Loading...
02-11-19 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby___ Johnson___ Labadie___ Siakel___ Sundberg___ B. Review Agenda Attachments 2. CONSENT AGENDA – Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. City Council Work Session of January 28, 2019 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2019 Minutes C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List D. Authorize Purchase of Public Works Equipment Director of Public Works Memo - bucket truck E. Authorize Purchase of MRX Water Meter Reading unit Director of Public Works Memo F. Approve Phased Retirement Plan for Joe Pazandak City Administrator Memo G. Approving Commission Appointments City Administrator Memo Resolution H. Authorize Purchase of Public Works Equipment Director of Public Works Memo - pick up truck I. Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for Engineer Memo Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09 Resolution J. Special Assessment Removal from Hennepin County Finance Director Memo Assessment Rolls Resolution K. Appointment to Recycling Advisory Committee City Administrator Memo 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – February 11, 2019 Page 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Enchanted Point Street Reclamation Project Engineer Memo 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 6. PARKS 7. PLANNING A. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger reporting on the Regular Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 2019 and on the Joint Planning/Parks Commission Work Session on January 15, 2019 Minutes 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Approve Resolution Finding of Public Purpose; Authorize Petition for Engineer Memo Easement Acquisition at 5625 Shorewood Lane, PID 3311723140036 Resolution B. Authorize Plans and Specifications for Enchanted Point Street Engineer Memo Reclamation Project, City Project 18-11 Resolution C. Approve Change Order for Boulder Bridge Well Control Director of Public Works Memo Project, City Project 18-01 Resolution 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approve Contract with The Davey Tree Expert Company City Administrator Memo for Arborist Services B. Regional Trail Crossing at County Road 19 City Administrator Memo Resolution 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Mill Street Update B. Mayor and City Council 11. ADJOURN 2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2019 5:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order in the conference room at 5:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Sundberg and Johnson. Absent. Councilmember Siakel. B. Review Agenda Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. INTERVIEW FOR COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS The Council interviewed the following candidates for open positions on the Planning and Park Commissions: Dara Gault, Mike Hirner, Dustin Maddy, and Stephany Vassar. Upon completion of the interviews, the Council recommended a Resolution be prepared making the following appointments: Dara Gault – Three-year term on Parks Commission Mike Hirner – Three-year term on Planning Commission Dustin Maddy – Three-year term on Planning Commission Stephany Vassar – Three-year term on Parks Commission 3. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of January 28, 2019, at 6:47 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk 2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2019 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 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 Johnson, Labadie and Sundberg; City Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Fauske Absent: Councilmember Siakel B. Review Agenda Mayor Zerby noted that Planning Commissioner Davis is unable to attend this evening and will not be making her planned report on Artic Fever that is listed on the agenda. Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of January 14, 2019 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 14, 2019 C. Approval of the Verified Claims List D. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Appointment Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) Appointments, RESOLUTION NO. 19- 008, “A Resolution Making City Representative Appointments to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission and Minnetonka Community Education.” E. Regular Appointment of Joe Rigdon as Finance Director Councilmember Labadie stated that she was extremely happy with the appointment of Joe Rigdon as Finance Director. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Lawtonka Villas PUD Concept and Development Plan Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant has requested a PUD plan and minor subdivision of the property in order to construct two single-family homes. She noted that the Council voted at the January 14, 2019 meeting to continue the item to give staff additional time to review revisions that had been made to the application. She explained the history of this lot being included in the PUD zoning in 1992 when Gideon Cove was developed, but was not included in the PUD development approval. She reviewed the proposed villa style homes, grading and setbacks. She noted that the updated conditions and recommendations have been included in the resolution based on the applicant’s revisions. She explained that staff had received three letters with concerns about the proposed plans. The most recent letter was received on January 10, 2019 with a request that the property be rezoned R-2A rather than approving the PUD, and developed with a single-family home and that a landscaping buffer be provided along the south property line. She invited Commissioner Riedel to the podium to summarize the Planning Commission discussion with regard to this application. Commissioner Riedel gave a brief overview of the history of this parcel and the rationale behind the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval. He noted that the application request is consistent and similar to the surrounding twin homes. He stated that Planning staff has worked with the property owners to address the concerns of the neighbors. Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. There being no public comment, Mayor Zerby closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. Councilmember Labadie indicated that she appreciated the landscaping planted along the south property line. Councilmember Johnson noted that the developer has made some changes to address the concerns by the neighbor to the south and lessen the impact. Motion by Sundberg, seconded by Johnson to approve, ORDINANCE 562, “An Ordinance Approving the Lawtonka Villas PUD.” Motion carried 4/0. Motion by Sundberg, seconded by Labadie, to approve RESOLUTION 19-014, “A Resolution Granting Concept and Development Stage Plan Approval for the Lawtonka Villas P.U.D.” Motion carried 4/0. Motion by Zerby, seconded by Johnson, to approve RESOLUTION 19-015, “A Resolution Approving Subdivision of Property for Greenwood Design Build, LLC, for 23825 Lawtonka Drive.” Motion carried 4/0. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS - None 6. PARKS CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2019 Page 3 of 4 A. Report by Sue Davis on Arctic Fever Event - None 7. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Sue Davis on the December 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Mayor Zerby noted that the December 14, 2018 Planning Commission meeting covered the just approved PUD, so nothing else needed to be discussed. 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Excess Fund Balance Purposes Finance Director Rigdon explained the recently adopted Fund Balance Policy that contains a goal of a 60% reserve ratio. He stated that there were excess funds from 2018 and noted that staff has developed a list of proposed projects for use of the excess funds. He stated that staff is recommending funding the Badger Park playground surface at $120,000; Manor Park Pond remediation at $230,000; Running fiber to City Hall/Shorewood Community and Event Center (SCEC)/Public Works and technology improvements to SCEC in an amount of $15,000 with additional improvements for the SCEC in an amount of $10,000; South playground at Freeman Park in an amount of $60,000; City Hall security system in an amount of $25,000. Councilmember Johnson stated that he wanted to make sure the dollar amount included for Manor Pond was adequate because it is a very important issue. He stated that he thought the scope of work for Manor Pond had not yet been determined and thought this number may be outdated. City Administrator Lerud stated that the previous estimated dollar amount was under $200,000. Public Works Director Brown agreed that the previous estimate was under $200,000 and this amount of $230,000 will go a long way towards helping with remediation even if it does not cover the entire cost. Motion by Johnson, seconded by Labadie, to approve the capital transfers, as requested. Motion carried 4/0. 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff th 1. Investments 4 Quarter 2018 Report Finance Director Rigdon reminded the Council that the objectives for investments follow the SLY method, which stands for Safety, Liquidity, and Yield. He reviewed the current investments and noted that certificates of deposit comprised forty-four percent of the portfolio. He stated that, in his opinion, it is a diversified and healthy portfolio. 2. SeeClickFix 2018 Review CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Administrator Lerud stated that staff is recommending that the City continue to use SeeClickFix. He stated that they are looking at ways to track some of the simple reports and resolution to the issues. He noted that about one-hundred eighty people have used SeeClickFix in the last year. Mayor Zerby suggested that the City get in touch with the sales representative and share thoughts on what issues we would like to see the system handle better for the City. Other Director Brown stated that Arctic Fever went well however, attendance was down a bit because of the cold weather. He stated they will be watching the cold temperatures and their possible effect on infrastructure in the City. Councilmember Lerud stated that the issues between the Ashland Woods developer and the neighborhood residents appear to be resolved, so he anticipates that the City will be receiving the last two building permits for that development. City Attorney Keane stated that he will be giving a response to the Grant Street question at the next Council meeting. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie stated that she had attended the Excelsior Fire District Board meeting on January 23, 2019. She gave a brief overview of the items discussed and noted that she was appointed as Vice-Chair for 2019. The next meeting will be March 20, 2019 at 6:30 P.M. Mayor Zerby noted that the Excelsior Fire District website does not give the meeting dates or the agenda and suggested that be changed. Councilmember Sundberg thanked the Public Works Department for their quick response with discolored water in her neighborhood. She stated that she suggested people let the City know when they are having issues sooner rather than later. Mayor Zerby stated that the City of Tonka Bay will have a public hearing on the new proposed Tonka Bay Apartments on February 12, 2019 at the Tonka Bay City Hall at 7:00 P.M. 11. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of January 27, 2019, at 7:35 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk #2C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Greg Lerud, City Administrator Joe Rigdon, Finance Director Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid Background: Claims for council authorization. 65201-65218 & ACH 194,193.76 Total Claims $194,193.76 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period e February 3, 2019. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide servi budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay t expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. $%&!'(( )*+#,-.!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.  !"#>1?0& 1 @%.AB"CCCCDECFEFCDG#H#$2HCFHCIHFCDG 4567#89#:;82<=88,  !"#$%!&'()*('+#$& !"#,)(-+#$& !"#*(.)+/#+ " 9J,#DCD) 1 !%(#901K DCDHCCHDCDCHCCCC#CECC#LMNMFCELO4P:;#PJ,#5JQ<:6R<J6: DCDHDSHIDCDHCCCC#DCNGSGEIF#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHDSHIDCSHCCCC#LCMECC#CECC$P26H65R< DCDHDSHIDFDHCCCC#MLLECT#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHDSHIDFFHCCCC#MSCECT#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHDSHIDSDHCCCC#DNOITEFD#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHDSHIDTDHCCCC#GSEOS#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J DCDHDTHIDCDHCCCC#TNCDDEIS#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHDTHIDFDHCCCC#SOTEMG#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHDTHIDFFHCCCC#SMMEGM#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHDTHIDSDHCCCC#TDOESD#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHDTHIDTDHCCCC#FSELL#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J DCDHDMHIDCDHCCCC#TNOFDEFM#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHDMHIDFDHCCCC#IFGECG#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHDMHIDFFHCCCC#IIDECT#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHDMHIDSDHCCCC#GFFEDS#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHDMHIDTDHCCCC#SIEMC#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J DCDHFIHIDCDHCCCC#ONCFSEDM#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHFIHIDFDHCCCC#TFLEOI#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHFIHIDFFHCCCC#TCLEOD#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHFIHIDSDHCCCC#DNDCLELC#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHFIHIDTDHCCCC#SDELL#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J DCDHSFHIDCDHCCCC#DCNOGIEGC#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHSFHIDCFHCCCC#GFEGI#CECC8Q<265R< DCDHSFHIDFDHCCCC#LODEGT#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHSFHIDFFHCCCC#MSLEOI#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHSFHIDSDHCCCC#FNTMCEOL#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHSFHIDTDHCCCC#TMGEST#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J DCDHSSHIDCDHCCCC#INISLEGD#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHSSHIDCFHCCCC#MIGEMC#CECC8Q<265R< DCDHSSHIDFDHCCCC#SLGEFL#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHSSHIDFFHCCCC#STCEIM#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHSSHIDSDHCCCC#FTTEOI#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHSSHIDTDHCCCC#FOMEID#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J $2#H#)*+#,-.!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*CI*FCDG#H##D"SL#$RW$%? #D  !"#$%!&'()*('+#$& !"#,)(-+#$& !"#*(.)+/#+ " DCDHTFHIDCDHCCCC#SNOFDETL#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHTFHIDFDHCCCC#FLFEGG#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHTFHIDFFHCCCC#FGDESG#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHTFHIDSDHCCCC#OFOEMO#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHTFHIDTDHCCCC#FCCEMS#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J DCDHTSHIDCDHCCCC#DNDGTEFO#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 DCDHTSHIDCSHCCCC#DNOMDELS#CECC$P26H65R< DCDHTSHIDFDHCCCC#MGELS#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHTSHIDFFHCCCC#FFGECS#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< DCDHTSHIDSDHCCCC#FSEIL#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 DCDHTSHIDTDHCCCC#ILEMC#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J $67879:;6<$67879:;6< 01%*$2 #345 9J,#FCD:B'! X''K#4'>>E#Y#<Z 1.#4 1. ! FCDHCCHDCDCHCCCC#CECC#DNMLOECL4P:;#PJ,#5JQ<:6R<J6: FCDHCCHIDCDHCCCC#DNDFFEII#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 FCDHCCHIDCSHCCCC#ILIECO#CECC$P26H65R< FCDHCCHIDFDHCCCC#MIEDM#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< FCDHCCHIDFFHCCCC#DFFEFM#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< FCDHCCHIDSDHCCCC#DOETG#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 FCDHCCHIDTDHCCCC#TLETC#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J $=876<;:6$=876<;:6 01%*$2 #345 9J,#LCD=%. !#.-(-.& LCDHCCHDCDCHCCCC#CECC#ONTFLECO4P:;#PJ,#5JQ<:6R<J6: LCDHCCHIDCDHCCCC#TNFCDECL#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 LCDHCCHIDCFHCCCC#GLEIF#CECC8Q<265R< LCDHCCHIDCTHCCCC#IDOEMF#CECC=P6<2#$P)<2#$P7 LCDHCCHIDFDHCCCC#IFLESG#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LCDHCCHIDFFHCCCC#ICLEOL#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LCDHCCHIDSDHCCCC#MFSEGD#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 LCDHCCHIDTDHCCCC#DTSEOD#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J $<8>96;:<$<8>96;:< 01%*$2 #345 9J,#LDD:%1-.%!&#: X !#.-(-.& LDDHCCHDCDCHCCCC#CECC#LNOGFELC4P:;#PJ,#5JQ<:6R<J6: LDDHCCHIDCDHCCCC#INODGEIS#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 LDDHCCHIDCFHCCCC#GLEIF#CECC8Q<265R< LDDHCCHIDCTHCCCC#IDOEMF#CECC:<=<2#$P)<2#$P7 LDDHCCHIDFDHCCCC#SGCESL#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LDDHCCHIDFFHCCCC#SODEFS#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LDDHCCHIDSDHCCCC#LLMEFI#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 $2#H#)*+#,-.!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*CI*FCDG#H##D"SL#$RW$%? #F  !"#$%!&'()*('+#$& !"#,)(-+#$& !"#*(.)+/#+ " LDDHCCHIDTDHCCCC#DFGEDC#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J $68<?9;6:$68<?9;6: 01%*$2 #345 9J,#LFD2 A&A(-1?#.-(-.& LFDHCCHDCDCHCCCC#CECC#TCCELL4P:;#PJ,#5JQ<:6R<J6: LFDHCCHIDCDHCCCC#SOMEGD#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 LFDHCCHIDFDHCCCC#FMEII#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LFDHCCHIDFFHCCCC#DTEGL#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LFDHCCHIDSDHCCCC#OTEDI#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 LFDHCCHIDTDHCCCC#FEFD#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J $>::;66$>::;66 01%*$2 #345 9J,#LSD:.'!>#=%. !#.-(-.& LSDHCCHDCDCHCCCC#CECC#DNOLDELG4P:;#PJ,#5JQ<:6R<J6: LSDHCCHIDCDHCCCC#DNSIFEGC#CECC9++H65R<#2<)+P2 LSDHCCHIDFDHCCCC#GMEIO#CECC$<2P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LSDHCCHIDFFHCCCC#DCFEMG#CECC954P#48J625@#H#4567#:;P2< LSDHCCHIDSDHCCCC#DMLEGC#CECC<R$+87<<#5J:2PJ4<#H#4567 LSDHCCHIDTDHCCCC#SCETS#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J $=8<6=;6?$=8<6=;6? 01%*$2 #345 9J,#OCC$%&!'((#4( %!-1?#901K OCCHCCHDCDCHCCCC#MONCMIECT#CECC4P:;#PJ,#5JQ<:6R<J6: OCCHCCHFDOCHCCCC#CECC#IFNCIGEFD)28::#$P728++#4+<P25J) OCCHCCHFDODHCCCC#CECC#GNODMEDD;<P+6;#5J:2PJ4<#$P7P@+< OCCHCCHFDOFHCCCC#CECC#TNDMTETC9<,<2P+#=56;;8+,5J)#$P7P@+< OCCHCCHFDOSHCCCC#CECC#FNLGOEFF:6P6<#=56;;8+,5J)#$P7P@+< OCCHCCHFDOIHCCCC#CECC#GNOMOEDC954P*R<,54P2<#6P[#$P7P@+< OCCHCCHFDOTHCCCC#CECC#MNLFFEGL$<2P#=56;;8+,5J)#$P7P@+< OCCHCCHFDOLHCCCC#CECC#INTGIEGF,<9<22<,#48R$<J:P658J OCCHCCHFDOOHCCCC#CECC#DNLODEFG=82U<2:#48R$<J:P658J OCCHCCHFDOGHCCCC#CECC#DITEMS:<4#DFT#,<$#4P2<#2<5R@#$P7P@+< OCCHCCHFDMCHCCCC#CECC#OSSEMI+59<#5J:2PJ4< OCCHCCHFDMFHCCCC#CECC#SISECOJ58J#,<: OCCHCCHFDMSHCCCC#CECC#DNTSTECC;<P+6;#:PQ5J):#P448J6 $7<8:7@;:>$7<8:7@;:> 01%*$2 #345 A(/ )#2 #345 $=<@8B>9;7:$=<@8B>9;7: $2#H#)*+#,-.!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*CI*FCDG#H##D"SL#$RW$%? #S 2E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Authorization for Expenditure of Funds, Water Meter Radio Read U MeetingDate: February 11, 2019 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Quote Policy Consideration: Should the City Council authorize the expenditure of funds for oneRadio Water Meter Reading Unit for the Department of Public Works? Background: The Public Works Department manages the reading of municipal water meters using a radio based system. Each water meter has a small radio that is inside works employee drives near the residence with the meter reading unit, the meter reader picks up the signal and records the data. Currently, the department utilizes a handheld unit for reading the meters. The original handheld reader is dated back to the original meter installations in 2007. The existing unit has failed to operate correctly, and is beyond the manufacturers support period. The vendor has loaned the City a handheld unit, until such time as a replacement unit can be purchased. Since initial installation of the radio read meters, public works sen in touch with the vendor, on many occasions, to determine why there are frequent missed readings as our perso data with the reader. This has been an ongoing problem. Crew members often have to reread areas, or drive up private driveways to get in close proximity to the meter inside the home, to register the reading. In working with Ferguson Waterworks staff, the unit that is being quoted to replace the handheld unit is a true drive by unit versus a handheld unit that is hooked to a laptop and has far greaterreceiving range than the handheld units. This should help immensely with homes that are set back a far distance from the roadway. Having this unit should also reduce the time spent by our personnel to gain a complete set of readings. Startup costs for the radio read unit are shown below and attached as a formal quote in Attachment 1: Description Amount MRX920 mobile data collector and MX900 software $ 7,500.00 Mapping and Mobility module software $ 630.00 Installation and training for MRX920, MX900 software $ 750.00 Total Start-up cost $ 8,880.00 Table 1 Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents qualit healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustai management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Finance:Replacement of this unit has been budgeted for with the MunicipalWater Fund in the amount of $11,250, which exceeds the quoted amount. It is noted that the quote does mention an ongoing subscription fee after the first year of use in the amount of $1,650. That is not part of the motion being considered here, but will be programmed in the future years operating budget of the water fund. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the motion that authorizes thexpenditure of funds, in the amount of $8,880.00, to Ferguson Waterworks for one Water Meter Data Collector and software. Neptune Water Meter Pricing, by Ferguson Waterworks City: Shorewood, MN Date:12/19/2018 Product Description: Quantity:Price each: Meter Reading Equipment 1MRX920 mobile data collector and MX900 software$7,500.00 Additional Software for Improved Meter Reading Efficiency 1Mapping and Mobility module, annual subscription, optional $630.00 Implementation and Training Services 1Installation and training for MRX920, MX900 software$750.00 Total Start-up cost$8,880.00 Annual maintenance for MRX920 and MX900 software, starting after the first year of use $1,650.00 ALL PRICING VALID UNTIL 01-31-2019 Thanks, Marc Meeden AMR / AMI Specialist Ferguosn Waterworks marc.meeden@ferguson.com 612-212-0757 City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item #2F Title/Subject: Approve Phased Retirement Plan for Joe Pazandak Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 MEETING Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator TYPE REGULAR Attachments: Phased Retirement Agreement Policy Consideration: Should the City consider approving a phased retirement option for the Building Official? Background: PERA created a phased retirement option in 2009 for two purposes: First, they were looking into the future and noticed the trend toward fewer workers replacing those currently employed. Second, the generation that is entering retirement years has a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge and PERA recognized there was value in creating a system that would provide incentives to continue to work on a reduced schedule rather than those people just quitting. Finally, in order to draw a PERA pension, the employee must separate from the city for at least 30 days before returning (with no prior guarantee of reemployment.) And even then, there were significant reductions in the pension amounts if their earnings exceeded $15,000 annually. As a result, there was very little incentive for these retires to return to work on a part-time basis. This phased retirement plan is at the employer’s discretion, and it allows a retiree to continue to work a reduced number of hours while not penalizing the employee by reducing their pension amount. In this particular case, Mr. Pazandak has a tremendous amount of knowledge about the city. Allowing him to transition to retirement will allow his replacement to begin to assume the role the city hired him for, while helping him and the city with the ongoing need for inspections related to development that is occurring in the city. Financial or Budget Considerations: Neither the employee or employer will pay into PERA while he is in the program, and the city will only be responsible for the hourly wage and FICA and Medicare contributions. The approved budget is adequate to cover his reduction in hours. Options: Mr. Pazandak has been an outstanding employee has been instrumental in training the incoming building official. The continuing need for inspections due to the building in the city means that the inspection demand can be assumed by an employee rather than having a contracted service fill the inspection void that would occur if 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 Pazandak retired completely. In addition, staff has recently had discussions with the City of Excelsior about the idea of sharing an inspector. Utilizing Pazandak on a reduced schedule will allow that discussion to continue and if it the two cities can reach an agreement, it would also allow the hiring process to occur for a full-time inspector. Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council approve the phase retirement as presented. Next Steps and Timeline: The agreement is for a maximum period of one year. Staff will work with Mr. Pazandak to determine the end date that is most beneficial to both him and the City. Phased Retirement Option Agreement Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) 60 Empire Drive, Suite 200, SaintPaul, MN 55103-2088 Member Information Services: 651-296-7460 or 1-800-652-9026 PERA Fax Number: 651-297-2547;PERA Web site: www.mnpera.org Instructions:Please complete the form below in its entiretyand submit to PERA. The employee and employer must enter into a Phased Retirement Option (PRO) agreement before the employeeterminatesemployment. In addition, PERA must receive the PRO agreement before the PRO begins and should accompanyacompleted Application for PERA RetirementBenefits. PRO Renewals:Please complete a newPhased Retirement Agreementform and submit toPERA prior to the PRO renewal date. Pleaseread the reverse side for details about PRO eligibility requirements. Part A -Identification Name of Individual to be employed under the PRO Agreement:PERA Member ID No.: Address:Last 4 digits of Social Security No.: Name of Employer offering PRO employment:PERA Employer Number (6-digits): Part B–Forcompletion by the employer that will employ theindividual under a PRO Dates of the Phased Retirement Employment :Begin Date:End Date: (must be limited to a one-year period) Identify if this is the first agreement covering phased retirement for this employee or renewal of a prior agreement: stndrdth Initial Agreement 1Renewal 2Renewal 3Renewal 4Renewal Note: Phased retirement employment may be for periods of up to one year, not to exceed a total duration of five years. I understand that wages earned by the named individualduring this period of employment must be reported to will not PERA and that the amounts be subject to PERA withholding. I further certify that this individualwill be employed in accordance with the phased retirement employment conditions described in this agreement and in M.S. §353.371, and I agree to ensure that this governmental unitcomplies with all related requirements. Signature of Employer Representative:Date of Signature: Part C–For completion by PERA member I have accepted phased retirement employmentwith (check the one that applies): The same governmental unitfor which I am currently employed. Adifferent governmental unitthan my current employer. Please indicate the name of yourcurrent employer:________________________________________________ andyour anticipateddate of termination with this unit of government(month/day/year): ____/____/______ I have read the requirements that must be met to qualify for the phased retirement program on the back of this form and confirm that I will meet all of the criteria. I understand that my PERA retirement benefit will be effective on the firstday of themonth following the begin date of my initial PRO agreement; however, if my agreement begins on the first day of a calendar month, my benefit will be effective on that day. Ifurther realize that while employed in a phased retirement position, I will not accrue service credits in PERA and my retirement benefit will not be subject to reduction under the provisions regarding reemployed annuitants (M.S. §353.37). I understand and accept the conditions of phased retirement employment described in this agreement and in M.S. §353.371. Signature of PERA Member:Date of Signature: Information about the PERA Phased RetirementOption(PRO)Program Eligibility: An employer is under no obligation to offer the phased retirement option to a PERA General Plan member. To participate in a PERA PRO, the employee must: Be an active Member of the General Plan (Coordinated or Basic) Be age 62 or older Be immediately eligible for a retirement annuity from the General Plan Have worked at least 1,044 hours each of the five preceding years Not eligible for the state employee Post-Retirement Option program under Minnesota Statutes § 43A.346 Employeesnot eligible for the PRO include: MERF Members Elected Officials covered by PERA State employeescovered by PERA Members in other PERA plans (Correctional, Police and Fire, etc.) Current PERA Retirees PRO Requirements: The employee and employer enter into a PRO agreement before terminating employment and PERA must receive the PRO agreement before the PRO begins. PRO agreements can be up to one year in length and may be renewed up to five times at the discretion of the employer. The employee must reduce hours by at least 25% and not exceed 1,044 hours per PRO agreement one year period. The employee and employer no longer contribute to PERA. During the Phased Retirement Agreement: The employer will enroll the employee under PERA’s Exempt Plan at the beginning of the PRO agreement. The earnings paid to an employee participating in a PRO program must be reported to PERA after each pay period using PERA Salary Deduction Report (SDR). No employee or employer contributions are payable to the retirement plan on the earnings of the PRO position. If the employeebeginsan additional public service position covered by PERA during thePRO agreement and is: Under full Social Security age:the employeewill be under the post-retirement annual earnings limits for o the new employment position Over full Social Security age:no post-retirement annual earnings limitsfor the new employment position o If the PRO agreement is renewed, the employee and employermust complete and submit another Phased Retirement Agreementformto PERAprior to the PRO renewal date. At the Conclusion of the Phased Retirement Agreement: Participation in PERA’s phased retirement program stops at the conclusion of the employee’s initial or renewed agreement, whichever is later. The employer must complete and submit the Conclusion of PRO –Employment Verification Statusform to PERA at the conclusion of the PROagreement. The employee isnot required to terminate public employment associated with thePRO agreement or any other public employment at the end of your PRO Agreement. If the employeecontinuesworking in the public position after the PRO agreement ends or begin a new position covered by PERAand is: Under full Social Security age:the employeewill be under the post-retirement annual earnings limits o Over full Social Security age:no post-retirement annual earnings limits o The PRO programexpires June 30, 2019: The law allows for anyone already working under the terms of a PRO agreement on or before June 30, 2019, to continue working under the PRO for a maximum of five years. It does not allow for new participants to enter the program on or after July 1, 2019. 05.11.2017 City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item #2G Title/Subject: Planning and Park Commission Appointments Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 MEETING Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator TYPE REGULAR Attachments: Resolution Background: The City Council conducted interviews of applicants for vacancies on the Planning Commission and Park Commission. Those interviews were held on January 28, and following the interviews the council recommended making the following appointments: Dustin Maddy and Dara Gault to the Planning Commission Stephany Vassar and Mike Hirner to the Parks Commission Financial or Budget Considerations: None Options: Approve the appointments as proposed in the attached Resolution or provide staff with alternative direction. Recommended Action: Staff recommends adopting the attached Resolution to approve the appointments as presented. Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will notify the candidates of the Council’s decision. 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 RESOLUTION 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARKS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has two vacancies on the Planning Commission and two vacancies on the Parks Commission; and, WHEREAS, the City advertised for applicants for the openings and received four applicants; and, WHEREAS, the applicants were interviewed by the City Council on January 28, 2019, NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA that the Council makes the following appointments: Planning Commission Dustin Maddy, for a term to expire February 28, 2022. Dara Gault, for a term to expire February 28, 2022. Parks Commission Stephany Vassar, for a term to expire February 28, 2022. Mike Hirner, for a term to expire February 28, 2022. Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 11th day of February 2019. __________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item 2I Title/Subject: Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, MEETING City Project 17-09 TYPE Regular Meeting Date: Monday, February 11, 2019 Meeting Prepared by: Alyson Fauske, PE, City Engineer Reviewed by: Larry Brown, PE, Public Works Director Attachments: Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council accept the constructed improvements and authorize the final payment for the Badger Park, Phase 2 improvements? Background: At the August 28, 2017 meeting the City Council awarded the Badger Park, Phase 2 construction project to Valley Paving. The contractor has completed the work in general conformance with the Contract documents and has requested final payment. The project is substantially complete and final paymen Valley Paving has submitted the Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form-134 Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers and the signed request for final payment. A Resolution Accepting Improvements for the Badger Park, Phase 2 Authorizing Final Payment is included for Council consideration Financial Considerations: The final project cost including the three change orders is $744,059.63. The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request Number 7/Final is $89,007.36. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Accepting Improvements for the Badger Park, Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17- 09, and Authorizes Final Payment to Valley Paving in the amount 89,007.36. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents qualit services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive ameniti sound financial management through effective, efficient, and vis Page 1 RESOLUTION 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 19- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTED IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE BADGER PARK, PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT 17-09 WHEREAS, on August 28, 2017, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with Valley Paving, Inc. for the Badger Park, Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09; and WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed the project work and has requested that the City accept the project and authorize final payment for the work performed and documented to date; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: The City hereby accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of the date of acceptance, February 11, 2019. th Passed by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 11 day of February, 2019. __________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk #2J MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Title / Subject: Special Assessment Removal from Hennepin County Assessment Rolls Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 Prepared by: Joe Rigdon, Finance Director Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: A Resolution Authorizing a Special Assessment Removal from the Hennepin County Special Assessment Rolls Background: In October 2015, the Shorewood City Council approved special assessments for a City reconstruction project on Star Lane. City staff recently discovered that due to a clerical error, the assessment was inadvertently certified to an incorrect property for payment over a ten year period at Hennepin County. Meanwhile, the correct property’s special assessment was not certified. Property parcel PID 31-117-23-24-0018, 28028 Woodside Road, was incorrectly charged an annual assessment payment of $1,169.12 plus an annual county service fee of $2.50 for both 2017 and 2018. The City reimbursed the property owners for $2,343.24 on January 28, 2019. To remove the 2019 and future payment installments for this property, Hennepin County has requested a certified resolution. Property parcel PID 33-117-23-24-0018, 5680 Star Lane, was on the original special assessment roll, but due to the clerical error, has not been certified to Hennepin County. The property owners have been notified of the error and informed that the assessment will be certified to their property by the end of 2019. The assessment repayment length and interest rate will not change from the original resolution approved in 2015, and the first payment installment will be in 2020. The property owner will have the ability to prepay all or in part by November 1, 2019. Financial or Budget Considerations: Despite a timing difference from original payment installments, correcting the special assessment clerical error will have no overall effect on special assessment revenues. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Council approve A Resolution Authorizing a Special Assessment Removal from the Hennepin County Special Assessment Rolls. 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. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REMOVAL FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS WHEREAS , Special assessment roll levy number 19350, Star Lane street reconstruction project, was certified to Hennepin County for a ten year period with the first year payment in 2017 and the final year payment in 2026; and WHEREAS , property parcel PID 31-117-23-24-0018, 28028 Woodside Road, was erroneously included in the assessment roll for levy number 19350; and WHEREAS , the owners of the property have paid the 2017 and 2018 special assessment installments for levy number 19350; and WHEREAS , the owners of the property have subsequently been reimbursed on January 28, 2019 for the 2017 and 2018 special assessment installments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council authorizes the removal of 2019 and future payment installments through 2026 from Hennepin County special assessment roll levy number 19350 for property parcel PID 31-117-23-24-0018, 28028 Woodside Road. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 11 day of February, 2019. ATTEST:Scott Zerby, Mayor ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item 2K Title/Subject: Appointment to Recycling Advisory Committee Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 MEETING Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator TYPE Reviewed by: Julie Moore, Communications and Recycling Coordinator REGULAR Background: At the January 14 City Council meeting, the idea of a recycling advisory committee was brought to the council for consideration. After discussion, it was the consensus of the council that the concept was a good idea and should be formed. Staff said that the names of the individuals being considered for the committee was not final, and that it would be brought back to the council for formal approval once community members had been identified. Joe Shneider, who is leading the recycling effort, provided the names of volunteers who have expressed interest in serving. If there is value in increasing the size of the committee, staff will bring forward additional names for council consideration. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. This group will serve without compensation. The city will provide meeting space, if needed, as well as support from staff. Options: The council can appoint the individuals as recommended or take no action to form the committee. Recommended Action: Staff recommends appointing the following individuals: City Council representatives: Kris Sundberg and Deb Siakel City staff: Julie Moore Industry expertise: Bill Keegan of Dem-Con Residents: Eileen Andersen, Karyn Penn, Joe Shneider High school student(s): TBD, up to two High School students as the Recycling Advisory Committee recommends. Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will notify Mr. Joe Shneider of the Council’s decision. 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 Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Public Hearing for the Enchanted Point Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18-11 Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 #4A Prepared by: Katie Koscielak, Project Manager MEETING TYPE Reviewed by: Alyson Fauske, City Engineer Regular Meeting Attachments: Assessment Map, Assessment Roll Background: On January 14, 2019, the Shorewood City Council accepted the engineering Feasibility Report for the Enchanted Island and Shady Island Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18-11, and set a date for the Public Hearing for the improvements proposed along Enchanted Point. The proposed project consists of reclamation of the existing street section, full-width bituminous overlay and minor drainage improvements along the following roadways:  Enchanted Lane / Shady Island Road  Enchanted Point from Enchanted Lane to the east terminus  Enchanted Drive from Enchanted Lane to the cul-de-sac  Dellwood Lane from Enchanted Lane to the cul-de-sac  Enchanted Cove from Enchanted Drive to the cul-de-sac  Shady Island Circle  Shady Island Point from Shady Island Circle to the cul-de-sac  Shady Island Trail from Shady Island Circle to the cul-de-sac All roadways within the Enchanted Island and Shady Island neighborhoods identified to be reclaimed consist of 16-22-foot-wide rural section (no curb and gutter) bituminous roadways apart from Enchanted Point. Enchanted Point is a 16-foot-wide rural section gravel roadway to approximately mid- block. This section of roadway was Otta sealed prior to 2011. Otta sealing is the application of emulsified asphalt to a gravel surface. At the Neighborhood Open House held November 28, 2018, property owners along Enchanted Point indicated the roadway was paved from mid-block to the east end roughly 10 years ago by the property owners. These improvements were completed without City approval or oversight and there is no indication these improvements were completed to City standards. 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 Historically, the City has assessed 100% of the surface and drainage improvements to the benefitting properties for paving roadways that are currently gravel. Enchanted Point has 18 properties that are required to utilize Enchanted Point to access their property and would benefit from the improvement. A neighborhood open house was held on February 5, 2019, to inform property owners abutting the improvement area of the proposed improvements and to hear concerns of those affected by the improvements in the project area. Due to the weather, residents within Enchanted Point did not attend the meeting. However, three of the 18 properties proposed for assessment called City Hall prior to the meeting to discuss the improvements. Of the three calls, two of the residents voiced their support for the improvements knowing the proposed assessment, as identified in the Feasibility Report, was approximately $13,620. The third caller did not identify to be in support or opposed to the improvements, but did indicate they would prefer to have the assessments be based on a “front foot” method versus a “unit method as their property only fronts the roadway at the driveway (minimal front footage). Financial or Budget Considerations: Funding for the project will be provided through the City’s Street Reconstruction Fund, Storm Water Fund, Sanitary Sewer Fund, and Special Assessments to benefitting properties along Enchanted Point. The total estimated project cost is summarized on the next sheet. Enchanted Island and Shady Island Street Reclamation Project City of Shorewood, MN Project Costs and Proposed Funding City Special Proposed ImprovementsTotal ResponsibilityAssessments Schedule A. - Enchanted Island and Shady Island $1,376,200.00$0.00$1,376,200.00 Street Reclamation Improvements Schedule B. - Enchanted Point Street Reclamation $0.00$245,100.00$245,100.00 Improvements Total Proposed Improvements$1,376,200.00$245,100.00$1,621,300.00 The method used to determine the special assessments to Enchanted Point properties utilizes the “Per Lot” method and includes properties adjacent to Enchanted Point. This method is consistent with past City practice. Properties along Enchanted Point are proposed to be assessed approximately $13,620/unit . CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2019 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Davis, Riedel, Eggenberger, and Gorham; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for January 15, 2019, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 4, 2018 Eggenberger moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 4, 2018, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the composition and role of the Planning Commission, including the responsibility to hold public hearings and help develop the factual record for an application. The Planning Commission makes a non-binding, advisory recommendation to the City Council. A. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. to Collocate Antennae on Existing Monopole Applicant: Tower Engineering Professionals, for Dish Network Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Director Darling explained that the applicant would like to collocate 3 additional antennae, 8 radio receiving units and other equipment on a new triangular array on the existing monopole tower at 24283 Smithtown Road. She gave a brief explanation of what is located in the surrounding areas. The applicant has requested additional time to complete their application but asked that the Commission open the public hearing and take any public testimony that there may be at tonight’s meeting and continue the Public Hearing to the February 5, 2019 meeting. Chair Maddy asked what the timeline would be for placing this equipment on the existing tower. The top of the tower contains an osprey nest. Director Darling stated that the applicants are planning to have the hardware installed prior to nesting season and complete hook up after nesting season. She noted that with the delay until February, it may be possible that installation of the hardware will also have to wait until after nesting season. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Gorham asked about the fencing. Director Darling stated that the existing chain link fence is adequate for what is out there but they are proposing some additional slats. She explained that her concern with slats is the maintenance. She noted this area is currently very neat and tidy and there is limited visibility. Commissioner Riedel asked which C.U.P. provision of the code this application triggers. Director Darling stated that antenna collocation applications are specifically listed in the code for a C.U.P. She noted that since the applicant has to fly in, she did not believe they would be present at tonight’s hearing. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M. and being there were no comments, closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M. Chair Maddy reopened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. in order to continue the Public Hearing to the February 5, 2019 meeting. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, to continue the Public Hearing for a C.U.P. to Collocate Antennae on the existing monopole at 24283 Smithtown Road for Tower Engineering Professionals on behalf of Dish Network, to the February 5, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 5/0. 4. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR , Cindy Marr 6015 Chaska Road stated that she lives across from the Shorewood Landing sign. She asked if they had received her proposal. Chair Maddy explained that the Commission had all gotten a copy of the e-mail from Ms. Marr. Ms. Marr stated that she and her husband have been residents for 38 years and five of those years were spent without light pollution. She noted when the two-story office building was put in there was essentially a spot light shining on their property for years. She stated that she had complained to the City numerous times but nothing was done until there was a new owner who agreed to change the light on the south side of the building. She stated that about fifteen years ago their neighbors decided to put up spotlights in their trees and leave them on all night which completely flooded the southside of their property with light. She stated that they have dealt with that by purchasing window coverings that help block the light. She explained that when the senior facility was proposed, they came to the Planning Commission and explained that their biggest concern was the light pollution. She noted that at the time, two of the Commissioners agreed with their concerns. She stated that they are living in a very frustrating situation with both the building and the placement of the large white lights along the front of the building. She stated that she complained to the City three times and nothing happened even though she had suggested that they just agree to turn the lights off at 11:00 P.M. She stated that they have now added more lights in addition to lights on the pine trees along the berm that stay on all night long. She stated that even people across the highway have complained that the light was shining all the way over there. She stated that there are many other neighbors who have been adversely affected by the lights and explained that she had gotten signatures from twelve neighbors stating that they believe there is excessive lighting at this location. She asked the Planning Commission to go to the location with the lights fully turned on so they have a better idea of what the residents in this area have been dealing with. She stated that her request is for these lights to be turned off at 11:00 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 3 of 4 P.M. She stated that she would like the City to come up with a lighting ordinance to protect the residents, especially for the people that live in the “middle zoning” that has residential near commercial. Chair Maddy asked which lights are giving Ms. Marr the most problem and whether measurements had been taken of the sign lighting. Planning Director Darling noted that measurements had been taken last year and the lights were in compliance with the .4-foot candles. She noted that holiday lights have nothing to block the glare and she had contacted Shorewood Landing and asked them to turn them off at 11:00 P.M. She explained that they were not crazy about the idea, but said that as soon as their maintenance man came back from vacation, they would have him put the lights on a timer. Ms. Marr stated that she is looking at the bigger picture in this situation. She stated that she feels the monument light is very dangerous and blinds them when they are in their driveway although it has improved with the adjustment of the fixture. She stated that because they have turned off the Christmas lights at Planning Director Darling’s request, they are now able to see all the other lights such as the flag pole, the lights to the sides and even the windows Commissioner Riedel asked which of the lights were not currently handled by the code requirements. Ms. Marr gave examples of Christmas lights and the roof lighting. Commissioner Riedel stated that he would be in support of strong restrictions on commercial lighting as well as prohibiting spotlighting in a residential area. He stated that aesthetically, if people choose to light up their property in a way that does not exceed a brilliance standard crossing the property line, he does not think that is within the purview of the City to step in. Ms. Marr stated that this light is shining across Highway 7 into the houses across the highway. Commissioner Riedel asked whether that was in conflict with the code requirements. Ms. Marr stated that she had been told that there is no ordinance for this type of lighting. She reiterated that she feels this company has put up an excessive amount of lighting at this location. She stated that she has been trying to resolve this issue with Shorewood Landing for two years. The Commission stated that they would like to take some time to investigate what the current code addresses with regard to lighting and consider addressing some concerns. Planning Director Darling stated that she will compile some information on the current ordinance and research what other cities are doing with regard to lighting and bring it back to a future meeting. Commissioner Gorham noted that the City of Plymouth has some detailed language regarding lighting in their ordinance and suggested Director Darling contact them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 4 of 4 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s January 14, 2019, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). Commissioner Riedel asked if the Commission could have copies of the minutes from both the Council and Planning Commission meetings where 6035 Spruce Hill Court had been discussed. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Director Darling stated that she will set the regular meeting schedule for 2019 and have that as an item on the February meeting along with the antenna CUP application, a sketch plan for Boathouse Villages and a CUP for an oversized accessory structure. Commissioner Eggenberger explained that he will be unable to attend the second Council meeting in February. Commissioner Riedel volunteered to attend the February 25, 2019 Council meeting in place of Commissioner Eggenberger. 7. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 15, 2019, at 7:33 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2019 7:30 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Planning Commission Chair Maddy; Planning Commissioners Gorham, Davis, Riedel, and Eggenberger; Park Commissioner Vassar; Planning Director Darling; Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Siakel Absent: Park Commissioners Mangold, Ashmore, Barr and Rock APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Joint Planning and Park Commission had no changes to the proposed agenda. 1. HISTORY OF FIRE LANE USAGE Planning Director Darling gave a brief overview of recent discussions regarding use of fire lanes as outlined in her staff report. She gave a history of the use of fire lanes and how they originated. She reviewed the current fire lane locations and the type of access that is allowed. She noted that over time, private improvements have begun to creep into the fire lanes. She explained that the Code does not allow the fire lanes to be used by motorized vehicles, except for the fire lane directly adjacent to Crescent Beach. She stated that this fire lane allows it to be used for snowmobiles during the winter and parking of vehicles near the beach the rest of the year. She noted that the Code prohibits motor vehicle use between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., Sunday through Thursday, and between 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on Friday and Saturday and limits the speeds to 10 mph on public property. She stated that she had attached some information about what other cities have allowed with regard to vehicles. Park Commissioner Vassar asked about Crescent Beach and past issues with maintenance over the past year. Councilmember Siakel stated that half of Crescent Beach is in the City and the other half is in Tonka Bay. She explained that the City has had an agreement with Tonka Bay regarding maintenance and the City had approved a certain dollar amount every year for Tonka Bay to take care of the maintenance of the beach. She noted that the City also splits the cost of a summer lifeguard with Tonka Bay. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this issue is potentially complex because these fire lanes became public access points and in 1985, they were officially declared for public access, however, there does not appear to have been markers or maintenance done on many of the fire lanes. He stated that it appears as though many people are not even aware that these fire lanes exist. He asked whether other areas of City land are marked and designated. He asked if the fire lanes were officially considered park land because of the 1985 ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Planning Director Darling stated that the City owns quite a bit of property but most of the parcels are compromised and frequently contain wetlands. She explained that typically these parcels do not have markers on them unless they were part of a plat. She stated that the fire lanes are considered public grounds. Chair Maddy noted that he does not believe that there is anything in the fire code that would consider these fire lanes so the City could decide to get rid of them without causing any problems from a fire standpoint. Planning Director Darling stated that she agreed and the term fire lane is more of a historic name and the Council could change the name to something like public access points. Commissioner Riedel asked if there were any provisions from the DNR regarding public access points to lakes, such as minimum width. Planning Director Darling stated that she was not aware of any provisions from the DNR with regard to public access points to lakes. Planning Commissioner Gorham asked if there were any fire lanes that stick out in Planning Director Darling’s mind as more of a maintenance and awareness issue where its use would dramatically change. He noted that the access point on Grant Lorenz appears as though it could easily be cleaned up to make a truly useable public access point. Planning Director Darling asked if he meant paving or putting down a gravel road. She stated that some of these fire lanes are more suited for pedestrian access because of the topography. She stated that several of the overgrown public access points would require tree removal in order to clean them up for vehicle access but would only require minor clearing for pedestrian access. Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels it is problematic to have public access points that are not visually recognizable, known or maintained. Planning Director Darling noted that she had attached two letters from residents to the report, but noted that she had received more after the packet went out and will make sure the Commission receives all of the letters submitted in the future. Chair Maddy reminded residents that they will read every letter sent in and that tonight’s meeting was just for advisement and discussion with no decisions being made. 2. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, stated that he had lived in the City for 46 years and lives about three houses away from the fire lane from Birch Bluff to the lake. He noted that when he first moved in there were three or four families that got permission to build a dock for fishing purposes which was maintained by the group but after a few years it went by the wayside. He stated that over the years he had tried to maintain the fire lane a bit by removing fallen trees. He noted that there used to be signs posted, but pretty much everything has gone away now and the neighbors on each side have kind of taken it over as their own property. He stated they have mowed parts of the area and thrown their leaves and brush onto the fire lane. He stated that there used to be a stone stairway down to the lake but that has fallen apart. He stated that he thinks it is important for the City to maintain the fire lanes as well as post signs or somehow mark them as public access points to the lake. He stated that he thinks many of the adjacent CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 3 of 9 property owners just see the fire lanes as part of their own property. He gave the example of a home owner on Grant Lorenz that has planted arborvitae that he feels will fill the whole fire lane. He stated that these are useful pieces of public property and the City should take care of them. Mark Bongard, 26260 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he lives adjacent to the Grant Lorenz fire lane. He stated that when they bought the house, they did their due diligence and came to talk to the City and knew that the fire lane was a limited use fire lane. He stated that while they were building their house, they noticed snowmobiles using it, but they assumed once they actually moved in the use would slow down because the home was occupied. He stated that the use did not stop and increased when the lake froze over. He stated that there is a lot of coming and going at all hours of the day and night. He explained that they had built their house assuming that this was a pedestrian only fire lane so they put all of the bedrooms on the side of the house closest to the fire lane. He stated that they are sometimes awakened four times a night from cars and snowmobiles using the fire lane. He stated that as the weather changes and melts and refreezes and the ice heaves, it is tough for people to get through without revving their engines. He stated that they had assumed that the City would be enforcing the use of the fire lane, but that has not been the case. He stated that he put up signs of his own and spoke to the City asking if he had to take them down and was told he did not have to. He stated that he does not believe that the fire lane is his or that he has a right to take it over as part of his property, however he has spent a lot of time cleaning it up. He stated that they fully support the current terms of the fire lane as a pedestrian only access to the lake. He clarified that he was not the one who planted the arborvitae. Park Commissioner Vassar confirmed that the times Mr. Bongard found most bothersome was the winter use of the fire lane. Chair Maddy asked if Mr. Bongard had noticed any parking issues during any time of the year. Mr. Bongard stated that there are a lot of vehicles who park there. He stated that they have had people come to their home asking them to move the vehicles when there have been some triple-parked and it is people out on the lake and not their personal vehicles. Chair Maddy stated that there should not be vehicles parked on the fire lane, but he would like to know if there were a lot of people parking on Birch Bluff Road. Mr. Bongard stated that he has not seen too much of that and noted that occasionally people will park to drop off a canoe or kayak and then take their vehicle somewhere else. He reiterated that he supports the summer usage of the fire lane. Tim Leester, 26355 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that he has been a resident since 1993 and before that lived in Excelsior since 1971. He thanked the City for taking the time for a discussion about public lake access. He asked that the City to consider amending Fire Lane #3 to become a Level Two fire lane. He stated that would support the access hours and speed limits that were mentioned earlier. Tom Lesser, 26245 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he lives directly across the road from the Grant Lorenz fire lane. He stated that he has lived there five years and having lake access is a great benefit. He stated that he also hears a lot of snowmobile traffic at night and it is sometimes disruptive which is why he has problems with motorized vehicle access. He asked who would police the use if the City allowed the usage for certain hours of the day at certain speed limits. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 4 of 9 Cathy Bongard, 26260 Birch Bluff Road, stated that she feels the impression has gotten out that they are against people using the Grant Lorenz access and they are not. She stated that they have enjoyed watching people walk to the lake with their dogs and children to access the lake year-round. She stated that what is not enjoyable is the snowmobiles because they are the loudest and much of the time are coming back and forth late at night. She reiterated her husband’s comment that they do not think of this as their personal property. She stated that they have been maintaining it because it had gotten very overgrown with buckthorn and debris. She stated that it is the motorized vehicles, the noise and the time of day that causes the most problems. She stated that maintaining public access to the lake is very important. She noted that the access on Eureka Road needs some work because the cliff there seems very dangerous. She stated that there is a home for sale right next to the beach which she sees as an opportunity for the City to purchase it and install a public fishing dock in that location. Diane Tessari, 5375 Eureka Road, stated that she has lived there since 2002 and has used the steep access at the end of Eureka Road and appreciates the public access points to the lake. She stated that she feels it is important to maintain the access points and not give any of them up. She stated that she does believe there is a great need for signage that outlines permissible activities as well as penalties for not following the rules. She stated that she also thinks the hours of operation need to be made very clear. She stated that allowing motorized vehicle access at Crescent Beach is sufficient and does not think people having to drive a few additional blocks to avoid disturbing residential areas is a hardship. Cheryl LeBrian, 4790 Lakeway Terrace, stated that she has lived there for 35 or 40 years. She stated that she believes that Lakeway Terrace on Lake William is a completely different situation than Lake Minnetonka. She stated that on Lake William there are no speed boats or noise. She stated that she thinks the ideas for signage, clearing and rules makes a lot of sense for the access points on Lake Minnetonka, but does not make sense for Lake William. She stated that the Lake William fire lane #10 has many old oak trees with a sixty-foot drop off and the street nearby is very narrow, so if people wanted to park and walk down that lane to the lake, she does not think fire trucks could get past. She stated that there is parking where the old Lyman Lodge used to be located that people use to park when they want to access the trail. She asked who owns the land that goes around this area on the Lake Minnetonka side. Planning Director Darling stated that is within another city. Chair Maddy noted that staff can check the County website when they are researching this item. Ms. LeBrian stated that if the City wanted to do anything on Lake William then this area already has a little baby gravel parking lot that people are using and the lake is easily accessible in this area because there is no grade change. She stated that they do not want to see the old oak trees cleared and signage posted all over. She asked that the City acknowledge that Lake William is completely different that Lake Minnetonka. She stated that at access point #8 a house was just torn down and it looks like they are going to try to put up two homes. She asked where the fire lane was in relation to this project. Planning Director Darling noted that the fire lane is adjacent to this project. Ms. LeBrian asked how the property owners would know if someone was proposing to buy one of the fire lanes on Lake William. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 5 of 9 Planning Director Darling stated that if someone proposed that the City vacate the public easements, it would have to be through a public forum so the affected property owners in the vicinity would be notified, which would usually be the adjacent properties. Ms. LeBrian stated that the rumor mill is saying that the people who tore down the house are planning to approach the City about acquiring the fire lane. Mike Blomquist, 5425 Grant Lorenz Road, stated that he has lived here for five years and before the new house was built there had been no issues with snowmobiles or four-wheelers accessing the lake. He stated that he has never been woken up by a snowmobile or four-wheeler. He stated that Lake Minnetonka is a beautiful lake but it is one of the busiest in the Midwest. He stated that he thinks it is wrong to cut off access to the lake because everybody has been using the access up until when the Bongards moved in. He stated that he feels it is too beautiful of an area to cut off from the public. He confirmed that the Commissioners had gotten the slides and pictures that he had submitted with his letter. He noted that when he purchased his home five years ago, the realty description said that he would have fire lane access to take his snowmobile out onto the lake. Chair Maddy noted that fire lane #3 was never allowed to have motorized vehicles. Mr. Blomquist stated that no one ever questioned that or thought that is was only for non- motorized vehicles, even the South Minnetonka police officer that he spoke to. He stated that now that he knows the law, he takes his four-wheeler down to Crescent Beach to go out onto the lake and go fishing. He stated that he would like to see this fire lane changed to a Class #2. Tim Leester, 26355 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that he thinks it would be more disruptive to travel on a snowmobile down along the road to Crescent Beach than it would be to access the lake at fire lane #3. Chair Maddy closed the public testimony at 8:39 P.M. 3. DISCUSS FIRE LANE USAGE, DIRECTION TO STAFF AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Planning Commissioner Davis stated that she would like to see the City survey the fire lanes and install markers so the City knows exactly where the boundaries are and what things may be encroaching. She stated that she thinks the surveying needs to be completed before the City can decide what to do with the property. Councilmember Siakel stated that on Birch Bluff Road there are four fire lanes within a half mile. She noted that she lives on Birch Bluff and noted that the owners prior to the Bongards only lived there during the summer months, which is probably why there weren’t earlier issues or complaints about snowmobiles using this access point. Planning Commissioner Riedel asked why so many fire lanes were created in such close proximity to each other. Planning Director Darling noted that in her research it appears as though there were even more fire lanes in the past and some of them have been vacated. She stated that past Councils and Commissions have prioritized the fire lanes that they felt were important to keep and maintain. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 6 of 9 Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would like to get rid of the term fire lanes and call them something else. He stated that he would also like to have a discussion about whether they should be made park land. He stated that he also thinks it is important to discuss whether motorized access will be allowed as well as the hours of operation. He stated that he thinks part of the problem is that people do not know what the hours are. Planning Commissioner Davis stated that she thinks there are certain people that will not follow the rules even if they know the hours. Chair Maddy stated that the City could choose to put physical barriers in place that would keep out snowmobiles and allow access to pedestrians. Planning Commissioner Davis stated that she feels there is no reason for a car to drive down any of these fire lanes and certainly not the Grant Lorenz fire lane. She stated that she has lived in the City for 40 years and remembers when there used to be bollards there so a car could not drive down the access point. Chair Maddy stated that he agrees that if the City decides there are no motorized vehicles allowed, then some sort of physical barrier will have to be put into place. Planning Commissioner Riedel confirmed that currently the only access that allows motorized vehicles, including snowmobiles, is Crescent Beach. He stated that there is a larger issue of signage and whether it should go on all public access points or just the ones that are used and noted that the Lake William access points also need to be considered. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Ms. LeBrian that the Lake William access points need to be considered apart from the Lake Minnetonka access points. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed. Planning Commissioner Davis suggested that conservation be considered for those access points on Lake William, but noted that it would raise the question of maintenance. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he questions if the access points that allowed motorized vehicles were spread out to other points whether that would cut down the traffic and noise at the Grant Lorenz location. Planning Commissioner Davis stated that she has lived in the City longer than there have been snowmobile ordinances in place and feels that there is a reason that the City has gotten strict about snowmobiles. Chair Maddy stated that it seems very clear that the snowmobiles are the problem but asked what their options are for access if the City decides that this is a residential area and snowmobiles have no business accessing the lake by driving between two homes. Planning Director Darling explained that snowmobiles can access the lake through Crescent Beach as well as other communities in the area that have motorized vehicle access. Planning Commissioner Davis stated that she met two snowmobilers one night at Lord Fletcher’s who explained to her how incredibly difficult it is to get from Waconia to Lake Minnetonka. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Bongard stated that she knows that snowmobiles are allowed to drive along the edge of the road and asked if four-wheelers were also legal to travel on the edge of the road. Chair Maddy asked if the City had a specific snowmobile ordinance or if it also covered four- wheelers. Planning Director Darling stated that she would have to check. Councilmember Johnson stated that with regard to snowmobiles using the roads, the City ordinance states it is not allowed except when going to the closest place of entry to access the lake. Chair Maddy stated that he wanted to assure residents that the access points are a valued asset to the City and does not think anyone is looking at closing all of them and thinks the City would like to find a way for people to use them while still being respectful of the areas where the fire lanes are located. He stated that he thinks the first step is to survey all ten of the fire lanes and then take a look at what the City wants them to look like. He stated that he did not think Lake William needed to have four fire lanes and suggested that perhaps the City look into putting some of them into a conservation or selling them to adjacent property owners. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would also like to have a discussion about the pros and cons of making them park land. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the options are doing nothing with the fire lanes that are unused, or put up signage indicating that they are public access. He stated that the City should also consider putting up barriers if the use of motorized vehicles is not allowed. Planning Commissioner Davis stated that she would like to see a physical barrier installed on Grant Lorenz to prevent cars and trucks from driving down to the lake. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels that everything as written from 1985 is fine, but needs to be managed, as well as signs put up, and it be somehow enforced. Park Commissioner Vassar stated that there will also need to be a discussion about who will maintain these access points. Chair Maddy asked if the group felt the need to change the categories and include a conservation category for some of the fire lanes on Lake William. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that perhaps one of the new categories for the Lake William area is for a new category that states you are allowed to walk across the fire lane. He stated that it could be clear that the City would not maintain it or clear the brush but is available for pedestrian use. Planning Director Darling asked if the Commission was asking her to craft a definition for lesser usage than the current Level 1. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he is suggesting the City tweak the current definitions and say, for the low use areas, that this is something that is dedicated as public land and you are allowed to walk across it but that is all. He stated that he does think it is very important to have all ten fire lanes surveyed and staked. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 8 of 9 Councilmember Siakel asked if the City had any surveys on file already. Planning Director Darling stated that she had a survey done for fire lane 1 but other than that she has not found any surveys in the files. Mr. Storlie stated that at the Eureka Road fire lane there used to be two fence posts and a cable. He explained that the cable is gone and the posts may still be there but hidden by some of the debris. He is not sure if they are official survey markers or just used by someone to mark it. He stated that the area has been used by the neighborhood to dump leaves and brush. He suggested that there be a designation called Permanent Green Space that only allows pedestrian foot traffic. Chair Maddy stated that there also should be consideration of changing the term from fire lane to something like public access ways. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if these areas are changed to park land, he does not think new designations will be needed. Planning Commissioner Davis stated that if these parcels became park land, she questioned whether the Park Commission could take them on and afford it. Chair Maddy stated that rather than creating a new designation or designating them as park land, perhaps it becomes more of an outlot that the City owns. Planning Director Darling stated that most of these are public rights-of-way. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger reiterated that he would like to see some of these melded into the parks because it is one less category to keep track of and maintain. Planning Commissioner Davis stated that there is only one member of the Parks Commission here, so she is not sure what their thoughts will be. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks putting this on the Parks Commission is a lot and their current budget would not support taking these on. Park Commissioner Vassar stated that there are some big things coming up for the Park Commission and taking this one would make other projects within the City more challenging. Ms. LeBrian asked if there was a way to have the Lake William fire lanes be turned into outlots. She stated that if they were sold to adjoining property owners what the tax value would be to the City. Planning Director Darling noted that the reason that fire lane 7 was an outlot was because there was an exchange of land. She stated that she does not foresee the same thing being able to happen with fire lanes 8, 9, and 10. She stated that if they were vacated, or incorporated into an existing lot, there would be no additional tax value to the City. She stated that what she is hearing the Planning and Park Commission say is that they would to take the existing three classifications and revise them into three new classifications. She noted that one would be pedestrian only, the next would be similar to what the current class 1 is, and the last category would allow for vehicles, parking and swimming access, which would be similar to the current Crescent Beach access. She asked whether the Commission would like a fourth category to allow for snowmobile access. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 9 of 9 Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that currently the Eureka access point has the dock, which makes it a class 3. Planning Director Darling stated that the resident has stated that there has not been a dock at that location for many years, but it could still be included as an option for the future if residents want to take it over again. Chair Maddy asked if the Commission wanted to even allow motorized vehicles or hold off on that discussion until the surveys have been completed. The Consensus of the Commission was to wait to discuss motorized vehicles and hours of operation until after some of the survey facts have been gathered . The Commission discussed that hours of operation for pedestrians are not really needed because people should be able to walk out onto the lake at midnight if they want to and would not be disturbing anyone. Chair Maddy suggested that hours of operation be discussed during the second round with the survey information. Planning Commissioner Riedel suggested that members of both the Planning and the Park Commission should physically go out to each site after they are surveyed. Chair Maddy asked what the Commission would like to do about private owners who have placed things in the fire lanes. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes this is something the City will need to address in the future. 4. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 15, 2019, at 9:20 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item 8A Title/Subject: Shorewood Lane Ravine, City Project 17-15. Approve Resolution of Finding of Public Purpose; MEETING Authorize Petition for Easement Acquisition from TYPE 5625 Shorewood Lane, PID 3311723140036 Regular Meeting Meeting Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 Prepared by: Alyson Fauske, PE, City Engineer Reviewed by: Tim Keane, City Attorney Larry Brown, PE, Public Works Director Attachments: Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council authorize the 120-day quick take procedure to acquire a drainage and utility easement at 5625 Shorewood Lane? Background: At the October 9, 2017 meeting the City Council authorized preliminary design work to address erosion issues within the ravine that lies east of Shorewood Lane. Storm sewer conveying drainage from a portion of County Road 19, City Hall/Badger Park and portions of Echo Road discharges at the northeast corner of County Road 19 and Shorewood Lane. The grade in the ravine drops 30 feet over approximately 500 feet, with steep sideslopes. At the April 9, 2018 meeting the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized solicitation of quotes from contractors. As stated in the council memo, the final phase to acquire the necessary easements began once the plans were approved. Staff met and corresponded with the owner of 5625 Shorewood Lane through the fall of 2017 and was unable to reach an agreement for the easement acquisition. The City Attorney recommends undertaking the 120-day quick take process to acquire the easement. Financial Considerations: The appraisal and legal fees associated with this action are estimated to be $6,000. Action Requested: Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve the resolution finding public purpose and authorize petition for easement acquisition from the property located at 5625 Shorewood Lane, PID 3311723140036. If approved, funding will be from the Local Roadway or Storm Water fund. A simple majority vote is required. 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 Connection to Vision/Mission : Consistency in 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. RESOLUTION 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 19- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PRESENTATION OF OFFERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AREAS NEEDED EITHER BY NEGOTIATIONS OR CONDEMNATION FOR THE SHOREWOOD LANE RAVINE, CITY PROJECT 17-15 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (the City) has initiated the Shorewood Lane Ravine, City Project 17-15 (the Project), to address erosion issues with the ravine that lies east of Shorewood Lane; and WHEREAS, the construction schedule for the Project contemplates that the Project will be completed during the 2019 construction season; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the City obtain title and possession, either by negotiation or condemnation, to the necessary easements at the property located at 5625 Shorewood Lane (PID 3311723140036) for the Project before construction may begin; and WHEREAS, the City has commenced negotiation in good faith in order to facilitate the acquisition by negotiation and to allow the timely acquisition by condemnation of the necessary easements for the Project; and WHEREAS, market value appraisals of the easements required for the Project have been commissioned by the City and completed by Nicollet Partners (Firm). NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The presentation of offers for the easement interests required for the Project based upon the appraised market value is hereby authorized. 2. The City Council hereby directs that a copy of the completed market value appraisal for the easement(s) on each property be provided to the respective property owner with the presentation of offer. th Passed by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 11 day of February, 2019. __________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Enchanted Point Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18-11 Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 #8B Prepared by: Katie Koscielak, Project Manager MEETING TYPE Reviewed by: Alyson Fauske, City Engineer Regular Meeting Attachments: Resolution Background: On January 14, 2019, the Shorewood City Council accepted the engineering Feasibility Report for the Enchanted Island and Shady Island Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18-11, and set a date for the Public Hearing for the improvements proposed along Enchanted Point. The hearing for the improvements along Enchanted Point was held on February 11, 2019 under Item 4A, allowing interested persons to voice their opinions of the proposed improvements. The improvements described in the Feasibility Report are necessary, cost effective, and feasible and will result in benefit to the properties proposed to be assessed. Financial or Budget Considerations: Funding for the project will be provided through the City’s Street Reconstruction Fund, Storm Water Fund, Sanitary Sewer Fund, and Special Assessments to benefitting properties along Enchanted Point. The total estimated project cost is summarized below. Enchanted Island and Shady Island Street Reclamation Project City of Shorewood, MN Project Costs and Proposed Funding City Special Proposed ImprovementsTotal ResponsibilityAssessments Schedule A. - Enchanted Island and Shady Island $1,376,200.00$0.00$1,376,200.00 Street Reclamation Improvements Schedule B. - Enchanted Point Street Reclamation $0.00$245,100.00$245,100.00 Improvements Total Proposed Improvements$1,376,200.00$245,100.00$1,621,300.00 Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Enchanted Point Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18-11. 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 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ENCHANTED POINT STREET RECLAMATION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 18-11 WHEREAS, WSB prepared the Feasibility Report for the Enchanted Island and Shady Island Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18-11, which was received th by the City Council on the 14 day of January, 2019; and WHEREAS th ,a resolution of the City Council adopted on the 14 day of January, 2019, fixed a date for City Council hearing on the Enchanted Point street reclamation improvements; and WHEREAS , ten days’ mailed notice and two weeks’ published notice of the th hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 11 day of February, 2019, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution th adopted the 14 day of February, 2019. 2. WSB is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. th Passed by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 11 day of February 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk [Type here] CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 19 - ___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO 1 FOR THE BOULDER BRIDGE MOTOR CONTROL CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 18-01 WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council awarded the contract for the Boulder rd Bridge Motor Control Project, City Project 18-01, on July 23, 2018, to AE2S Construction, LLC DBA Electrical Installation and Maintenance (EIM); and WHEREAS, Change Order 1 is necessary to facilitate requested changes to the water system and increase the final completion date for the Contract; and WHEREAS, Change Order 1 will increase the project construction costs in the amount of $1,560 to a revised Contract amount of $131,460, as documented in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. Change Order 1 is hereby approved and as outlined in Exhibit A. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD th this 11 day of February, 2019. ATTEST: ______________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor _________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item #9A Title/Subject: Consideration of Contract with DaveyTree for Arborist Svc. Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 MEETING Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator TYPE Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works, Tim Keane, City REGULAR Attorney Attachments: Agreement for Professional Services – Davey Tree Background: The City has had a contract with Davey Tree dba S & S Tree Service since 2016 for arborist services. The company has dropped the doing business as S & S Tree Service effective January 24. Staff has been satisfied with the quality and responsiveness of the service provided. In addition, Davey has provided education and inspection to residents by appointment in 2017 and 2018, which has been well received. The proposed agreement has been reviewed by staff. Financial or Budget Considerations: The contract proposes to increase the hourly rate from $65 to $86 per hour. The budget is adequate to cover the cost for services in 2019. Options: 1. Approve the agreement for professional services. 2. Take no action and provide direction to staff. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the agreement as proposed. 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 - 1 - AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES This Agreement for consulting Services (“Agreement”) is made as of this ____ day of ________________, 2019 by and between The Davey Tree Expert Company (“Consultant”), a Minnesota corporation; and the City of Shorewood, MN (“Client”). In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Consultant and Client agree as follows: 1. TERM and SERVICES. a. Under the terms, conditions and procedures set forth in this Agreement, Consultant agrees to provide Client with consulting services (the “Work”) as defined in this Agreement. b. Any work that is not covered under the Work outlined in this Agreement that is requested by Client will be performed by Consultant only upon Consultant submitting a bid for the work or services and after Client has notified Consultant that Consultant is authorized to perform the work or services. Other than the compensation and consulting services outlined in this Agreement, so long as this Agreement is in effect, any work or services performed by Consultant will be pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined in this Agreement. c. The Work to be performed under this Agreement will commence on or about ____________ and will continue until terminated as provided for in this Agreement. 2. CONSULTANT PERSONNEL. Consultant shall employ for the Work employees or, if approved by Client contractors, of Consultant known to it to be qualified to perform the Work. At Client's request, the credentials of Consultant's employee(s) or contractor(s) assigned to perform the Work shall be submitted to Client. 3. WORK, COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. a. Consultant shall perform the following Work for Client: i. Assist Client with the preparation of long- and short-term policy and strategies for Client’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Management Program; ii. Assist Client with the implementation of Client’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Management Program; Iii. Assist Client with risk management and emergency preparedness as outlined in the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Management Program; iv. Perform inspection of trees on City of Shorewood property as directed by Client for tree quality, defects, infestations and pest control, damage, assessed value and possible corrective measures; v. Provide assistance and technical consulting to staff, citizens, governmental agencies and other outside agencies on matters of concern regarding City of Shorewood urban forestry issues as directed and approved by Client; vi. Assist Client with public education programs related to urban forest management ideas such as “Tree City USA,” Arbor Day and Earth Day; C:consulting606 - 2 - vii. Assist Client with presenting programs to City advisory commissions, committees, civic groups, schools, private developers and others as directed by Client; viii. Assist Client with other duties consistent with this Agreement that are related to Client’s urban forest management that are reasonably requested by Client. b. Compensation for the Work performed will be paid by the Client to Consultant as follows: i. Eighty-six dollars ($86.00) per hour for Work performed for Client. Consultant will begin charging on a per-hour rate on a portal-to-portal basis; ii. Mileage while performing Work or traveling to and from Work while in the City of Shorewood jurisdictional limits charged at the Internal Revenue Service mileage reimbursement rate on a per-mile rate. c. Client shall pay Consultant on a monthly basis for Work performed. Consultant will submit an invoice on a monthly basis outlining the Work performed in the month covered by the invoice. d. Unless otherwise set forth herein, payment, including any applicable taxes on the Work, shall be made by Client no more than thirty (30) days from the date of invoice. e. Consultant will be responsible to withhold and pay all amounts related to payments to its employees, including but not limited to, income taxes, FICA, social security, Medicare, FUTA, unemployment compensation or other taxes. 4. PERMITS. Unless this Agreement otherwise provides, Client shall, at its own expense, obtain from appropriate governmental authorities all permits and licenses which are required for Consultant to perform the Work, except for permits and licenses required to be obtained by Consultant to perform the Work. 5. WARRANTY. a. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the Work with the care, skill, and diligence set forth by the applicable professional standards currently recognized by such profession and that the Work shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. b. Other than as contained herein, Consultant does not make and expressly disclaims any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied, with respect to the Work including, but not limited to, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. c. Consultant provides Work at a certain point in time and the parties understand and agree that the facts and conditions underlying the Work may change over time. Therefore, any facts, conclusions and recommendations are applicable only at the time the Work is performed. In that Consultant cannot predict or otherwise determine subsequent developments or events concerning the subject of the Work, Consultant will not be liable for any subsequent developments, changes, acts, or conditions not C:consulting606 - 3 - known or considered at the time the Work is performed, nor will Consultant have any responsibility to advise Client about any changes. d. To the extent Consultant has reviewed and relied upon publicly available, Client provided, or other third party records or other information, Consultant has assumed and is entitled to rely upon the genuineness of such documents and other information. Consultant disclaims any liability or responsibility for errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies resulting from or contained in any records or other information obtained from these sources. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY a. Any data, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, reports and other documents and information associated with the Work, regardless of form, and any information that Consultant provides, shall be and remain the sole property of Consultant, referred to herein as “Consultant Confidential Information,” unless such information is incorporated in or provided as part of the Work provided to Client. b. Any data, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, reports and other documents and information associated with the Work, regardless of form, and any information that Client provides, shall be and remain the property of Client, referred to herein as “Client Confidential Information,” unless such information is incorporated in or provided to Consultant as part of the Work provided to Client. c. Consultant will use Client Confidential Information solely to perform the Work and shall not disclose Client Confidential Information to any third party without Client’s authorization. d. The restrictions set forth in this Article shall not apply to Confidential Information: (i) which is in the public domain at the time it was disclosed; (ii) which was already known to a party prior to the time it was disclosed; (iii) which is independently developed by a party who did not receive Confidential Information and who developed without the use or benefit of Confidential Information; or (iv) which is disclosed to a party from a source absent a breach of this Agreement. e. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party will continue to keep confidential as provided above any Confidential Information of the other party. 7. INDEMNIFICATION. a. Consultant will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Client from and against any and all losses, costs, damages, claims, liabilities, fines, penalties, and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ and other professional fees and expenses, and court costs, incurred in connection with the investigation, defense, and settlement of any claim asserted against Client (collectively, “Losses”), which Client may suffer or incur as a direct result of actions, omission, or negligence on the part of Consultant. Consultant will not be liable for any actions, omissions, or negligence of Client or of any third party. C:consulting606 - 4 - b. Client will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Consultant from and against any and all losses, costs, damages, claims, liabilities, fines, penalties, and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ and other professional fees and expenses, and court costs, incurred in connection with the investigation, defense, and settlement of any claim asserted against Consultant (collectively, “Losses”), which Consultant may suffer or incur as a result of actions, omission, or negligence on the part of Client. Client will not be liable for any actions, omissions, or negligence of Consultant or of any third party. c. A party’s obligations under this paragraph shall not be limited to the extent of any insurance available to or provided by any party. This Article will survive termination of this Agreement. 8. INSURANCE a. Consultant will carry the following types and amounts of insurance: i. General liability $300,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate ii. Automobile Liability $300,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate iii. Professional Liability $300,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate iv. Workers Compensation as required by State law. b. At Client’s request, Consultant will furnish certificates of insurance naming Client as a certificate holder. 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. In performing the Work, each party shall operate as and have the status of an independent entity and, except as outlined in this Agreement, shall not act as or be an agent or employee of the other party. Nothing in this Agreement or in the performance of the Work shall be construed to create a partnership, joint venture or other joint business arrangement between Consultant and Client. b. Consultant is not entitled to any of the benefits that Client may make available to its employees including, but not limited to, life insurance, profit sharing or retirement benefits, or group health benefits. Consultant is not authorized to make any representation, contract or commitment on behalf of Client unless specifically authorized by Client. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant and Client shall each comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules or regulations and executive orders applicable to the Work and their respective obligation. 11. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any expenses, loss or damage resulting from delays or prevention of performance arising from causes beyond its reasonable control including caused by fire, flood, accident, strikes, civil commotion, governmental or military authority, insurrection, riots, embargo, unavoidable delays in transportation, acts of God, adverse weather conditions, delays or changes, inaccurate or incompatible information provided to one party by another, or public enemy. In the event of any delay arising by reason of any of the foregoing C:consulting606 - 5 - events, the time for performance shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time lost by reason of such delay or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 12. ASSIGNMENT. Except as outlined in this Agreement, neither party may assign any rights or claims, or delegate any duties under this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party. 13. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Under no circumstances shall Consultant, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and their successors and assigns be liable for any anticipated profits or for incidental, special, or consequential damages, even if advised of the possibility that such claim may occur. Consultant’s liability for any claim, damage or loss caused by or related to the Work will be limited to the Work expressly contracted for. 14. NON-WAIVER. The delay or failure of either party to assert or enforce in any instance strict performance of any of the terms of this Agreement or to exercise any rights hereunder conferred, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of its rights to assert or rely upon such terms or rights at any later time or on any future occasion. 15. PROHIBITION OF PUBLICITY. Neither party shall refer to this Agreement or reference the other party, its subsidiaries and affiliates in its advertising or promotional materials without express written consent of the other party. 16. TAXES. All amounts referenced herein are in United States dollars and do not include any sales, use, ad valorem, personal property taxes, custom duties, registration fees and the like arising from the Work performed. Client will pay or reimburse Consultant for any such taxes on Work performed upon receipt of invoice or demand. 17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant will not accept work or enter into agreements that interfere with or would be deemed a unlawful conflict of interest with this Agreement. To the best of Consultant’s knowledge, Consultant is not aware of any work or agreements that constitute a conflict of interest with Client. 18. TERMINATION. Consultant or Client may terminate this Agreement for any reason at any time upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. In the event of termination under this Section, Consultant shall be entitled to and shall receive payment in full for all services provided and all reimbursable expenses incurred up to and including the effective date of termination. In the event of a termination under this paragraph, Client will pay all shut-down costs and/or start-up costs as reasonably determined by Consultant that have not been recovered or are incurred because of the termination. 19. INTERPRETATION. The following principles of interpretation shall apply to this Agreement: (i) paragraph headings and captions are inserted for convenience only and shall not be considered in construing intent; (ii) neither Consultant nor Client shall be considered to be the party responsible for the drafting of any particular provision of this Agreement; (iii) the words “hereof,” “herein,” “hereunder,” and words of similar C:consulting606 - 6 - import shall refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision hereof; (iv) the word “including” means “including, but not limited to” and shall be interpreted as broadly as possible; (v) words in the singular include the plural and vice versa; (vi) all references to “days” shall be calendar days (and not merely business days, unless the Agreement so states); and (vii) any provision hereof that is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof or affecting the validity or enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction and the provision that is prohibited or unenforceable shall be reformed or modified to reflect the parties' intent to the maximum extent permitted by applicable legal requirements. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This Agreement is the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral or written representations, understandings or agreements between the parties. This Agreement shall be amended only by a written instrument executed by authorized and empowered representatives of the parties. In witness whereof, the parties have agreed to and signed this Agreement as of the day and date first above written. CONSULTANT CLIENT The Davey Tree Expert Company City of Shorewood, MN By: ____________________________ By: ____________________________ Print Name: ______________________ Print Name: _____________________ Title: ___________________________ Title: ___________________________ C:consulting606 City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item #9B Title/Subject:Regional Trail Crossing at County Road 19 Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 MEETING Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator TYPE REGULAR Attachments: Resolution Background: In 2012, the Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay along with the Three Rivers Park District, participated in a feasibility study for a bridge over County Road 19 at the Lake Minnetonka LRT crossing at the Shorewood and Tonka Bay border. That plan ultimately did go forward because the price came in much higher than the estimate, and there were not funds available to move forward. Mayor Zerby and Tonka Bay Mayor De LaVega have discussed the idea of reviving the idea of the bridge. Despite improvement to the crossing, it is still an at-grade crossing and both cities have received calls about near misses between trail users and vehicles. The Mayors would like to make a renewed push to construct a trail bridge and have requested each city pass a Resolution that supports that effort. The Resolution does not commit either city to a certain level of funding, so it could be considered should funding for a trail bridge be identified. Financial or Budget Considerations: There are no funds committed at this point. If the project is brought back, each city would consider a contribution based on needed funds and how that fits into their overall capital improvement plan. Options: 1. Adopting the Resolution as presented. 2. Modifying the Resolution prior to passage. 3. Take no action on the Resolution. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution so as the Mayor’s work to secure funding, potential funding sources are confident that there is local support for the improvement. Next Steps and Timeline: Mayor Zerby and Mayor De LaVega will begin working with state and federal officials to secure funding. 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 RESOLUTION 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 19- A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SAFETY OF THE REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING AT COUNTY ROAD 19 IN SHOREWOOD AND TONKA BAY WHEREAS, there is a Three River’s Park District Regional Trail, known as the Minnetonka Regional Trail (LRT), and it has an at-grade crossing at Hennepin County Road 19; and, WHEREAS, the Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay have receivednumerous reports and concerns regarding near-miss accidents at this crossing; and, WHEREAS , a bridge project plan was developed and approved in 2014, but ultimately not constructed due to cost and lack of funding; and WHEREAS, in 2017, some improvements were made to the crossing; including, installing interactive signs for pedestrians, and narrowing the roadway with temporary bollards; and, WHEREAS, despite these improvements complaints of near-misses continue, and the Councils of both cities believe that this remains an intersection that is hazardous or potentially deadly for pedestrians. NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA that Shorewood respectfully requests that all parties work together to reduce or eliminate the danger to trail users and vehicles at this location by taking the following steps: 1. That the 2012 feasibility report that was prepared to address concerns seven years ago, be reexamined to determine if it is still valid. If the plan needs revisions, the stakeholders should discuss modifications. 2. That Hennepin County Highway Department or Hennepin County Rail Authority be involved in any improvement discussion and plan development. 3. As the trail and trail system serves a greater population than just Shorewood and Tonka Bay, that the parties work to secure State and Federal funding to assist with the improvements. 4. That the City of Shorewood is committed to participating financially in the improvements. th Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 11 day of February, 2019. __________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk