for local governments; the solar bill credit is at least marginally higher than subscribers' current cost of power paid to Xcel, but the complex structure requires a lot of additional legal and financing steps. Eutectics will address both the financial benefits and the legal and financial risks to the City, so that the City can make a fully informed decision about whether to proceed with Community Solar Gardens on some or all of the City facilities that can support solar. In all cases, Eutectics' comprehensive approach to financing clean energy projects will ensure that the overall project structure provides the strongest benefits to the City with the least amount of risk. Eutectics will maximize the role of all federal, state and utility incentives within that framework. 9of20 Project Type Policy Development Statewide, MN Clients Minnesota Department of Administration Minnesota Department of Commerce Websites www.b3mn.org www. casestudies. b3 mn. org Green Prairie Loving and Learning Commranity pmmui�iniii� �n�wm�mmmmmmimmmmnmmimmnm PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B3) WW1, ST 0 0 1 FS, DATABASE An interactive website that highlights design andperformance information for B3 buildings. LHB was selected by the Department of Administration to lead a team in developing Sustainable Building Guidelines and a benchmarking tool to meet the requirements of legislation that became effective January 15, 2003. In addition to LHB, the team includes The Weidt Group and the Center for Sustainable Building Research at the University of Minnesota. The mandated legislation requires all new and substantially renovated state - funded buildings to meet aggressive energy reduction goals established by the Sustainable Buildings 2030 (SB2030) program. In addition to the SB2030 Energy Standard, which mandates carbon neutrality by 2030. The B3 Guidelines require projects to achieve a variety of holistic sustainability measures related to site and water, indoor environmental quality, and materials and waste. Along with providing project management and assisting with policy development, LHB has played a key role in the design of the B3 Case Studies Database. This online tool: • • tracks design and performance data for B3 buildings; • • provides a powerful tool for comparing data across projects; • • empowers the user to filter the case studies to focus on projects that are relevant to them,; and • • highlights the stories of top performers 10 of 20 Project Type 6 kW PV installation Minneapolis, MN Clients MnANG 133rd Air Wing PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. MnANG 133rd Air Wing Consolidated Maintenance Facility, Building 687 As part of a large remodeling project, installation of 6 KW of solar PV and a solar thermal project was proposed as a bid option to meet the renewable energy standard of the Air National Guard. Bids for the project came in low enough to allow construction. Project was completed in 2010. The project involved: design and reconfiguration of existing shop space for new functions; replacement of the facility roof, and all interior finishes, new lighting and HVAC systems with more energy efficient systems; installation of fire suppression system. The project followed LEED and ANG sustainable design guidelines with a goal of LEED Silver. Sustainable design strategies included building reuse, solar PV for onsite renewable energy production, a white "cool" roof, water use reduction, and optimized energy performed through careful selection of systems. 11 of 20 Project Type 40 KW Solar Array, Metro Transit Rail Support Facility, 24th and Hiawatha Minneapolis, MN Clients Metro Transit PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Metro Transit Rail Support Facility PV The rail Support Facility is a recently built building housing support staff and equipment for the Metro area Light Rail System. Unfortunately, the building was not built PV ready, so the available roof load ing capacity was limited. LHB looked at the structural capacity and building electrical system and then created a number of options suitable for evaluation by management. Additionally, a preliminary Xcel Energy submittal was created to reserve a place in the Solar Rewards Program. After program participation approval, a final design was created, bid and constructed. Issues that had to be solved included: the low available roof capacity, skewed orientation of the building, shading from mechanical equipment, preservation of the existing roof warranty, interconnection with the existing building lightning protection system. 12 of 20 Project Type 80 kw Ground mounted Solar Array Toledo, OH Client U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge LHB designed a large ground mount system in support of a legislative earmark for such a system at the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, East of Toledo, OH. Key considerations included where to site such a large array, reducing the inherent power loss from transmitting power over distance, balancing public perception of the visual impact of such system while keeping the system visible. 13 of 20 Project Type Photovoltaic Solar Array Medina, MN Client Hennepin County PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Hennepin County Photovoltaic Solar Array Hennepin County is providing a leadership role in generating clean and affordable electricity from a variety of renewable energy sources, including solar energy. LHB is the designer and engineer of record for the newest photovoltaic array system, the second largest in the state, installed on the roof of the Medina Public Works Building. LHB initially provided a feasibility study to determine Hennepin County's energy needs and to develop a method to install a solar electric energy system rated to 97 kW on the roof of the Public Works Facility. LHB worked with solar suppliers to determine which system concept would work best within the space restrictions of the roof. In addition to generatingapproximately 5% of the building's energy, the array benefits the environment by saving approximately 100 tons of carbon dioxide emissions on an annual basis and more than 2,500 tons of greenhouse gas over the life of the array system. 14 of 20 Project Type Renewable Energy Improvements Afton, William O'Brien, Fort Snelling, Lake Shetek, and Lac qui Parle, MN Client Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Renewable Energy for Xcel Sites The MnDNR hired LHB for a three -year long project to develop an assessment process and an analytical tool for the DNR to assess existing and future sites for the installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems. The analytical tool also determines whether photovoltaic installations should be free standing, or building- mounted. LHB worked with Xcel /NSP, the electricity provider, to create interconnection agreements and coordinate installation. 6G ­,, Lac qui Parle WMA Office Power C,,,,,pt,,n'Generatlon Ti­­­ w Mw2 20 AM wad Ma9 20A1 445xWn­1,80.9k. ,., As of this date, LHB also provided design, construction documents, and construction administration for the solar array collection systems at six DNR sites which included state parks, and regional, and area offices. Working with the DNR and Xcel /NSP, LHB also participates in the DNR's ongoing remote monitoring and data collection. Additional site evaluation and design services are ongoing until a total of 100 kW solar photovoltaic installtions are completed. eras i K nsei ernws i ePn�2s i urN n��s i Too s i 3(Tmp 0(rrp 5(sa) 6(siN T(mwn) aJ-) 9-1) 2 1.21.1 11111, Sinc .. .em Monitoring Results at Lac qui Parle 15 of 20 Project Type Interpretive Educational Facility Necedah, WI Client US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) Recognition Designed to LEED Silver Specifications PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. US Fish and Wildlife Necedah Visitor Center LHB was hired to provide services for Architectural /Engineering for a new visitor center providing environmental education and trails, outdoor classroom, and wildlife viewing platforms. The 11,800 square foot Visitor Center and Headquarters include office, lobby, exhibit and education space for staff and visitors to the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge is renowned for the Whooping Crane Nesting and Nurturing Program. Sustainable design elements include: • Reduction of impervious cover and use of bioinfiltration basins to minimize storm water runoff • Native species incorporated into the landscape not requiring irrigation or extensive maintenance • Rainwater harvesting system to reduce potable water use. • Geothermal water to water and water to air HVAC systems • Regionally extracted and manufactured materials • Building insulation • 48 KW Photovoltaic system. This system could contribute up to 50% of the energy used on this site. • A power usage display will allow staff and visitors to see amount of electricity used and produced at the facility. 16 of 20 Project Type Headquarter's Building / Visitor Center; New Construction Client US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Recognition LEED Silver Certified PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District Headquarters /Visitor Center The Headquarters Building Addition at the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District involved LHB conducting the Phase I study and schematic design, and the Phase II final design. LHB provided architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, and mechanical, electrical, structural and civil engineering services. The original building was not able to provide adequate space for staff. AR /1 The addition had to be situated on a challenging site. The design needed to consider safety and security issues due to the site's proximity to trail access, parking lot location, and the use of paved areas by large trucks. Another challenge was designing a front entry that would be more inviting to visitors, and thus consider rearranging the interior existing space. Im. W u J,P mz M, CAWA PT IIiM 17 of 20 NU Im. W u J,P mz M, CAWA PT IIiM 17 of 20 Project Type High Performance Design Improvements Duluth, MN Client Lake Superior Zoo Duluth, Minnesota Partners LHB Lake Superior Zoo Minnesota Power City of Duluth Public Works & Utilities Rebuild Minnesota Institute PERFORMANCE 111)111U V111 4 DESIGN. Lake Superior Zoo High Performance LHB provided design services for the Lake Superior Zoo's participation in Rebuild Minnesota, a Department of Commerce program. The designs improve energy and environmental performance at the zoo while educating the public. Solar Hot Water Heating — Animal Barn This project involved placing a solar hot water heater on the roof of the animal barn which houses farm animals in the children's zoo. A solar panel and storage tank system supplies up to 60% of the required hot water load of 300 gallons /day. Six vacuum tube collectors of 84" x 80" connected to five, 92- gallon integral heat exchanger stainless steel tanks will heat and store the water. The design uses the solar resource for partial heating of the animal barn in the winter months. Photovoltaic Fueling Station for Electric Vehicles A set of photovoltaic (PV) panels were installed for the power required to charge the zoo's electric car. The fueling station and electric car are located in the parking lot near the main entry to create an educational opportunity for the public. Geothermal Heat Exchanger for the Polar Bear and Seal Pools The current pools for the polar bears and seals tend to overheat in the summer. Several large, inefficient gas boilers heat the pools in the winter to approximately 55° E The proposed system is a heat exchanger that would take advantage of the steady, year - round temperature of the nearby spring's subsurface waters. Estimated energy saved: 100,000 kilowatt hours per year (kWh /yr) savings compared to a 60 -ton, air- cooled chiller running 1250 kWh /yr.. This project is awaiting funding for construction. 18 of 20 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII The Challenge Sallufl Bair Airneiriicaiin its one of the Ediina "s irnosfl 1popullair neighborhood restaurants (known for its great service and carefully chosen eclectic French irnenua. "rhe Sallufl "s owner, P'aira sole Restaurant Holdings, had recently installed LIED lighting and energy saving hood vent controls iii two roew restaurants iii the Minneapolis St P` auall region. With posil ilve ex liaeiriiences resulting inn Iloweir electric bills and improved light quality for the "froint of the lhouse," P'airasolle waited to try retrofitting ;an existing restaurant with the sairne energy saving technologies. "rhe Sallufl Bair Airneiriican liairo ect goals included:: Reduce monthly utility bills and maintenance costs ® Ensure quality, dimmable lighting for a high-quality dining experience ® Financing that fits the unique structure of a restaurant group ® Environmental stewardship through energy conservation "' °II""IIIll e So III u�t Iii oii� fi Zero-down, cash-f low-positive Security through special assessment rather than via owners' personal guarantees Energy savings exceeds loan Cash preserved �,, operations, (III p;° i) i e iccess ,( improvements: LED lights and kitchen hood controls. EnergyMisers secured upfront re- from , contractor Parasole enlisted Eutectics Cons-iti— to facilitate financin- via Edina's PACE , a a a project 1 l Jeremy Kalin, president of Eutectics Consulting a project project s r 3 reasons. First, Bremer Bank was the first community country to fund a PACE Fro�ect. Second Salut us the first e I . ro;ect In Edina - and in Minnesota - to be financed via PACE. And third - maybe most importantly - without PACE financing, Salut would never have been able to move forward with the pra emissions. greenhouse gas a collaborative a Parasole, an a a sole Restaurant Group. �T64 ! Bremer Barr k� IIII Illi � IIIC liii Ilu Ilu liii Ilu PACE Assessment:$ 39,308 Term: 5 years Rate: 7.5% fixed II'dl- ,�IwII��II�I�� II��rV,:.�rlll� Size: 13,000 sq ft Year built: 1940 a �)) 10V Y rl fcfc,Ifit LED lights Kitchen hood controls zra"illII II figs Annual savings for the first 5 years: $5,569 Annual savings after PACE is repaid: $15,296 1 u t �. �� o� n�ll�ilg �I C 19 of 20 R11 M v FINANCE- COMMERCE.COM I11TaEAMN `SolarNote' aims to reduce complexity in financing Former legislator designs program to help building owners BYFRANKJOSSI Special to Finance & Commerce The first project of the new financing program "SolarNote" became a reality in late December on the rooftop of the United Noodles grocery store and deli in south Minneapolis. SolarNote is the brainchild of Jeremy Kalin, president of Eutectics Consulting LLC and a former DEL legislator. The biggest roadblock to the expansion of solar power, he said, is the difficulty that building owners encounter getting bank financing and understanding the various tax credits and rebates available to investors. "SolarNote gives our clients access to capital to pay for a smart investment in their building in the medium and long term," he said. "It solves that problem and removes the complexity." The program offers building owners a chance to become part of the solar energy revolution with no money down, he said. In a SolarNote project, a bank or financial in- stitution finances the panels, and the bor- rower agrees to transfer all of a project's rebates and federal tax credits to the lender, Kalin said. Clients can make monthly payments over five years or fewer. Three lenders have agreed to finance three different 40 kilowatt projects that are using solar panels manufactured by tenKsolar of Bloomington: United Noodles, the Angry Catfish Bicycle and Coffee Bar in Minneapolis, and Kuball Dairy in Water- ville. They are all 40- kilowatt projects be- cause that is the ceiling for rebates from Xcel Energy's Solar Rewards program Ramon Tan of United Noodles, 2015 E. 24th St., found out about the program through Cedar Creek Energy, a Coon Rapids -based renewable energy installer and consultant. Rob Appelhof, Cedar Creek's president, said he worked with United Noodles owner for three years on reducing the 15,000- square -foot grocery store's energy use and on adding solar pan- els to its flat roof. "We spoke to a couple ofbanks, but they didn't really understand the process of a solar energy project," Appelhof said. "Je- remy and his team understand how solar financing works and how the rebates work. We didn't have to educate anyone." The lender on the project was the Min- neapolis -based Community Reinvestment Mind, a community development lender with projects around the country. The fund will receive $1.50 per watt, or $60,000, from the Solar Rewards program of Min- neapolis -based Xcel Energy. Banks financing SolarNote projects re- ceive the borrowers' 80 percent federal tax credit and a "Made in Minnesota" tax in- centive, which requires that the panels be manufactured in the state. The choices typically are tenKsolar or Mountain Iron - based Silicon Energy. Kalin said he will not install Silicon Energy panels because the company relies on more expensive tax-eq- uity financing, with a California partner re- ceiving the Minnesota -based rebates and federal tax credit "I want SolarNote and our other energy efficiency programs to be financed and STAFFPHOTO'. BILLKLOTZ Jeremy Kalin, president of Eutectics Consulting LLC, stands with Ramon Tan, owner of United Noodles in south Minneapol is. The United Noodles solar- energy project, facilitated by Eutectics' SolarNote program, cost $260,000, but rebates dropped it to $180,000, Kalin says. Tan will pay slightly more than $40,000 for panels after tax incentives are figured into the equation. Eutectics Consulting LLC Owner and CEO: Jeremy Kalin Location: 100 N. Sixth St., Suite 222c, Minneapolis Services: Financing for energy efficiency, renewables, and public policy consulting Website: http: / /eutecticsllc.com/ Latest annual revenue: NA Employees: Four Projected hiring: Two built in Minnesota as much as possible," he said. The United Noodles project cost $260,000, but rebates dropped it to $180,000, Kalin said. Tan will pay slightly more than $40,000 for panels after tax in- centives are figured into the equation, he said. The initial plan called for United Noo- dles to pay $809 a month for 58 months, but Tan decided to contribute more per month to pay it off faster. "This is a pretty good deal for everyone, and I'd rather not pay on a loan longer than I have to," Tan said. The program offers enough flexibility that United Noodles, which has $5 million in annual revenue, can reduce monthly payments if it needs to, Tan said. The panels will produce around 10 per- cent of his power needs and feed directly into his electrical system rather than be sold to the grid, Tan said. He expects the panels will likely pay for themselves within five years, making the power they produce at that point free. The program offers building owners a chance to become part of the solar revolution with no money down, he said A native of the Philippines, Tan opened United Noodles in 1972 and moved to his present location in 1980. Despite having grown up in a warm climate with plenty of sun, he sees solar in frigid Minnesota "as a good source of energy." Kalin, 88, left the Legislature in 2010 after two terms in office. Among his legisla- tive achievements was the PACE (Prop- erty Accessed Clean Energy) program, which allows municipalities to lend money to building owners to make energy -effi- ciency improvements. Money for the loans is captured through municipal bonds, which are backed by a special assessment on property owners in the PACE program Eutectics has created an investor net- work for energy - efficiency projects while collaborating with Bremer Bank and the St. Paul Port Authority to extend PACE statewide. While building his business over the past 8% years, he says he spoke to nearly 400 lenders, from Wall Street to tiny Main Street banks, to develop a more inexpensive financing process for energy efficiency and solar projects. Part of his pitch with SolarNote is that when businesses try to get financing on their own or push it to a third -party finan- cier such as an investment company, they end up dealing with excessive details and service fees. "There's a layer of complexity that building owners can't wade through on their own," he said. "The only players serv- ing this role are high -cost, third -party own- ers that require complex funding instruments." Contractors like SolarNote because they no longer have to spend as much time helping customers secure financing, Kalin "We don't want clients to have to pay exorbitant fees to do energy efficiency and solar projects." — Jeremy Kalin, president, Eutectics Consulting LLC said. Clients also will pay off their cost of the solar panels within a three -to five -year time frame, much shorter than traditional solarprojects, he said. Kahn's partner on two of the projects is Bremer Bank. Greg Hohlen, senior vice president who works in the bank's St. Cloud office, said in an email that he "is ex- cited about what the future might hold" and feels "there a great upside for busi- nesses" that want to pursue solar installa- tions in the future. "It is definitely a fascinating investment," Hohlen said. SolarNote isn't Eutectics' only offering. Kalin sees his company as a "finance facil- itator" that connects businesses wanting energy - efficiency projects with capital will- ing to help finance it. His approach is gain- ing notice. The U.S. Department of Energy and the White House recently invited Eu- tectics to join their `Better Buildings Chal- lenge" because "no one else is doing this Main Street focused financing," Kalin said. Eutectics' role is to help clients get rea- sonable funding for energy efficiency and solar projects through SolarNote, PACE, equipment leasing and other approaches, Kalin said As of now, he said, Eutectics has few competitors outside of San Francisco- based BluePath Finance, which it works with on some projects. "We don't want clients to have to pay exorbitant fees to do energy - efficiency and solar projects," he said. "Having us handle the financing just makes sense." Reprinted udth permission ofFlnonce &COmmvcel . 002014 20 of 20 In Response to 2014 City • Shorewood RFP — Renewable Energy Alternatives Study • 100 1=1 I t - M*7 14R.!3 I 10 m 111, 111F,111• •� Redv',�,Ae CONFIDENTIAL SEP 12 2014 2—FSUgREWOOD ® lie Wind Consulting 2 • Chief Manager Biography 4 Associate Biographies 5 ■ Testimonials 7 ■ Consulting Scope 9 is References 12 ® RedWind Budget 14 ■ Conclusion 15 Addendum A: Detail Budget Support 16 Addendum B: Most Recent Press Release 1.7 CONFIDENTIAL Red Wind Consulting, LLC Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prairie, MN 55344 %e (612) 616-8074 (c) www.redwindconsuhing.com -R-04ahe. drusty*redwindeonsulting.com RedWind provides unparalleled expertise within the North American Renewable Energy Market, with an emphasis on both solar and wind development. Our Chief Manager, Dan Rustowicz, founded RedWind with the goal of helping landowners, government entities, developers, independent power producers, utilities and investors maximize their potential in this same market. Based out of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, RedWind operates throughout North America, and more recently worldwide, with substantial experience in the Midwest ISO (MISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERGOT), PJM and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) regions. Our primary areas of expertise include but are not limited to: • Consulting • Development • Advisory Services • Wind Energy Expert Witness Testimony • Financing Solutions RedWind prides itself in simplifying the complexities of renewable energy, its ability to move quickly and adapt, and maximizing value for its clients. .RedWind offers its clients insight from approximately over a decade of experience operating in this dynamic industry. Mr. Rustowicz has consulted on numerous renewable energy projects, ranging in size from 2-144MWs that are currently operating across the USA, with numerous distribution. projects located in the great State of Minnesota. Our firm has taken on tasks such as land acquisition, interconnection initiation, Greenfield development, project-specific and portfolio due diligence, financial modeling and sensitivity analysis, selling licenses to our financial model to clients, RFP off-take and develop-build-transfer preparation completion and submission, reverse RFP marketing campaigns to secure off-take, WJ ke 40W CONFIDENTIAL 2 RedWind Consulting, LLC SUA Daniel E. Rustowiez CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 s6e (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prairie, MN 55344 vim (612) 616-8074 (c) www.redwindeonsulting.com 'R0dZ0hd,, drusty*redwindconsulting.com wind turbine supply technical evaluation and turbine supply agreement negotiation, and advisory services for both sellers and buyers. As a result of this vast experience, RedWind has extensive industry relationships ranging from other consultants, manufacturers, engineering, procurement & construction firms, utilities, landowners, developers, and investors including tax equity which can and will be leveraged for the City of Shorewood. RedWind has built a reputation in the renewable energy space as a trusted partner with the expertise to achieve results, make sound recommendations, and guide our clients through the many hurdles of clean energy development. As a result of our experience and expertise, we are well positioned to conduct a renewable energy analysis for the City of Shorewood ("the City"). Furthermore, we have managed the development aspects of renewable energy projects from start to finish. Thus, we've been exposed to various projects in different areas which have allowed us to broaden our understanding of the critical elements necessary for renewable energy installations/facilities and weigh the pros and cons from a financial investment perspective. This allows us to offer objective insight(s) that will prove indispensable to the City. A 1W -Med?01le CONFIDENTIAL 3 RedWind Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 44430 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 %fly www.redwindeonsulting.com -Red,�ahee En Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA (952) 303-4769 (o) (612) 616-8074 (c) drusty*redwindconsulting.com Mr. Rustowicz formed RedWind after spending approximately fourteen years in a corporate setting. Prior to starting his own venture, Dan was the Chief Development Officer of a privately held Minnesota renewables company. There he led all regional offices within North America, aspects of wind origination, both Greenfield and co-development, all due diligence, financial modeling, negotiations, legal contract review, and procurement. Formerly, Mr. Rustowicz was the Manager, Business Development Wind Energy for John Deere Credit. His contributions in Corporate Business Development, in which Strategic Growth Initiatives are researched, analyzed, and acted upon, as its "Team Leader" for the Wind Initiative were instrumental in commercializing the wind business for John Deere. Mr. Rustowicz has been involved in the wind business since July 2004. Prior to the wind initiative, Mr. Rustowicz had worked at various divisions within. Deere & Company since May 2000, when he was hired into the Strategic Management Program, a rotational program for high performers fresh out of business school. Prior to joining Deere, Dan had received a MBA from Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business with concentrations in finance and strategy among others. Before attaining his MBA, Mr. Rustowicz spent approximately five years with Ernst & Young, LLP as a Senior Auditor. Mr. Rustowicz received a Bachelor of Science in Accounting and All College Honors Distinction from Canisius College. Dan is a CPA, inactive in the State of NY, and Eagle Scout. Dan has been active on the Parish Council for St. Hubert's, and has functioned as a Coach for baseball via the YMCA and St. Hubert's volleyball, among others. se -P,ed"h,e CONFIDENTIAL Red,11ind Consulting, LLC Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 616-8074 (c) www.redwindconsulting.com drusty*redwindeonsuhing.com Mr. Wright joined RedWind in May 2013 as an Associate. Charles has been tasked with growing the firm via active sales and marketing efforts, and continuing the expansion of RedWind into solar markets, especially in the eastern part of the USA where Charles resides. Prior to joining Ile Wind, Charles was an Associate at Greenwich Associates, a research and strategic consultancy for financial services, where he specialized in Equities and Banking. At Greenwich, Charles worked on new sales, fostered relations with key decision makers, managed the sales and delivery process of products, and forecasted market size, projected assets and commissions for clients. Charles was instrumental in forming a group to gain management approval on implementing more environmentally friendly business practices. This initial effort morphed into a broader initiative by members of Greenwich, known as, "GIVE," in which its members participated in a variety of volunteer and fund raising activities with active financial support from the firm. Charles graduated from Colgate University where he earned a Bachelors of Arts in Biology and English Literature. He also completed the Accelerator Summer Business Institute at The Owen Graduate School of Management — Vanderbilt University. Most recently, Charles attended Harvard University where he received instruction in environmental management and corporate sustainability strategy. Charles' solid finance and consulting background coupled with his tenacity and passion for sustainability will enable him to effectively support all of RedWind's and its clients' objectives, helping to shape a sustainable future for the next generation. CONFIDENTIAL 5 Mr. James Rustowicz joined RedWind in June 2014. James is an intern responsible for website creation, and has been tasked with growing the firm through research on effective selling techniques Prior to joining RedWind Consulting, James completed his freshman year of college at St. John Fisher College where he is a Marketing and Finance major. While at St. John Fisher, James has been involved with the St. John Fisher Service Scholar program, the Student Conduct Committee, Marketing Club, Sports Management Club, and Orientation Team. In Rochester, New York, James volunteers his time with the Rochester City Schools, working with at-risk children. At home in Grand Island, New York, James is involved in many aspects of his community. He is a cadet with the Grand Island Fire Company and also volunteers with the Grand Island Soccer Club, where he coaches soccer. James is active in his parish, St. Stephen Church, in particular, the Parish Players. CONFIDENTIAL n. RedWind Consulting, LLC Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 616-8074 (e) www.redwindco'nsulting.com drusty*redwindconsulting.com Testimonials "Dakota Plains Energy has been very impressed with both the professionalism and extensive industry connections that RedWind Consulting brings to a project. We have come to rely heavily on Mr. Rustowicz' s knowledge and experience within the renewable energy industry, and would not hesitate to use him again on all our future projects." -Heath Johnson, Principal, Dakota Plains Energy, Inc. "RedWind Consulting and Dan Rustowicz will give out of the box ideas and implementation for your project. Dan's background in accounting and work as a CPA allows RedWind Consulting to "financial engineer" projects to their most profitable level and financing possibilities. RedWind Consulting will be on time with the project requirements and meet the project goals and time lines. RedWind can take the step by step process and obtain the desired outcomes. I recommend RedWind Consulting." -Richard Jarboe, Formerly Manager Business Development, Indeck Energy, now Retired "We were very satisfied working with Dan Rustowicz and RedWind Consulting on the sale of our Wind Farm Development. Dan was extremely diligent in every stage of the sales cycle. He was professional, responsive and has extensive knowledge of the entire Wind industry. His database of potential buyers and his connections in the industry were invaluable. Dan's understanding of the complex sales process and project numbers were instrumental to our success. We would not hesitate to work with Red Wind Consulting again!" -Chris Schaefer, General Manager, New Centennial Power se -Redl,la",e CONFIDENTIAL 7 I (952) 303-4769 (o) (612) 61.6-8074 (c) "RedWind and its associates bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to wind development opportunities. Dan understands what is required from a development and financial perspective to get projects over the finish line. I highly recommend RedWind and Dan to anyone who is looking to develop a wind site." -Andy Redinger, Managing Director, KeyBanc Capital Markets — Cleveland, Ohio "Dan is exceedingly bright and is truly an expert in all aspects of wind development. I would recommend his services to any company that is contemplating entrance into renewable energy development." -Bryan Blakeman, Managing Principal, HUS CONFIDENTIAL 0 1. Perform a renewable energy alternatives analysis and study for City facilities in Shorewood, MN. RedWind will provide a comprehensive review and study of City facilities that details each renewable energy alternative and the practical application for Shorewood.' M= I - Project kick-off meeting a. RedWind will meet with City staff members to discuss the City facilities that are being considered for a renewable energy alternative to determine: i. The purpose/use of each City facility, which is necessary to evaluate which renewable energy option is best suited for a given facility ii. The electricity consumption/demand of each City facility and how it fluctuates throughout the day and over the year iii. The current building codes for each City facility to assess what permits are necessary iv. Local covenants and ordinances that may/may not regulate and/or prohibit renewable energy systems b. RedWind will conduct an independent review of City facilities. RedWind will review the following in their assessment of which City facilities are most practical and best equipped for renewable energy option: I Emphasis is on City facilities only for purposes herein, primarily due to budget unknowns tied to the number of other facilities CONFIDENTIAL 1 'dVA Daniel E. Rustowiez CPA, MBA EL or (952) 303-4769 (o) 4W (612) 616-8074 (c) Rv'd"hd. drusty*redwindconsulting.com i. Location (rural vs. urban area, shaded vs. sunny, windy vs. not windy, etc.) ii. Building design structure (shape, etc.) iii. Size/building dimensions iv. Community buy-in—to gauge whether or not the local community is supportive 2. RedWind will review Renewable Energy Alternatives and potential applications to City facilities and residential and commercial properties a. RedWind will use the information gathered from City staff members and its independent review to provide practical applications for public facilities, which includes: i. Providing a summary of which facilities are best suited for wind and/or solar installations and why (energy demand/consumption, building codes, size, location, local support, etc.) ii. Providing a summary of which facilities are not suited for any renewable energy alternatives and why 3. Re Wind will prepare a Financial Benefit Analysis for renewable energy alternatives. The analysis will take into consideration certain technology and equipment that RedWind deems suitable and financially sensible for the given facilities. The analysis will include: a. Opinion of installation cost b. Operational costs C. Maintenance costs d. System(s) reliability evaluation e. Anticipated lifecycle costs f, Cost Benefit Analysis CONFIDENTIAL Iff RedWind Consulting, LLC Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Sir (612) 616-8074 (e) www.redwindconsulting.com Jk*d?a �* M- drusty*redwindeonsulting.com g. Financial incentive programs (i.e., "Made in Minnesota" rebates/incentives, "Value of Solar Tariff," Net Metering, sales tax exemptions, property tax exemptions, etc.) h. Minnesota Renewable Energy Standard/Renewable Portfolio Standard ("RPS") i. Consultant's recommendation for applicability 4. Consultant will manage the entire project and provide a timeline for deliverables (periodic progress reports, project meeting agendas, handouts, and meeting minutes). 5. Consultant will prepare a draft study report for staff review. a. Attend Council work session to present and discuss draft findings 6. Prepare final study report including consultant recommendation, and comments of Council and staff. %C 71?wlllahll� CONFIDENTIAL 11 RedWind Consulting, LLC Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prai MN 55344 (612) 616-8074 (c) 3 www.redwindeonsulting.com drusty*redwindconsulting.com FRITM77=1 - RedWind is happy to provide below industry references to the City. To the extent that the City would like to talk with any of these individuals RedWind would be pleased to place a courtesy call and -provide notice. Andy Redinger — KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. — Managing Director & Group Head Energy I I �q 11� I I III I I I joll Jill, We have known Andy since 2007 from Dan's days as Chief Development Officer of the privately owned renewables company and we worked on several deals together over the years and continue to try to broker deals and brain storm from time to time. Charles Pughe — Green Mountain Power Corp. — Formerly, Power Generation Leader C: (802) 316-6826 We supported Green Mountain Power's wind turbine generator RFP procurement process, technical evaluation and actively supported their turbine supply agreement negotiations with Vestas from start to finish during 2010 and 2011. Ron Arrington — John Deere Credit — Deputy Chief Counsel W: (515) 267-4291 Dan worked extensively with Ron on all facets of the wind energy business during June 2005 through March 2007 when I was still with John Deere Credit. William Ratzburg — Deere & Company — Loaned Executive W: (309) 764-3705 CONFIDENTIAL 12 Dan reported to Bill while I was the "Team Leader" for the Wind Initiative in Corporate Business Development from 2004 until 2005. Jan Paulin — Cielo Wind Power — Chief Executive Officer W: (619) 321-6860 C: (619) 261-2000 We provided consulting services for Jan's previous company, Padoma Wind Power, specifically advisory wind project buy-side services when it was owned by NRG during 2009 and 2010. Richard Jarboe — Indeck Energy Services, Inc. — Retired: Manager, Business Development C: (815) 262-1675 We provided consulting services including strategy, utility-scale wind project feasibility and financial viability via creation of a financial model for Indeck in 2009 and 2010 and reported into Richard. Bryan Blakeman — Kaye/Bassman International Corp. — Partner W: (214) 550 -0203 C: (214) 529-1100 We met with Bryan during 2009 and provided consulting services to him as he had a desire to understand the renewables space in an effort to offer recruiting services. CONFIDENTIAL 13 Low Estimate: $22,500.00 Expected Budget: $28,350.00 High Estimate: $32,250.00 See Addendum A for detail support. Travel Audtet: $2,500.00 •� i• IT Daniel '" 303-4769 o :l Geothermal will be evaluated by pulling in another Consultant as RedWind has not offered this service to date, and would be incremental to the above Budget. Given what's at stake, third party bonafide meteorologists and solar PV production firms will and should be leveraged for those locations ; e Wind and the City desire to pursue. While e Wind can conduct rough estimates, it's critical politically to do this aspect right and ensure analytics ultimately drive decision - making. As such, this too will be incremental to the above Budget. However, RedWind has parties who desire to work with and for RedWind at reduced rates which RedWind will pass onto the City should we be selected. 2 Implementation is a separate proposal and budget that will need to be prepared CONFIDENTIAL 14 RedWind Consulting, LLC Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 616-8074 (c) www.redwindconsufting.com drusty*redwindeonsulting.com RedWind prides itself in fostering long-term mutually beneficial relationships. We welcome such a relationship with the City as we are committed to the renewable energy space long-term and are passionate about our role in shaping a more environmentally friendly world one project at a time. We believe that our experience, credentials, candor and pragmatic approach position us to be an excellent consultant to the City in its effort to determine if renewable energy alternatives make practical sense for its municipality. Most importantly, the City should rest easy that dWind embraces the value of integrity in all we do — we will make the right recommendation every time even if it means our relationship with the City comes to an end as a result and the City chooses not to pursue renewable energy alternatives. Given our strong reputation, extensive relationships in the space, keen market intelligence, and solid financial modeling skills, we are well positioned to conduct a renewable energy alternatives analysis to identify practical, efficient and financially rewarding/valuable renewable energy alternatives that are best for City facilities. RedWind Consulting appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal and the City's consideration. We look forward to working with the City. Amplexabitur sole'! RedWind Consulting, LLC I "Embrace the Sun" in Latin a 116Ae OW CONFIDENTIAL 15 RedWind Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 44430 Eden Prairie, NIN 55344 www.redwindconsulting.com Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA (952) 303-4769 (o) (612) 616-8074 (c) drusty(& ,redwindconsulting.com Provide practical applications for public facilities =A- 3=1- ZIUM= Prepare Financial Benefit Analysis (including evaluation of renewable energy technology) Project Management Manage the entire project, provide a timeline for deliverables and produce progress reports, agendas, minutes, etc. ff -Im a 0 T. a =- Prepare draft study report for staff review Attend Council work session to present and discuss draft findings Final Study Report Prepare final study report including our recommendation, and comments of Council and staff Review of final study by Chief Manager mr• IV111:17WIM1. 7T4: 0 At CONFIDENTIAL 30-35 10-15 5-8 25-30 1.5-2 5 10 111.5-140 16 RedWind Consulting, LLC Daniel E. Rustowiez CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 (952) 303-4769 (o) Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Sir (612) 616-8074 (c) www.redwindeonsulting.com 'k-OdplaAe- drusty*redwindconsulting.com RedWind Press Release TM RedWind Consulting Advises JRC US Holdings, LLC on Purchase of 12 MW Solar Deals JRC contracted exclusively with RedWind to identify and advise on the acquisition Minneapolis, MN - July 1, 2014 -RedWind Consulting announces the completion of two solar projects in Massachusetts for JRC US Holdings, LLC (JRC). RedWind served as the exclusive financial advisor to JRC for this transaction. "RedWind's network and access to deal flow is extensive, and proved to be invaluable," states Jeff Jenner, Managing Partner of JRC. The projects will supply the residents of Massachusetts with 12 MWs of clean, renewable solar energy for approximately 25 years. The projects are expected to achieve commercial operation in the second quarter of 2015. RedWind identified the acquisition target and sold a license for its financial model to JRC. After completing extensive financial modeling of the projects and providing strategic advice throughout the due diligence period, RedWind drafted the letters of intent between JRC and the developer and brought the deal to completion. "It was very rewarding to help JRC make its first and significant investment in solar energy by leveraging our extensive industry knowledge and relationships," states Dan Rustowicz, chief manager of RedWind Consulting. "The solar energy market is heating up with high caliber players such as JRC making substantial investments for utility scale projects." V -Oeome- CONFIDENTIAL 17 Red Wind Consulting, LLC aVA Daniel E. Rustowicz CPA, MBA P.O. Box 44430 SLAPF (952) 303-4769 (o) lq� Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 616-8074 (c) 'RV' www.redwindeonsulting.com d?a Aee- drusty*redwindconsulting.com RedWind Consulting is a renewable energy consulting firm led by a veteran renewable energy professional. The company focuses on utility scale solar and wind energy projects for the worldwide market, specializing in all aspects of consulting, advisory services, project development, expert witness testimony and identifying financing solutions. Clients include utilities, renewable energy developers, investors and landowners. For more information go to: www.redwindconsultin �M-.90—m 10, CONFIDENTIAL IV SEBESTA Delivering Solutions » improving Lives SEP 12 2014 CI"T"Y OF SHO�EWOOD Transmittal Cover Prepared /Delivered by: Received by signature: Name: Date: Time: Transmittal # Date: 9/12/2014 Attn: Paul Hornby From: Katie Anthony Company: City of Shorewood Sebesta Address: 5755 Country Club Road _ 1450 Energy Park Suite #: Suite 300 City: Shorewood St. Paul, MN 55108 St: MN Zip: 55331 651.634.7254 Tel: Fax: RE: Client Project _ Sebesta # or Name 14 -09 Project # P14006.80 o We are Sending: Via: The transmitted item(s) is /are: ❑ Drawings ® Fed Ex /UPS overnight ❑ FYI ❑ Digital Media ❑ USPS ❑ For Approval ❑ Report ❑ Courier ❑ For Signature ® Other RFP Response ❑ Hand Carry ❑ For Review /Comment ❑ ❑ Other ❑ Reviewed /Commented ❑ ❑ ❑ Revised /Re- submitted ❑ ❑ ® As you requested ❑ ❑ ❑ Please return a copy to sender ®- of -. Item # # of Copies Description 1 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study RFP Response Prepared /Delivered by: Received by signature: Name: Date: Time: "It-enewable Energy Alternatives Study Due: September 12, 2014 Phone: 651.634.7297 Email: dharrison@sebesta.com SEBESTA Delivering Solutions • Improving Lives ������0����\� ���������� ��� Delivering Solutions - Improving Lives September 12,2O14 Paul HombuPE City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MINI 55331 RE: Renewable Energy Alternatives Study City Project 14-09 Dear Mr. Honnbv: 8ebeata. Inc. (Gebeeto) is excited to provide our proposal to provide a Renewable Energy Alternatives Study for the City of Shorewood. Smbesta is nmUono|k/ recognized as a premier provider ufsustoinabi|hv and engineering services for the built environment, ranging from energy master planning through program nnanagennant, engineering ayetonns so|utinnn, construction aupport, and system validation. We specialize in delivering building solutions to our clients that are financially, socially, and environmentally sustainable. The integrated and comprehensive approach you will experience includes core services such as energy and euatainabi|itv p|anninQ, nsnovvab|e energy system feasibility and design, energy efficiency, sustainable desiQn, and operations and maintenance, which enhances our overall capability to address the entire lifecycle of the built environment. Gebesta has worked on renewable energy projects from the most basic to some of the most cutting edge technologies. We have integrated renewable energy systems into building and campus energy systems, we have determined technical and economic feasibility, and we continue to assist in the devel- opment of new technologies. In mddition, for this project we have partnered with Pmrhino+WiUto assist with analyzing city policies that can enhance uptake of renewable energy systems in the residential and commercial sectors. Thank you for the opportunity to respond 10 this F<FF! Please contact Katie Anthony at 651.634,7254 or konthony@oebeota.00rn for additional information. We look forward to discussing this project in further detai|, and to assisting the City of Shorewood with this exciting project. Sincerely Katie Anthony, LEE[}APB[)+CO+K8 Dave Harrison, PE, LEEOAP Project Manager Phnnipu|-in'Cherge 3EBE5TA,|NC. 145O Energy Park Dr. Suite 3OOEast St. Paul, IVIN55lO8 651.6340775 s,00smzom Who W�`Are Established in1A04.Gebestaiva nationally-recognized provider offull- service engineering, energy perfonnanoe, commissioning and design services. As a company, we promote collaborative and sustainable solutions that are designed to ensure occupant comfort, improve efficiency and reduce operational costs. VVe create exceptional built environments that meet the most complex ofchallenges. Our ability to connect across markets and disciplines allows us to approach our core services from different pempeotivea, and gives us an unmatched ability to create innovative solutions. Sobesta'o professional staff ia linked across a nationwide network ofoffices. What We DO As a premier service provider ofconsulting uo|udonn, we deliver our integrated services as o unified beam throughout our client-focused merkateegmenta,ApproaohingchaU*nQeofromdiffanantpempeotiwaa — — from master planning to detailed design, implementation and optimization utrategieo — —mmsupportuurc|ienbsthroughevaryphaoeofepnojeotwith expert advice that optimizes the effectiveness of their facility budgets. Sebeste has o depth of unique expertise and project specialization including: Commissioning-, Retro-commissioning; Plant and Process Engineering; Building 8yahamm Analysis & Design; Power Delivery Systems; Energy Performance; Sustainobi|dy and Owner's Representation. Our PeOD|B Our professionals operate as an integrated workforce to create multi- disciplinary teams that provide a range of technical knowledge and services encompassing project managemont, process and wy|ua engineering, planning and studies, construction services, cost estimates and analysis. SERV|CE8 Planning &Design Commissioning Re no-oommisaioning Energy Performance Gustainabi|ity Environmental Strategies Power Delivery DFF|CE8 St. Paul, &1N Cedar Rapids, |A Chicago, IL yWudiaon.V0 Dallas, TX Austin, TX MARKETS Government Education Commercial Healthcare Industrial Puwer& Energy Houston, TX Boston, MA New York, NY Arlington, VA Phi|ade|phia, PA Durhum, NC ASSOCIATIONS American Society ofHeating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers US Green Building Council Building Commissioning Association AABCACG Commissioning Group National Environmental Balancing Bureau CONTACT Dave Harrison, PE, LEEDAP 1450 Energy Park Drive Suite 300 St. Paul, MN551O8 Phone.- 651.634.7297 Emai|:dharrioon@sebeata.00m In addition to the engineering backgrounds these personnel have hands-on experience as project management pnz#nsoiona|s, qualified uobeata.00m commissioning pnofemeiona|e, test, adjust & balance techniciens. LEED accredited profeoainnm|a, certified energy menmgem, certified facility managers and facility O&M technicians. City of Shorewood, IVIN I Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I September 12, 2014 Renewable Energy Renewable energy is a key component for many high performance and zero -net energy/ emission buildings. Sebesta has worked on renewable energy projects from the most basic to some of the most cutting edge technologies. We have integrated renewable energy systems into building and campus energy systems, we have determined economic feasibility and worked with utility interconnections, and we continue to assist in the development of new technologies. Here are just a few examples of our renewable energy experience. Renewable Energy Feasibility Studies College of St. Benedict Luther College Massachusetts Port Authority Solar Projects Solar PV and Solar Thermal Feasibility Study for Van Buren (ME) Land Port of Entry Solar and Renewables Planning Study for Wachovia Bank National Sites Biomass Projects Biomass Boiler Design, Installation and Permitting at Bennington College Sawdust Burner Retro- commissioning for Andersen Windows Biomass Boiler Permitting at the University of Iowa City of Cedar Rapids 21 st Century Renewable Energy Cogeneration Plant Feasibility Study Biomass Gasification System Design and Installation at Central Minnesota Ethanol Biomass Cogeneration Permitting — 35 MW Wood -- Fired Generation, Laurentian Energy Authority Wind Projects Feasibility Study for Metropolitan State University Design of Electric Interconnects for Luther College Wind Turbine Installation Wind Siting and Feasibility Evaluation for Luther College Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Multi- Campus Wind Siting Studies Minwind Wind Farm and Substation Engineering Biogas Projects Emerald Dairy Biogas Production, Cleanup and Transport Arizona Public Service Biogas Capture, Cleanup, Transport and Electric Generation Study Anaerobic Digestion System Design, Lafayette BioAg AUR1 Methane Digester Economic and Technical Feasibility Analysis Cutting Edge Technology Wind to Hydrogen and Wind to Ammonia Generation at the University of Minnesota- Morris Suncatcher and Rankine Energy Engineering Development Process Verification Engineering for Innovative Pyrolysis System Process Development for Potato Waste Digester and Biogas Production City of Shorewood, MN I Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I September 12, 2014 The Sebesta Team is comprised of professionals who have collaborated to deliver successful enerQypnojectsfor multiple clients. Ourkaam'o primary attributes include the following: Dove Harrison, PE' LEEDAF\ Principal-in-Charge, Dave has a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University ofMinnesota, he is a Professional Engineer registered in 17 states. Katie Anthony, LEEDAP BD+C and <J+N1' Project Manager, Katie has both o Master of Regional Planning and Bachelor of Science, Physiological Science from University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill and Marquette University respectively. She is skilled at guiding projects from the visioning stage through completion. Thomas Shubbe, Technical Lead, Nlc Sohubbe'e diverse background includes technical evaluation of energy and power systems, as well an long range corporate strategic p|onning, utility financial analysis and business planning and development. He has a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Minnesota and a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology/Anthropology from Southeast Minnesota State University, Andrew Hoaint, LEED4P O+K8, holds a Master of Engineering in Energy Systems Engineering and a Master's of Science in Natural Resources & Environment from the University of Michigan and o Bachelors of Science in Chemistry from the University ofMinnesota Douglas D. Pievco'A|A, LEEO F*Uovv, has a Bachelors in Architecture, Kansas State University College of Architecture and Design, K8c Douglas is a SaniorAm000iatewith Perkins + Will, Russell Philstrom, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, has a Bachelor of Science, Architecture, University of Minnesota, Mr. Phi|xtromiaan Associate with Perkins +Will. City of Shorewood, IVIN I Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I September 12, 2014 .As a state that relies on energy sources from outside of our borders, renewable energy alternatives play a key role in energy security, environmental stability, and financial savings. The City of Shorewood has demonstrated leadership around energy and sustainability issues by voluntarily engaging in the Minnesota GnaanStep Cities ` program. With the Renewable Energy Alternatives Analysis and Study, Sebeata. Inc. and their subconsultant (Sebesta) anticipates working with the City to build on past initiatives related to energy efficiency and conservation, in order to assess the feasibility of renewable energy options. Sebenta prides itself on providing practical and unbiased solutions to our clients biggest planning and engineering challenges. For the Renewable Energy Alternatives Analysis, we have divided our approach into three phases: data gathering, alternative analysis, and report and recommendations. Phase |: Data Gathering The data gathering phase will include one kick-off meeting with City of Shorewood representatives to discuss project goe|a' as well as vv8|k through building-specific details such as activities/building ugea, hours of operation, and energy profiles. We will present a preliminary menu of policy options related to renewable energy generation and oak the City to identify strategies they are interested in exploring in more detail. We will also use this opportunity to discuss non-City-owned facilities including commercial bui|dingo. M-12 schools, single-family residential, and multi-family residential The Sebesta Team requests that the City provide utility usage histories by facility for at least the past 12 months. We will use this information to understand current energy demand and facility use profiles. We will gather information on available renewable energy financial incentives ranging from utility rebates to tax incentives. Additiona||y, we will review the City's zoning code to identify potential conflicts and disincentives io renewable energy applications. Technical Feasibility 00 Financial Incentives Integrated Renewable Energy S Strategy trategy City of Shorewood, VIN I Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I September 12, 2014 Phase 2: Alternative Analysis The analysis phase will begin with a high -level review of renewable energy alternatives given the typical use profiles for City of Shorewood facilities. Renewable energy applications included in this review will include solar photovoltaic (PV), solar thermal, wind generation, geothermal, fuel cell, and biomass. Factors like typical site quality and size, system reliability, implementation cost, and incentives will be incorporated into the high -level analysis, which will help to identify the alternatives with the most potential for application in the City. The next step is to conduct a facility -by- facility analysis that references current energy use by facility, assesses specific site constraints and opportunities, and reviews project cost - benefit, lifecycle costs (operations, maintenance, and replacement costs), financial incentives, and return on investment. We can also include any specific additional energy loads that are known or anticipated to be added in the next few years. We will focus the detailed examination on the renewable energy alternatives that are most feasible based on findings in the high -level study. We anticipate running a detailed analysis for each of the following facilities: We will use a variety of resources to facilitate the analysis, including models and tools developed and supported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). In addition to the renewable energy alternative analysis, we will do a deeper dive on the policy issues flagged for consideration during Phase 1 that may incentivize or otherwise impact renewable energy applications. Policy topics may include, but are not limited to, Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), Community Solar, Power Purchase Agreements, and zoning strategies the City may want to consider to increase uptake of renewable energy alternatives. City of Shorewood, MN I Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I September 12, 2014 The Sebeeta Team will produce odraft report for review by the City's representatives nnthe project, as well as the City Council. The deliverable will be an easy to read report that provides an overview of the potential uses for each renewable fuel source and technology, as well as provide the general comparison of cost-effectiveness and emission reductions that each technology could provide. We anticipate one working meeting with members of the City Council to present our approach, findings, and recommendations. Sebesta will incorporate the feedback received from City leaders into the final report. We strive to provide reports that are understandable and have clear recommendations and guidance for moving forward. A sample outline for the report is included below: Executive Summary ||, General Overview of Renewable Energy Alternatives Ui Facility-by-Facility Analysis (CKK Residential, Commercial, Schools) |\( Available Incentives V. Policy/Program Options for Renavvah|ea V| Recommendations/NextStepa Throughout the project, Sebesta'u Project Manager will not only provide regular progress reports, but will also seek City feedback where needed to ensure the City's expectations for the project are fully met. City of Shorewood, MNI Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I September 12.2014 Sebesta proposes a fixed fee of $25,000, plus reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses are estimated at $400 for travel and printing costs. We will invoice monthly based on percent complete. While the scope of work for this project focuses on renewable energy applications, the Sebesta Team can provide additional services that may be beneficial to the City of Shorewood in meeting its energy goals. If the City has not recently conducted energy audits of their facilities, Sebesta can provide ASHRAE Level I Energy Audit(s) for each facility that will identify no- and low -cost energy conservation measures (ECMs) as well as capital projects such as lighting and HVAC upgrades. In addition, the City may want to consider implementing a user behavior program throughout its operations that will engage employees in being part of the solution for building energy reduction. Likewise, a residentially or commercially targeted program will educate and motivate residents to look more closely at their energy use. Finally, if the City of Shorewood isn't currently benchmarking its facilities using a platform like the Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGYSTAR Portfolio Manager or the State of Minnesota's B3 Benchmarking tool, Sebesta can assist the City in getting started with benchmarking efforts. City of Shorewood, MN I Renewable Energy Alternatives Study I September 12, 2014 September 12, 2094 solarstone WSB �� 1�� & Associates, Inc. Nadine S & Associates, Inc. September 12, 2014 Mr. Paul Hornby, PE City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: RFP Renewable Energy Alternatives Study - City Project 14 -09 Confidential Sealed Bid Proposal Dear Mr. Hornby: SolarStone Partners, LLC ( "SolarStone "), along with our partner, WSB and Associates, Inc., (collectively "SolarStone Team "), is pleased to respond to Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study request for proposals (RFP) for City Projects dated September 2014 ( "Shorewood RFP "). The SolarStone Team has proven expertise in the design, engineering, structured finance, land acquisition, project development, project management, construction execution, and operations and maintenance of large -scale turnkey renewable energy systems. Contained herein is an offer to provide professional services necessary to successfully perform energy alternatives analysis providing cost - effective energy systems that reduce City costs of energy, have a financial benefit lifecycle, and are renewable or green energy technology. The final report will detail renewable energy solutions that are practical for municipal facilities with the potential to service other properties and/or facilities. The offer also includes the details to reach a report for the City to review. All communication regarding this offer should be directed to: Joseph DeVito Co- Founder and CEO 3944 Xerxes Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55410 Email ( joe .devito @solarstonepartners.com Phone 1 (512) 608 -8448 If awarded the Renewable Energy Alternatives Study, the SolarStone Team agrees to comply with all rules, regulations and other requirements set forth in the Shorewood RFP. SolarStone abides by all federal, state and local equal employment opportunity hiring laws and regulations. Our proposal to Shorewood is valid for 120 days from the date on this Transmittal Letter. Sincerely, Joseph DeVito, CEO Solarstone Partners, LLC Proprietary and Confidential Information Proposal to Perform Consul ting Services for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study City Project 14-09 CITY OF WOVIEW00-IT" Contact., Joseph De Vito (512) 608-8448 joe.devito@solarstonepartners.com B. Proposal Format .......................2 E. Consultant Team ......................3 F. Project Understanding ...............5 G. Consultant Fee ........................6 H. Exceptions and Deviations ........ 6 Appendix A - Scope of Work .........6 Appendix B - Project Timeline ........7 SolarStone A WSB & Associate, Inc. �ti1Str� Nadine Proposal to Perform Consulting Services for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study - City Project 14 -09 SolarStone Partners, LLC ( "SolarStone "), along with our partner, WSB and Associates, (collectively "SolarStone Team "), is pleased to respond to the City of Shorewood Renewable Energy Alternatives Study request for proposals for City Projects dated September 2014 ( "Shorewood RFP "). SolarStone Partners, LLC 3944 Xerxes Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55410 Phone 1 (512) 608 -8448 WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone 1 (763) 541 -4800 The SolarStone Team is unaware of any RFP addenda issued to date. Joseph DeVito Co- Founder and CEO 3944 Xerxes Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55410 Email joe.devito @solarstonepartners.com Phone (512) 608 -8448 Fax I ? ? ?? B. Proposal Format / 2 SolarStone �1155�� Proposal to Perform Consulting Services for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study - City Project 14-09 FAW04 V11 M rf HI Joe DeVito Co- Founder and CFO of SolarStone Partners, LLC Joe brings over 25 years of experience in the US power industry and has a varied background that includes project development, business development, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory, political, and media relations, energy marketing, and engineering. Early in his career, Joe provided engineering services to United Illuminating where he designed, constructed and operated generation, transmission and distribution systems. Joe led the regulatory, media and political affairs teams for NRG Energy, FPLE and Wisvest Energy. Prior to forming SolarStone, Joe was Vice President of Development for RES Americas. As Vice President, Joe was responsible for leading the RES teams in the development and marketing of RES Americas' projects across a twenty four state footprint. Over his career, Joe developed over 2,000MWs of wind, solar and energy storage projects, of which just under 900 MWs ($2Bn) is or will soon be operational. Kaya Tarhan Co- Founder and Chief Development Officer SolarStone Partners, LLC Kaya has more than 20 years of global energy business experience. For the past two years, Kaya has been developing solar projects in the Northeastern US market. Prior to that, Kaya founded, managed and sat on the board of RES - Anatolia A.S., RES Ltds Turkish venture. In this role, Kaya built a team consisting of developers, construction manager, electrical engineers, CAD designer, finance manager and office administration. RES - Anatolia acquired a 75OMW development portfolio of wind projects, acquired two licenses of 50MW and 1 20M and sold 100% of its equity interest in the licensed projects to its Turkish partner. RES - Anatolia developed a Greenfield pipeline of over 1000MW of wind and 1000MW of solar projects in Turkey. Prior to joining RES -Ltd, Kaya was Development Manager of RES- Americas North Central division, and was responsible for development of wind projects totaling 659 megawatts. Kaya has served as a developer for a real estate private equity trust developing residential real estate, condos through approvals and entitlements. Kaya also served as Product Development Manager for Wind Logics, developing wind analysis products for wind developers, owners and operators. Kaya spent the prior nine years internationally at ERG Insaat developing hydro power projects in Turkey where he gained his experience in developing energy projects. E. Consultant Team / 3 SolarStone Proposal to Perform Consulting Services for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study - City Project 14 -09 WSB Jeff Broberg, LPG, REM Environmental Services Manager WSB & Associates, Inc. Jeff is responsible for directing, managing, and conducting environmental investigations and consulting on a wide range of land use and natural resource issues in the energy sector in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He has more than 25 years of natural resource and land -use experience with the last 25 years conducting assessments and permitting for commercial and energy related activities including Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems, aggregate and silica sand mining and processing and the use of alternative and renewable energy systems including solar voltaic, solar thermal, geothermal and energy conservation measures at a commercial scale. Jeff routinely conducts and directs Geologic Hazard Analysis (sinkholes, flooding, landslides, Decorah Shale); Environmental Assessments for ASTM Transaction Screens and Phase I's Environmental Assessments, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheets, Leaking Underground Storage Tank investigation and remediation; Ag chemical cleanup and response, dry cleaning contamination. Pre - demolition and renovation asbestos inspections, management plans and project design; Storm Water Discharge permits; Wetland delineation, replacement plans and permitting (local, state and federal); In addition Jeff is an expert in Natural Resource Legislation and complex permitting and litigation on land use and natural resources issues at the local, state, and federal level. Andrea Moffatt, PWS Principal and Group Manager WSB & Associates, Inc. Andrea leads WSB' Energy Team as well as heading the Environmental and Natural Resource group. She has more than 18 years of experience in project management in this area. She is known for providing creative solutions for client's complex projects. Her experience includes project management of energy projects, development of site permits, environmental review, and environmental studies on over a dozen wind and solar projects in Minnesota, Iowa, Texas, and California. This has involved reviewing and presenting on all aspects of the environmental review for energy projects including noise and flicker, wetlands, native prairie, erosion and water quality, and avian and bat surveys. Recent projects include environmental due diligence on the Aurora solar project; permitting and environmental review on Community Wind South and Nobles Wind projects in Nobles County. She also oversees the civil design work of the team. E. Consultant Team / 4 �ti1Sft SelarStene 11jSti�� Proposal to Perform Consulting Services for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study - City Project 94 -09 11 The SolarStone Team understands that the City of Shorewood wants to better understand the options that are available to promote the use of renewable energy resources, in a manner that is financially feasible for the City. The City's main renewable areas of interest are solar energy, wind energy and geothermal energy, although the City will consider other renewable energy technologies that make financial sense. The SolarStone Team will do a comprehensive review of the City's assets and energy consumption profile, and evaluate opportunities that can: a) save the City money on its energy consumption; b) make the City money through renewable energy land leases on city facilities; c) make the City money through prudent investment in renewable energy projects; or d) provide other opportunities that can provide a positive pay back for the City. The evaluation shall include a financial analysis that considers capital costs, capital structure (i.e.) whether City ownership or third party ownership is the most efficient capital structure, whether the City's access to debt provides a cost advantage and how to best utilize tax attributes of the projects), operations and maintenance costs, other lifecycle costs, and made in Minnesota, Solar Reward or other incentives. It shall also identify ownership risk factors such as equipment reliability and warranties. After completing the financial analysis for the various technologies and scenarios, the SolarStone Team shall present its findings to the City for each. The SolarStone Team will then make recommendations for which technologies are the most applicable and provide the best value proposition for the City. The SolarStone Team will participate in an initial Project Kick Off meeting to meet staff and council members, and to discuss what City facilities are available. The SolarStone Team will collect and review City billing data and tour its facilities. The SolarStone Team recommends adding one more meeting with staff and council members after the data acquisition and analysis phase, in order to solicit input and help set final priorities for the study. The team will thereafter provide periodic progress reports to staff and council members and solicit staff feedback on an ongoing basis. The SolarStone Team will prepare a draft report for staff and Council review, and a final report that includes the SolarStone Team's recommendations as well as the comments of Staff and Council. The scope of work requested by the City in the RFP requires deep knowledge in renewable energy project development and finance. It covers a variety of technologies. It also requires a variety of skills that include project development, financial modeling and engineering. The SolarStone Team has broad expertise in multiple areas that is hard to duplicate, making it well suited to help the City of Shorewood in this study. SolarStone's team members have developed over $3Bn of renewable energy projects that are or will soon be operational. They include many different types of renewable energy technology, including wind, solar, bio mass, energy storage and geo thermal systems. With WSB on the team, the SolarStone Team adds significant engineering depth, local permit knowledge, and renewable energy expertise. The SolarStone looks forward to the opportunity of helping the City of Shorewood develop a robust renewable energy plan. F. Project Understanding / 5 �,�StftJ so'orstene 11j 15�� Proposal to Perform Consulting Services for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study - City Project 14 -09 t a 1 Appendix A includes a detailed scope of the work to be completed by the SolarStone Team (the "Scope of Work "). The SolarStone Team Consultant Fee shall be Thirty Two Thousand Dollars ($32,000.00) to complete the Scope of Work, half due and payable prior to the commencement of work, and the remainder due within thirty (30) days from issuance of the final report. This fee includes anticipated expenses to complete the Scope of Work. The SolarStone Team and the City of Shorewood may mutually agree to amend the Scope of Work, provided that any such amendments shall be in writing. Amended scope items shall be billed at a rate of 5140 /hr, plus reimbursement of prudently incurred expenses. The SolarStone Team proposes one more meeting than that identified in the RFP, to visit with staff and council members after the initial site visits and analysis are complete. 1 . Collect and analyze the electric and natural gas (or other heating sources if applicable) bill history of the 14 facilities identified in Section II.A.1 of the RFP. . 2. Complete site tours and analyze the renewable energy potential of the fourteen facilities identified in Section II.A.1 of the RFP. Tours and analysis shall include evaluation of neighboring private lands where applicable. Specific to solar gardens, the analysis will consider the pros and cons of remote solar garden locations (not in the City). 3. Identify lease revenue potential for City facilities. 4. Research current equipment pricing and estimated electricity production at City locations for solar equipment, large wind equipment, small wind equipment and building comfort from ground -based geo thermal heat pump systems. Create pro forma models for community solar gardens, behind the meter solar applications, behind the meter small wind applications, large wind systems and geo- thermal systems. Evaluate City ownership scenarios and third party financing. Pro formas may be site specific or for the City's aggregate consumption, depending on the application. G. Consultant Fee / 6 ��1tYt� Soladleno IIjSS�� Proposal to Perform Consulting Services for Renewable Energy Alternatives Study - City Project 94 -09 5. Provide mapping and site layout GIS services for inclusion in reports. 6. Identify other potential renewable energy opportunities for the City for future consideration. 7. Large wind applications may conflict with Xcel's exclusive franchise right to serve retail customers in the City of Shorewood. The report shall identify potential regulatory questions, but will not include a robust regulatory analysis. 8. Complete a preliminary report that compares the financial benefits of each of the technologies listed in Item 4 above. The report shall identify risk factors associated with City ownership scenarios. Issue a final report that includes recommendations from the SolarStone Team as well as comments from the Council and Staff. 9. Attend three meetings with City Council and staff. Prepare meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and progress reports. Proposed Project Time Line / 7 #10B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Southshore Center correspondence Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: William S. Joynes, City Administrator Reviewed by: Attachments: Draft correspondence Attached is draft correspondence to the Southshore Center's founding cities requesting their approval of a Notice of Termination of their participation in the Cooperative Agreement. Council Action Required: Staff is requesting approval of the attached correspondence and direct staff to send the correspondence to the cities as addressed. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 October 13, 2014 Page 2 • Deephaven: Not interested in future participation. • Tonka Bay: Not interested in further participation but not willing to give up its initial equity position. • Greenwood: Not interested in further participation but not willing to give up its initial equity position. • Excelsior: Interested in continued support and membership in the Center but unwilling to fully fund their portion. There was a question raised by Tonka Bay and Greenwood as to whether a city could forfeit its equity position given the current language of the 1996 Joint Powers Agreement. Shorewood acknowledges protecting the interest of the initial investment in the center of the participating cities in the event of sale or liquidation of the center. After the receipt of the above listed responses and after extensive work by our staff and City Attorney, the City of Shorewood has reached the following conclusions: • The Center's most appropriate use is to continue service as a community meeting space. • The Center, operating at its current level, will continue to run a yearly operating deficit of approximately $70,000. • Realistic CIP costs for the Center through 2020, including the COVE proposal updates are approximately $345,000. (calculation attached) • The City Council of Shorewood has determined that it will assume the responsibility for the continued operation and upkeep of the Center without the participation of the other founding cities. Given the responses received from the founding cities, we are asking that each City avail itself of the "Termination" clause outlined in Section 6 of the March 4, 1996 Cooperative Agreement For The Southshore Senior /Community Center (document attached). This clause allows founding cities to terminate their participation and financial responsibility while not forfeiting there ownership interest. The City of Shorewood commits its best efforts to the continued operation of the center as a public resource for the South Lake community and would ask that we have clear and unilateral authority to proceed. Proposal The formation document for the Southshore Center was the Cooperative Agreement dated March 4, 1996. There have been many changes since that time in the Southshore Center, its management, the lease, and the dissolution of the Friends of the South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center. 4846 -1024- 5919.1 October 13, 2014 Page 3 Under the terms of the ownership structure set forth in the Cooperative Agreement, termination and dissolution provisions continue to govern the underlying ownership. In light of the stalemate of the cities to participate in the costs of the operation and capital maintenance, the City of Shorewood requests that the non - participating cities provide Notice of Termination of their participation in the Cooperative Agreement. The termination provision in Section 6 of the Cooperative Agreement allows that a withdrawing city will not have the right to continued participation in decisions relating to the Cooperative Agreement. Withdrawal, however, will not result in forfeiture of the withdrawing cities share of proceeds resulting from the sale or liquidation of the center. To that end, we request the non - participating cities approve the attached Notice of Termination. We further respectfully request the non - participating cities approve, execute and return the Notice of Termination to the City of Shorewood no later than November 26, 2014. While it had been our hope that all of the cities would find a way to continue this asset as a joint venture, we understand the reluctance to proceed with a financial commitment. We hope by allowing for the continuance of your respective ownership interests, you will provide clear operational authority for the City of Shorewood to move forward to support and maintain the center. Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Mayor Scott Zerby and the Shorewood City Council Enclosure 4846 -1024- 5919.1 South Shore Community Center, 5735 Country Club Rd Prepared by: Joe Pazandak Capital Maintenance Plan, 2014, with expected expense through 2030 BUILDING Component Const Year Age CMP strategy Useful Life Replacement Year Current cost Replacement cost Projected funding need, to 2014 Projected expended cost to 2020, 30 Roof 1996 18 4. a 21 2017, Note 7.c. & f. $ 38,675.00 $ 40,995.50 $ 35,139.00 $43,000.00 Building structure 1996 18 4. b $ - Siding 1996 18 4. a 40 2036 $ 9,000.00 $ 12,960.00 $ 5,832.00 $ 2,000.00 Exterior painting and caulking 1996 18 4. a 20 2016 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,872.00 $ 1,684.80 $ 2,000.00 Doors, exterior 1996 18 4. b 40 2036 $ 91000.00 $ 12,960.00 $ 5,832.00 Windows 1996 18 4. b 30 2026 $ 13,600.00 $ 16,864.00 $ 10,118.40 $ 17,000.00 Mechanical systems, Furnace & AC 1996 18 4. a 22 2018 $ 36,000.00 $ 38,880.00 $ 31,810.91 $ 42,000.00 Electrical systems, light fixtures 1996 18 4, b 25 2021 $ 56,000.00 $ 63,840.00 $ 45,964.80 $ 64,000.00 Plumbing systems, plumbing fixtures 1996 18 1 4. b 30 2026 $ 6,000.00 $ 7,440.00 $ 4,464.00 $ 7,000.00 Water heater 1996 18 4. a 20 2016 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,288.00 $ 2,059.20 $ 2,400.00 Kitchen exhaust mechanical system 1996 18 4. c 25 2021 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,680.00 $ 9,850.00 $ 14,000.00 Fire suppression sprinkler sys 1996 18 4. b 25 2021 $ 20,000.00 $ 22,800.00 $ 16,416.00 $ 23,000.00 Gutters 1996 18 4, b 25 2021 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,980.00 $ 5,745.60 $ 8,000.00 Retainingwalls 1996 18 4.b 25 2021 $ 81000.00 $ 9,120.00 $ 6,566.40 $ 9,000.00 Fence 1996 18 4. b 15 2011 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Cove Now elements, 8 $ 45,000.00 Cove Future elements, 9 $ 50,000.00 Exterior landscaping and patio, 11 $ 15,000.00 Parking and driveway, 12 Total $ 182,483.11 $ 344,400.00 Notes: 1. Scope of Capital Maintenance Plan (CMP) is intended to address replacement of major building components. 2. CMP does not address maintenance or replacement of minor building elements. 3. Some maintenance and repair comments may be included. 4. CMP Strategy: a. Set useful life and cost, used for elements that will have a generally determinate useful life or life cycle and the end of the life cycle will have issues for building use or durability. b. Components that have a longer life cycle that may become obsolete, become inefficient with new technology, deteriorate slowly, repairs or maintenance exceed return on investment over a given time. c. Components that due to performance should have a strategy established to address issues prior to components life cycle. 5. CMP Program will be reviewed each year for adjustments. 6. Usefull Live, Replacement Year and Costs are estimates. 7. Additional comments: a. Kitchen equipment and related mechanical systems should have a cost /benefit analysis evaluation due to operation and maintenance costs. b. Sidewalk at side of building needs adjustment. Repaired in 2014. c. Roofing needs repair. Roofing condition ranges from 2.5 to 7.0 (average 5.5) on a scale of 0 to 10. d. Exterior paint and caulking is about 60 %. e. Gutters need repair. f. Roofing is continuingto split /crack. This may move replacement forward. 2016; Some splits /cracks repaired, to extend roof. 8. Cove Now elements, rounded to nearest 1,000. 9. Cove Future elements, increased for future cost increase and rounded to nearest 1,000. 10. Projected costs, have been adjusted to show general expected cost and rounded to nearest 1,000. 11. Landscape planting and patio outside large Meeting Room, could be considered. 12. Parking and driveway, have not been included. Keane Att - #1 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER =S COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/ CON1MUNTTY CENTER is made on this 4 day of March _, 1996, by and among the City of Deephaven, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Deephaven), the City of Excelsior, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Excelsior), the City of Greenwood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Greenwood), the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Shorewood), and the City of Tonka Bay, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Tonka Bay), (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Cities"). RECITALS: FIRST: Cities desire to develop a senior /community center (Center). The Center shall be used by senior citizens for educational and recreational activities, including, but not limited to, arts, crafts, music and other various programs of enrichment. In addition, the Center shall be used by citizens for banquets, receptions, reunions and other public and private events and other community-based activities such as those commonly provided at community centers throughout the area. SECOND: Cities desire to combine resources pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59 to develop and construct the Center. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1.) PuMose. The parties have determined that each City is more economically and efficiently served by constructing and operating the Center together rather than each City constructing and operating its own community center. The parties agree that the Center shall be used by senior citizens for educational and recreational activities, including, but not limited to, arts, crafts, music and other various programs of enrichment. The Center shall also be used by citizens for banquets, receptions, reunions and other public and private events and other community-based activities such as those commonly provided at community centers throughout the area. Such programs and activities shall be consistent with the use of the surrounding, and adjoining facilities. The overall guiding principle embodied in this Agreement is the mutual 0 b desire of the parties to maximize the use of the Center by all members of the Cities' respective constituencies. 2.) Ownership. The development and construction of the Center shall be financed through a pooling of resources from Cities and The Friends of the South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center, a Minnesota non-profit corporation with tax-exempt status pursuant to §§ 170(c)(2) and 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Friends). Cities shall own the Center as tenants in common, with the ownership interest of each City proportionate to each City's investment in the Center. The amount of each City's investment and the proportionate ownership of each City is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto which may be amended from time to time upon unanimous approval of the cities. The Center shall be constructed on property conveyed by Shorewood to Cities for One and 00/100 Dollar ($1.00), and other good and valuable consideration, and which is legally I described on Exhibit B attached hereto. Shorewood shall be responsible for the design and construction of the Center in accordance with the preliminary site plan and building elevation as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto. In 3.) Funding. All amounts due from Cities for the development and construction of the Center shall be remitted to Shorewood within sixty (60) days of the date of the execution of this Agreement by an authorized representative of each City. Shorewood shall be the finance manager and manager of the construction of the Center during the design and construction of the Center and shall establish separate books of account to monitor the payment of funds. The Cities shall be under no further obligation, pursuant to the terms of this Cooperative Agreement, to fund the maintenance, operation, programming or staffing of the Center or any other costs expenses or capital investments relating to the Center. 4.) Excess Funds. Upon completion of construction of the Center, excess funds shall be held in a restricted capital reserve account for the purpose of repairs and capital replacement of the Center. This account shall be controlled by the Friends, however, no expenditure in excess of Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($5,000) shall be made without the approval of a majority of the Cities. This reserve is not intended for day-to-day maintenance such as snow removal, routine building maintenance and cleaning or for any other operating costs. C t�l 5.) Lease. Cities shall lease the Center to Friends (Friends' Lease). The term of the Friends' Lease shall be twenty-five (25) years and the rental rate shall be One and 00/100 Dollar 1.00) per year and other good and valuable consideration. The Friends' Lease shall provide Z� for four (4) renewal periods of five (5) years each. Friends shall operate and maintain the Center. Friends shall be required to pay for any and all forms of insurance to adequately insure the Center against any and all risks associated with operating and maintaining the Center, both known and unknown, including worker's compensation insurance for Center employees and general liability insurance up to the statutory limits of liability relating to the Center. Each policy shall name Cities as additional insureds. By entering into this Agreement, Cities do not agree to assume any risk or responsibility for the acts or omissions relating to the operation and maintenance of the Center" by Friends, or for the procurement, or failure to procure, by Friends of insurance against all insurable risks, both known and unknown, related to the Center, or for the acts or omissions of any other City. 6.) Termination. Any City may terminate its participation in this Agreement at any time for any reason upon thirty (30) days written notice to the remaining Cities. The remaining, Cities shall not have a right to object to any City's withdrawal from this Agreement. A withdrawing city will not have the right to participate in decisions relating to this Agreement. 6 11.7 Withdrawal from this Agreement will not result in the forfeiture of the withdrawing City's 4:) undivided ownership interest in the Center but the withdrawing City's share of the costs 'incurred by the Cities pursuant to this Agreement, if any, shall be recovered out of the withdrawing, City's share of any proceeds resulting from the sale or liquidation of the Center. C:� At the termination of the lease term or termination by action and approval of the Cities, the Center may be sold subject to the following: 1. (a) Shorewood Option. The City of Shorewood may retain the Center by repayment to each of the remaining, Cities an amount equal to their original capital contribution. t) C� Shorewood may pay the remaining Cities in cash, or at its option, Shorewood may make installment payments to the Cities over a period not to exceed ten (10) years payable in equal annual installments of principal and interest at the, rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from and after the date of Termination. (b) Sale to Third Party. The Center may be sold to a third party for fair market value. In the event of sale to a third party, the City of Shorewood will assure adequate access to the Center. The proceeds of said sale shall be allocated and paid to each City proportionate to its original capital contribution as provided in the attached Exhibit A. (c) Proceeds from Future Gain. Should Shorewood sell the Center to a third party within ten (10) years of exercising alternative (a), the net proceeds of said sale beyond the original capital contribution paid by each of the Cities shall be allocated and paid to each City proportionate to its original capital contribution as provided in the attached Exhibit A. 7.) Dissolution, Amendment, Termination. The following may only be undertaken based on the written approval of two-thirds of the Cities: (a) Sale of the Center; (b) Amendment of this Agreement; or (c) Termination of the Lease with The Friends of South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center, or any renewal, extension, assignment or subleasing thereof or C� successor thereto. The following may be undertaken upon written approval of a majority of the Cities: (a) Capital improvements; or (b) City directed changes in the operation of the Center. 8.) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN VV-=SS WHEREOF, the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay, in accordance with the authorizing resolution from their respective City Councils, have caused this Agreement to be duly executed. CITY OF DEEPHAVEN I By: 1 �kl-n (� � -4 ) ('�' rl�rt /;", 0 Dated: -3/q/ q� Its: City Clerk Treasuer IJ �) � Dated: 2/28/96 Dated: Dated: 2/28/96 Dated: 2/28/96 022696.2 By:— Its: Ma or CITY OF EXCELSIOR By: Its: By: Its: CITY OF GREENWOOD By: ....... ( \-Ao!on�fb-6-1 -.,p z 0 7. Its: City (Clerk) Administrator By: Its: N/fayor CITY 0 N= SHOREWA OOD c� By: tyu-�l I -nwk Its: City (Clerk) Administrator By: Its: Mayor Its: T .K-- NOTICE OF TERMINATION This Notice of Termination is provided by the City of this day of November, 2014, to the City of Shorewood pursuant to the terms of that Cooperative Agreement dated March 4, 1996. R- PCTTAT C 1. The City of entered into the Cooperative Agreement with other member cities, making an initial contribution in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The City of Shorewood has requested participating cities to participate in the cost of the capital maintenance and replacement of key building components. 3. This City of intends to not make further capital contributions to the Southshore Center and withdraw as a participating city. 4. The Cooperative Agreement provides the process for orderly termination by notice and withdrawal whereby a terminating and withdrawing city shall have its share of initial investment preserved upon liquidation or sale of the Southshore Center. 5. The City of Shorewood shall proceed on its own to fund the capital requirements and operational costs of the Southshore Center. AGREEMENT In consideration of the terms of the Cooperative Agreement, the City of does hereby provide this Notice of Termination pursuant to the terms of the Cooperative Agreement and does further provide a quit claim deed in the form attached relinquishing its real property interests in the Southshore Center. The City of Shorewood shall provide a security interest in the Southshore Center to ensure distribution of the original capital contribution to each withdrawing member city in the event of a sale or liquidation of the Southshore Center to a third party. By: Its: Mayor Dated: By: Its: City Administrator Dated: 4825- 4927 - 1839.1 k,\ ;\ �l City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item #10c MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Request from Resident to Suspend the Deer Management Program at Site #2 Meeting Date: October 13, 2014 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director Attachments: Minchk correspondence, Minutes, location map Background Kevin Minchk, a property owner in Marsh Pointe has requested the City indefinitely suspend its Deer Management Program for the hunt site that abuts their property (Site #2). He made a similar request last year, and at its October 14, 2013 meeting, Council received public input on this request and determined to continue the program at Site #2 in 2013. A copy of Mr. Minchk's recent request, the October 14, 2013 meeting minutes, and the Site location map is attached for Council's consideration. Based on Council's decision in 2013, Staff did not temporarily suspend the program for Site 2 this year. Council Action Council should determine if it wishes to continue or indefinitely suspend the Deer Management Program for Site #2. Mission Statement: 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 management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Jean Panchyshyn From: Brad Nielsen Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:29 PM To: mailto:Kevin.Minchk @ameda.com Cc: Jean Panchyshyn; Bill Joynes; Patti Helgesen Subject: RE: 2014 Deer Management Program Mr. Minchk, I will put your request on the next available City Council agenda. Their next meeting is Monday, 13 October. You will receive a copy of the agenda prior to the meeting. From: Patti Helgesen Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:56 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: FW: 2014 Deer Management Program From: Kevin Minchk [in1 .i_Ilg_o_K .vinn.oMi.inclhlk@ irm .r,�..:o_colrn] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:20 PM To: Ib.o_Inil.oln.lhpirew _ o_Irmin_o_u.; Patti Helgesen Subject: FW: 2014 Deer Management Program From: Kevin Minchk Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'b.nielson @shorewood.mn.us' Subject: 2014 Deer Management Program Brad, I am writing you because of the post card I received in the mail regarding the upcoming 2014 Deer Management Program starting September 26 -28 and running to November 21 -23. 1 am requesting that hunting in Area 2* be suspended indefinitely. I live at 27195 Marsh Pointe Court and since last year there have been some changes to the area. The sidewalk along Smithtown Rd has been completed and the Deer Management Program in Area 2* presents a large Public Risk. With the main hunting area for Area 2 being in very close proximity to Smithtown Rd and the new sidewalk an arrowed deer or startled deer could easily run out onto Smithtown Rd and create a collision with a car or a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. Arrowed /startled deer will not hesitate to run directly into traffic or into a person. Not to mention that last November I was walking my dog and could very clearly see the hunter in his tree stand from the Smithtown Rd sidewalk. I must say a very disturbing site and secondly, actually witnessed the hunter drag is recently killed buck across Smithtown Rd and over to his truck. I have pictures of the deer being removed and also of the hunter in the tree stand I took with my iphone. This program has a large impact for me and my family because we are unable to get away from this troubling event. I feel privileged to live in such a beautiful location where I can enjoy the wildlife year round. I have been watching a few deer all summer and now for 5 weekends I have to hope and pray that they live through fall or worse that an archer miss places an arrow and now I have a wounded dangerous animal in my yard potentially injuring my family or my two dogs or an innocent by standard driving down or walking on the sidewalk along Smithtown Rd. This would be a horrific event if either occur and it would fall squarely on decision made to hunt this area. Lastly, the length of this season is of great concern. Now for 5 weekends this fall I have to wonder each morning and evening is today the day that a wounded deer shows up in my yard. I am directly across the marsh for all of the hunting locations in 1 and 2* and a prime target for a wounded deer. I am asking that the Deer program in area 2 be stopped immediately and the program as a whole be further reviewed. Thank you for time. Kevin Minchk 27195 Marsh Pointe Court Shorewood, MN Please note I am referencing area 2 from the 2013 Map which my property abuts.* CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 14, 2013 Page 4 of 15 B. Deer Management Program — Neighborhood on Site 2 Suspension Director Nielsen explained the City has had a Deer Management Program for the last seven years. The Program was initiated as a result of residents' requests for the City to help do something to reduce the deer population in Shorewood. The Program was suspended one year and as a result the population jumped the following year. The City has committed to forwarding all correspondence relative to the Program, both pro and con, to the City Council. He noted the City received a request from the owners of the property at 27195 Marsh Pointe Court requesting the City to discontinue the Program for Sites 1 and 2. That property does not technically abut Site 1 while Site 2 wraps around that property. The harvesting on Site 2 was suspended for October 4 and 5. The City sent a notice to all property owners abutting Site 2 that the harvest was suspended for that weekend and that Council will be taking some action at this meeting about Site 2. The City received correspondence from some of the property owners abutting Site 2. In all cases they supported continuing with the Program. Mayor Zerby noted the notice sent to the owners of properties abutting Site 2 indicated Council will hold an informal hearing on this topic. Mayor Zerby opened the public comment portion of this informal public hearing at 7:23 P.M. Kevin Minchk, 27195 March Pointe Court, stated he and his wife each sent an email to Director Nielsen asking the City to stop the Program for Sites 1 and 2. Their property abuts Site 2 and he can see all of Site 1 from various spots in his home especially now that the leaves are falling. He noted he moved into Shorewood on December 5, 2012. He did not know there was a Deer Management Program in place when they purchased the home. He also noted he is a hunter and he does not have issues with hunting under the State's regulations. He stated there are plenty of opportunities and wildlife management areas for people who would like to harvest deer. From his perspective hunting within city limits is cheating; it is not fair to the animals. Mr. Minchk explained this year there are five deer that frequent the marsh on the side he lives on. There is a doe with two fawns and another doe with one fawn. He and his family have watched the fawns grow since the day after their births. He and his family find it upsetting that a yearling can be harvested as part of the Program. He stated that per the agreement the City has with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) the bowhunters have to take a class and be certified to partake in the harvest. He then stated a misplaced arrow can leave a wounded deer and a wounded deer could end up in his yard or his neighbor's yard. The wounded deer could potentially be harmful. He clarified that could be an extreme case. Mr. Minchk stated he feels like the deer are being harvested because they are eating residents' plants and gardens. He thinks that is an injustice. From his perspective, if a person lives next to a nature area they have to expect that wildlife will roam onto their property and potentially eat plants. Many types of wildlife come onto his property and they eat his plants. He then stated if there were a high rate of deer - vehicle accidents or a lot of deer traffic on Highway 7 he would understand the need for the Program. But, with the low speed limits in the City he does not think there is a need for it. He commented that he almost hit a yearling that was by herself. Mr. Minchk asked Council to authorize halting the Program for Sites 1 and 2. Chris Lizee, 5707 Brentridge Drive, noted she supports the City's Deer Management Program. She explained she lives in Site 1 and she owns property in Site 2. Her four -acre property extends into wetlands. She stated she thought there are three issues. There are health and safety issues. The deer are destructive. They carry diseases like Lyme disease, human anaplasmosis (a bacterial disease), Rocky Mountain spotted fever and others. The Program is a population control effort that the City has CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 14, 2013 Page 5 of 15 successfully undertaken. There is no predator except her car. She noted she hit a deer about five years ago while driving at a speed of about 15 miles per hour. Her 13 -year -old daughter was in the car with her. There was about $500 in damage to her car. Unfortunately, the deer did not have any insurance so she had to pay for the damage. The police were called and the deer was dispatched in someone's front yard along Smithtown Road. The Program is a common sense approach to deer management. The MBRB bowhunters are licensed professionals and certified sharpshooters. She asked the City to keep the Program going. She explained the bowhunters put up a stand in her yard. They call her before they come each season but she has never seen one of them or the deer they harvest from her property. She encouraged the City and the MBRB to keep up the good work. Carol Shelly, 27055 Smithtown Road, noted she and her husband are entering their tenth year as residents of Shorewood. She explained their property is across from the marsh. She stated she strongly supports continuing with the Deer Management Program. She expressed concern about traffic accidents with deer. Deer are active all day long. She stated there are many, many people who do not obey the 30 miles -per- hour speed limit on Smithtown Road. Because of the trees along the roadway the deer come out from the trees onto the roadway very quickly. She expressed concern about the health of the deer. The more deer there are the less food there is for them to eat including residents gardens. It is not healthy for deer to not have enough food to eat. She then expressed concern that the more deer there are the closer they come to people's homes. She stated she has six grandchildren and they have a nice horse swing. There is a nice walkway where the deer pass by. In her neighborhood she has observed does put their heads down and go after dogs. She would not want that to happen to her two -year -old grandson. She noted that she does not like to clean up deer droppings in her yard. She expressed concern that the more the deer walk through her yard the more deer ticks there will be. She stated she does spray her garden and that seems to keep the deer away from it. She then stated even after deer are harvested there are plenty of deer remaining in the City to enjoy. She explained it is her understanding that the deer meat that is harvested is given to food shelves or shelters. She stated it is better to harvest the deer with a bow and arrow than with a gun or by poisoning. It would cost a great deal to try and relocate the deer. She then stated it is not healthy for animals or humans if there are too many animals. Bob Thiner, 5855 Brentridge Drive, stated last year was the first year he saw any accumulation of deer and there were five behind his house. He noted that it is not easy to hunt Site 2. He stated he assumes bowhunters cannot set up on private property around the marsh. He then stated one deer was harvested in 2012 from Site 2 yet the aerial survey for Site 2 showed the highest concentration of deer there. He noted the primary reason he is neutral about this is he does not think harvesting on Site 2 will make a difference. He stated he and his family have lived where they do for 25 years and over time the wildlife has been decimated except for deer and coyotes. From his vantage point Marsh Pointe was the decimation of pheasants. He noted he thought it is okay to have a few deer around. Mayor Zerby commented that the City has received a few reports of wild turkeys. He clarified that bowhunters can harvest on private properties located in one of the various designated harvesting sites with a property owner's permission. Director Nielsen noted that most harvesting sites are private property. He stated residents have asked that their property be harvested. He explained Staff and harvest coordinators from MBRB go out in advance and evaluate the sites in terms of room and the ability to have an elevated stand. They have to hunt from an elevated stand so that the arrows go downward to avoid errant shots. He stated the City does send out a notice to the owners of the properties that abut the sites where the harvest will occur. Mayor Zerby asked on behalf of a member of the audience if there are statistics about the previous years' results. Director Nielsen stated he does not know them off hand. Nielsen then stated 18 deer were harvested the first weekend this year and 8 the second. The second weekend there was a very rainy CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 14, 2013 Page 6 of 15 Saturday and they were not able to harvest. He thought 32 were harvested in 2012 and that was the most ever. He then stated there are maps that show which sites the deer are harvested from and there are the aerial maps. Mr. Minchk asked if there are quotas for harvesting. Director Nielsen stated the City's Deer Management Program talks about an overall population for the community of 75 — 90 deer. He then stated the aerial count has ranged from 70+ deer to 140 deer. He noted that is a snapshot in time. Mr. Minchk asked if there are any statistics about vehicle /deer collisions in the City. Mayor Zerby stated the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department would have those statistics. Councilmember Siakel stated she does not think the City has ever gone under the recommended population of deer. And, it does not have a recommended quota to harvest. She then stated the City's Deer Management Program is a very well thought out process; a process vetted by the Planning Commission. She explained the City pays to have the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) in February to try and get a sense for the approximate deer population. In the fall the City schedules five weekends for the harvests. It does not set an amount that it wants harvested. Residents approve MBRB bowhunters hunting on their property. She clarified the Program is not about taking out a set number of deer; it's about having a balance between the public and wildlife. She noted that she would be flexible about harvesting Site 2. Tom Shelly, 27055 Smithtown Road, asked if the City has any statistics about the coyote population in the City. Director Nielsen stated it does not but the City knows there are some. Nielsen explained that two years ago a wounded deer was tracked until midnight. It was not found. By 6:00 A.M. the next morning there was nothing but bones remaining. Mr. Shelly stated he assumes that the more deer there are the more attractive it is to coyotes. He views that as a potential threat to pets. He thought that keeping the deer population down will encourage a reduced coyote population. He noted that he is not flexible about harvesting Site 2; he wants it to resume. He stated he and his wife experience a lot of deer coming through their yard and those deer come from the marsh. Mayor Zerby closed the public comment portion of the informal public hearing at 7:44 P.M. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Program has two objectives as previously mentioned by Director Nielsen — managing the concentration per square mile and managing the City -wide population. The aerial population calculated from the February aerial survey is very difficult to estimate. He then stated the harvesting sites, including Site 2, were chosen because of the concern about the concentration of deer. He thinks that concern needs to continue to be addressed. He reiterated Councilmember Siakel's statement that the City has never come close to its minimum target City -wide population of deer. He stated if it were close to that the harvesting would be cut back or cancelled. There have been instances when enough deer were not harvested so an additional harvest weekend was added. He thinks the Program is doing what it is supposed to do. He noted that the MBRB bowhunters are very good at what they do. He stated that residents have personally complained to him about the damage deer cause. He commented that he knows of a situation where a deer ran into a vehicle parked at a stop sign causing $1,200 in damages. He noted that he thinks that managing the deer concentration and population is necessary. Director Nielsen explained Site 2 is the largest site; but, only two islands on the southern half of the site are harvested. Bowhunters harvest as conditions permit. Councilmember Hotvet noted that she is in both camps and therefore is not in a place to give direction one way or the other. She agrees with Councilmember Siakel that the process has been studied and vetted. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 14, 2013 Page 7 of 15 Mayor Zerby stated staff provided Council with three options to consider: 1) remove Site 2 from the Deer Management Program; 2) deny the request if the majority of affected residents favor the Program; or, 3) modify the boundaries of Site 2. He asked if it is appropriate to harvest yearlings. Director Nielsen stated the MBRB is directed to take any deer. He noted fawns and yearlings grow into does and bucks. He explained that the first year or two of the program the harvest was limited to antlerless deer only. Councilmember Woodruff stated the MBRB operate with a deer license from the MN DNR and they operate under the terms of that license. Woodruff moved, continuing the Deer Management Program harvesting on Site 2. Councilmember Siakel asked how many private property owners in Site 2 have given the bowhunters permission to harvest on their property. Director Nielsen stated he has not tallied that. He noted that the properties along Brentridge Drive backup to Site 2 and the properties along March Pointe Court backup to it. Director Nielsen stated deer come up into the City from the City of Chanhassen and make a loop through the City. There is a bunch that comes through from the City of Tonka Bay. There are different herds that move through and around Shorewood on various circuits. Councilmember Siakel noted that she has had several deer come onto her deck. Siakel seconded. Motion passed 4/0. Mayor Zerby stated this was a difficult decision for him and probably for Council. But, Council had to represent the community as a whole and the majority of residents want the harvesting of Site 2 to continue. He noted there is a large public safety factor that had to be taken into account and a large animal safety factor as well. 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Report on the October 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Chair Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 1, 2013, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). B. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Tommy and Robyn Wartman Location: 5985 Eureka Road Director Nielsen explained during August 2013 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a minor subdivision for Tommy and Robyn Wartman for their property located at 5985 Eureka Road. That property had been platted as two lots years ago and then combined into one at some point. The Wartmans want to put it back to the original two single - family lots. The property is zoned R -1A, Single- Family Residential and it has 2.36 acres of land. There is one single - family house on the property. There is a small wetland on the back of the property. There is a ditch that connects the wetland area to a drainage system on the west side of Eureka Road. The buffer plus the wetland setback amounts to 50 feet under the City's regulations. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has asked for a conservation easement 20 feet on each side of the center line of the ditch. Both of the lots would be quite buildable. The applicants have provided drainage and utility easements 10- feet -wide around each lot and conservation easements 2014 Deer Management Plan N A N0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet IRShorewood Planning Department 09/14 SITE LOCATION CITY OF SHOREWOOD (2 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 474 -3236 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Re: Trail Schedule Update — Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule — PROJECT SCHED ULED FOR RE -BID IN 2015 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 0 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 0 Survey (30 days) — May 0 Feasibility Report (30 days) — June 0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk — July 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 0 Council approves Feasibility Report 0 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications 0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days) ■ 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14 ■ MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14 ■ CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14 ■ Open Bids 8/19/14 ■ CC consideration of Award 8/25/14 L Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid -way through plans and specs) • Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications • Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required • Reduces project schedule ❑ Neighborhood preconstruction meeting 9/04/14 ❑ City possession of easements /letter of compliance N/A ❑ Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/08/14 ❑ Begin Construction 9/08/14 ❑ Construction substantially complete — Phase 1 Construction 10/31/14 ❑ Construction substantially complete — Phase 2 Construction 7/31/15 ❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 8/10/15 ❑ Restoration complete 7/31/15 Trail Schedule Update — Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Page 2 Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/03/14 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 6/23/14 Survey (30 days) — (In Process) 7/14/14 — 9/10/14 Feasibility Report (30 days) — 8/18/14 - 10/10/14 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk 10/21/14 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 10/21/14 Council approves Feasibility Report 10/27/14 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 10/30/14 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans 10/30/14 and Specifications Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 -120 days) 10/30/14— 2/27/15 ❑ Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid -way through plans and specs) 10/30/14- 7/27/15 o Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions o Review proposed easements with staff/attorney o Letters to property owners regarding survey staking o Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser /RW Agent o Easement viewing — parcel owner and RW Agent on -site o Appraisal information o Appraisal review o Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule o Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners ❑ Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) ❑ Begin eminent domain action ❑ Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids ❑ Receive bids for construction ❑ City possession of easements /letter of compliance ❑ Council awards Construction Contract ❑ Neighborhood preconstruction meeting ❑ Groundbreaking Ceremony ❑ Begin Construction ❑ Construction substantially complete ❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony ❑ Restoration complete 5/19/15 2/09/15 5/25/15 6/08/15 6/22/15 6/22/15 6/30/15 6/30/15 7/06/15 10/15/15 10/31/15 11/15/15