Loading...
112309 CC Reg Min5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL, CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Liz6e called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Liz6e; COUncllmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Tietjen; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Mayor Liz6e apologized for the late start of the meeting. She explained Council had a work session and an executive session prior to this meeting. Mayor Liz6e requested that the Resolution No. 09 -064 to Support the Recommendations of the County Road 19 Trail Concept Design Plan be considered as part of Item 5.13 on the agenda. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 9, 2009 Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of November 9, 2009, as amended in Item 1, Page 6, Bullet 2, Sentence 4, change "he thought notebooks could be purchased" to "he thought netbooks could be purchased ". Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 9, 2009 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2009, as amended in Item O.A, Page 9, Paragraph 3, Sentence 5 change "The City has no record of what dept" to "The City has no record of what depth ". Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 16, 2009 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of November 16, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Liz6e reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MtNum Noveniher 23, 2009 Page 2 of 23 erby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda, George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail stated during the November 9, 2009, Council meeting he asked a question that he had been asking City staff for four months. He indicated he has still not received an answer to his question. He stated he is not an attorney, he does not have access to a law library and he does not use the internet. Yet, he was able to find out the answer to his question in one day. From his vantage point lie thought it should be troubling to the citizens of Shorewood that the City Administrator and City Attorney don't have command of the information. The information he was trying to get was about State Statutes 177.41 — 177.44 which have to do with the prevailing wage law. What he found out was that cities in Minnesota are liable to follow the prevailing wage law. The only exceptions are if the cost of project is less then $2,500 where only one kind of trade is involved, or the cost of the project is less then $25,000 where there is more then one type of trade involved. Both the Eddy Station project and the City Hall landscaping project met the criteria for the prevailing wage law. He still does not know if the City paid the prevailing wage or if City staff knew the law was applicable to the City. He expressed his strong displeasure with not receiving a response from the City for such an extended period of time. He stated when there is no representation with taxation and when there is such a regal attitude to go with it that spells trouble. Mayor Lizee thanked Mr. Greenfield for his comments. Mr. Greenfield departed the meeting. Administrator Heck stated he had spoken with Attorney Tietjen about this, but he did not respond to Mr. Greenfield in a timely manner. Heck explained if a city does a project that is funded by state dollars that city has to follow the prevailing wage law. If a project is not funded by state dollars it does not have to follow that law. What confuses the issue is cities may receive local government aide (LGA) and the LGA is not designated to a specific project. The League of Minnesota Cities has advised and provided the opinion that when a municipality is doing a project which is funded with general fund dollars it should follow the state statute if it's receiving LGA. The City doesn't receive any LGA, but is has received CITY GE SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE November 23, 2009 Rage 3 of 23 minimal homestead market credit. The Eddy Station project was funded out of the Park Fund and this fund is funded out of transfers frorn the General Fund. The City cannot determine if any of the funds in the General were from state aid. Because the City does not receive any LGA or other state aid those projects were not subject to the prevailing wage law. For roadway projects where the City does receive state aid it does follow the law. Mayor Lizee suggested the City mail Mr. Greenfield a written response on the City's findings regarding the prevailing wage law. A. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Representative Tad Shaw Report on MCE Activities Mayor Lizee stated Tad Shaw, the City's representative on the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council, was present this evening to give a report on MCE activities. Mr. Shaw stated he had been the City's representative on the MCE Advisory Council for over 20 years, noting he started in 1980. MCE grew from giving violin lessons and running sports programs to the all encompassing program it is today. MCE provides early childhood family education programs, youth programs, adult programs, and programs for people with disabilities. The list of programs provided is extensive. Eighty -five percent of the cost of the programs is paid for by the users. The remaining 15 percent comes from a levy MCE is allowed to do and state funds. The City's residents don't have any liability for MCE. Mr. Shaw explained the 2008 MCE fall catalogue listed 281 classes or activities, and the 2009 catalogue listed 329. The MCE conducted a survey sending out 6,464 e -mail survey requests and 960 of the surveys were completed and returned. The survey results indicated that 86 percent of the respondents rated the MCE class /activity as excellent or good. The ratings have consistently been above 80 percent. Also, 88 percent of the respondents rated the instructor as excellent or good. For 19 percent of the respondents it was the first class /activity they participated in. MCE's most effective way of contacting residents in the area is through its catalogue which is sent out three times a year; 63 percent of the respondents indicated that is how they found out. Thirty-two percent of the program participants were in the 6 — 10 year age group and 12 percent were in the l 1 — 15 year age group. They participated in the after school and athletic programs. Sixty -seven percent of the participants were female. The registrations are up 1,000 over last year. The Deephaven Education Center has been completely remodeled, and MCE rents the Center frorn the Minnetonka School District. Councilmember Woodruff asked Mr. Shaw if MCE has any significant new initiatives planned. Mr. Shaw stated the MCE is assembling a group of past participants and non - participants in January — February 2010 to determine what improvements they would like MCE to make. MCE continually receives requests for new ideas. He commented that from his vantage point MCE has always been a leader in providing community education services. Mayor Lizee thanked Mr. Shaw for his services. B. Andrew Gillett, Hennepin County, Report on Trail Extension from the LRT Trail Crossing at County Road 19 to the Old Dakota Rail Line in Orono The highlights of Mr. Gillett's presentation are as follows. (A copy of the presentation is on file.) In 2005 the City of Tonka Bay had commissioned a consulting firm to do a feasibility study within Tonka Bay for a trail along County Road 19 that would extend from Glen Road to Echo Bay via Tonka Bay Road and West Point Road. Tonka Bay did not implement the feasibility study. In January 2008 Hennepin County created a program called Hennepin County Community Works Border Grant Program. In January 2008 Hennepin County received a joint grant application from the Cities of Orono, Shorewood and Tonka Bay to embark on a similar study to consider an off - street trail along County Road 19 that would connect the Minnetonka Regional Trail just north of Smithtown Road with the new Dakota Trail in Orono. The trail would actually extend to Smithtown Road which is a little south of the Minnetonka Regional Trail. The planning process consisted of a Project Advisory Committee comprised of three residents from each of the three cities, the Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County and the Consulting Team from LHB, Inc. & Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. ➢ The team had met with representatives from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) early on. The MCWD has not been a major participant as of yet as it wants more specific information to react to. ➢ To date there have been four meetings with the Project Advisory Committee, two public open houses and the joint meeting of the three Cities' councils. ➢ County Road 19 is a two lane roadway within a 66' right -of -way; it doesn't have any curb and gutter; the 2006 average daily traffic count was 12,000; the 2030 projected traffic count is 15,800; and, its functional classification is as an A -Minor Arterial Expander. ➢ Some of the project challenges would be the placement of utility poles on tile east side; steep slopes requiring fill; driveways that front the roadway; and, stormwater management. If County Road 19 were to be upgraded there would be an opportunity to address some of the stormwater management issues. He displayed examples of these obstacles. ➢ The design standards for all oft - street bikeway are for roadways with: an average daily traffic count of more then 10,000; a motor vehicle speed of 35 miles -per -hour; and a trail width of 8 — 10 feet. For rural sections the minimum separation is 10 feet from the roadway. For an urban section its 5 feet. ➢ The design standards for an on- street bikeway are for roadways with an average daily traffic count of more then 10,000 and a motor vehicle speed of 35 miles- per - holm. Striping would be a solid 4 inch white line. For rural sections the bike lane width would be 8 foot wide paved shoulder. For an urban section it would be a 6 — 8 foot wide paved shoulder. y He displayed illustrations of an on- street bike lane concept, an off-street trail concept, and a Community Boulevard Concept. CITY P S OR WOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 200 Page 5 of 23 The Hennepin County Transportation Department is responsible for the roadways. When County Road 19 needs to be rebuilt that department and the department Mr. Gillett works in would team up to reconstruct: a roadway with Curb and gutter, and resolve the stormwater management issues. The Community Boulevard Concept is preferred for the following reasons. It would serve the local community as well as Link the two regional trails. It would provide for an 8 foot wide trail on one side of the road and 6 foot wide walk on the other side. It would allow for better stormwater management. It would benefit from the reconstruction of certain intersections. It would require complete reconstruction of the roadway, which is not currently planned or programmed. On- street bicycle lanes would serve as a good interim option until the Community Boulevard Concept can be implemented. They are a safer option than existing conditions. Existing shoulders can be striped and enlarged in certain locations to accommodate bicycle lanes. The very rough concept level cost estimates are approximately: $300,000 for the on- street concept; $3.8 million for the off - street concept; and, $15.4 million for the Community Boulevard Concept. The intent is to set forth the vision to strive for. The next steps are as follows. Obtain a Resolution of Support from the Shorewood City Council setting a vision (Orono and Tonka Bay have already adopted a similar resolution). Incorporate the Concept Plan into the Three Rivers Park District planning document, and the Metropolitan Council Trail & Open Space Committee planning document. Seek funding for the detailed design plan. Mr. Gillett stated all he is asking for this evening is for this Council to adopt a resolution stating the City supports the Concept Design Plan. Mayor Lizee stated this has been an interesting process that has been going on for about two years. It's been a joint effort between the three cities, Hennepin County, the Three Rivers Park District, the Metropolitan Council, the Watershed District and citizen representatives. She stated Orono Mayor Jim White and Tonka Bay Mayor Bill LaBelle have taken the leadership role on this effort. The County Road 19 corridor needs to be rejuvenated; it's very antiquated. She thought passing a resolution to support this is something the City should do. She would like that to happen this evening. She noted that Councilmember Zerby has been one of the City's representatives who worked on the Committee for the last two plus years. Councilmember Zerby stated this has been a very interesting project and lie was excited to be a part of it. He heard from residents that attended the open houses and from other resident representatives on the Committee how the area has changed significantly over the years. There is significantly more traffic on County Road 19 then 25 — 30 years ago, and the road is no longer safe for pedestrian use as it was back then. He thought this would be a long needed project that restores pedestrian safety and a sense of community. He expressed his appreciation for the vision and the planning that has gone into the project to date. He was impressed by the number of people from various areas that worked together to create a common vision. The Committee considered a number of options. Committee members road the trail on bikes. The concept plan is something that would be considered at such time Country Road 19 is reconstructed, noting that reconstruction is not on any plan as of yet. He expressed 100 percent support for the vision. Councilmember Bailey asked if Council voted to support the resolution did it mean the City supported all elements of the project all the way up to the Community Boulevard Concept. CITE' OF SHOREWOOD RE GUI AR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 6 of 23 Mayor Lizee clarified that 400 feet of the plan is in Shorewood. noting the trail would be approximately 3.5 miles long. Mr. Gillett stated the Concept Plan is suggesting two alternatives. One is the long -term vision for the Community Boulevard Concept. The other is the interim option. He read the following excerpt from the proposed resolution which he thought was the recommendation "Whereas, County Road 19 Trail Concept Design plan contains a preferred alternate for an off - sheet multi -use trail and on- street bicycle lanes to be implemented as an interim measure; Now, therefore be it resolved, by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota: to support the recommendation of the County Road 19 Trail Concept Design plan." There are features of the plan that would be optional when the design work was actually done. The Committee wants to know if Shorewood supports the basic vision for creating a trail along County Road 19. The next phase would be to do survey work and some basic design work. It would answer some of the basic questions there are today. Mayor Lizee stated by adopting this resolution showing Shorewood's support the City would be indicating to the Three Rivers Park District to put a placeholder for this in its long -term plan. Mayor Lizee noted that Dale Woodbeck, an elected representative on the Board of Commissioners for Three Rivers Park District who lives in Shorewood, was present this evening. Commissioner Woodbeck has been present at most of the meetings held on this project. Commissioner Woodbeck stated he represents Shorewood as well as the other South Lake Cities, and the Cities of Minnetonka, Edina and Richfield. He explained this possible segment of trail is not reflected in the Three Rivers Park District's system plan. Adopting the resolution would help get this trail segment added to the District's long -term plan as a regional tail. The resolution adopted by the Cities of Orono and Tonka Bay which the Shorewood Council is considering this evening provides the community support that could be carried forward to the Three Rivers Park District's planning organization to have them include the trail in its system plan. The District is in the process of updating that plan and that activity will continue into 2010. Commissioner Woodbeck explained there is a section of County Road 19 that was recently reconstructed between Crow - Hassan Park Reserve in the City of Rodgers and near a campground in Baker Park Reserve in the City of Maple Plain. Along side of that section of County Road 19 there is a road separated trail that is fairly complete with the exception for a segment in the City of Loretto. Most of the trails in the District run east and west. The District believes it's very important to identify areas to create new trails that could connect the existing trail system. He stated he was aware that the City of Minnetrista has had some discussion about extending the Dakota Regional Trail through Minnetrista to a proposed trail that would run from Lake Minnetonka Regional Park under Highway 7 to Carver Park. Once the District incorporates this trail into the District's master plan its plan will be sent to the Parks and Open Space Commission at the Metropolitan Council and ultimately on to the Metropolitan Council to approve and include in its master plan. Until it's in the plan it can't be discussed as a resource. Councilmember Bailey asked if adopting the resolution would indicate Shorewood would be supporting a $300,000 bike trail or a $13 million dollar Community Boulevard Concept. Commissioner Woodbeck stated from his vantage point this Council is being asked to consider the concept of having a trail connection from Smithtown Road in Shorewood to the Minnetonka Regional Trail (this is the section that would reside in Shorewood). He explained the segments of trail that would reside in Orono and Tonka Bay would create the regional trail. Adopting the resolution would indicate Shorewood's willingness to have the proposed trail included in the planning calendar. The City would not CITE' OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 200 Page 7 of 2 be supporting anything in terms of funds because there is no data available to support. The question is whether or not it's a good idea to connect the Minnetonka Regional Trail and the Dakota Trail with an off - street trail next to County Road 19. Mayor Liz6e stated the resolution would indicate the City is supporting an idea; it's not committing funds or property to anything. Councilmember Zerby stated at sometime County Road 19 will have to be rebuilt. If the City wants to have any input on how that roadway is improved from a pedestrian perspective now is the opportunity. He stated if Councilmembers think the road is fine for pedestrian use the way it is then they should vote against the resolution. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Councilmember Bailey stated from his vantage point his question has not been answered. Bailey asked if Council is supporting installing a bike trail before County Road 19 is reconstructed or is it supporting a Community Boulevard trail option when County Road 19 is rebuilt. Colmcilmember Zerby explained there is no timing in the resolution; the timing would be established by the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County. There was an outburst from Shorewood Resident Larry Opfer who questioned why Council was, from his perspective, wasting the audience's time on something that would happen twenty years out. He asked the Council members to stifle themselves. Councilmember Bailey told Mr. Opfer he was very rude and owed the Council an apology. Mr. Opfer continued with his outburst. Mayor Liz6e eventually got Mr. Opfer to settle down. Mayor Liz6e again reiterated Council was being asked to support an idea. It was not being asked to commit to anything. This idea has been discussed for approximately two years. There have been updates on this and open houses held to present the ideas to the community. The resolution is a simple resolution of support for an idea. The Cities of Orono and Tonka Bay easily adopted the resolution. Councilmember Turgeon stated County Road 19 is already supposed to be No Parking. If cars were truly prohibited from parking on the roadway it would probably be a safe corridor for people that bike on the roadway. There is already 6 — 8 feet along most of the talked about stretch of the roadway. She commented she had not seen any materials other than Mr. Gillett's presentation about this idea yet she is being asked to adopt a resolution supporting a concept plan. She noted she will not vote in favor of adopting the resolution. She stated she was not able to attend the joint council meeting held at the Freshwater Institute because she was not in town. She thought it premature to be asked to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Zerby stated there were two public open houses held to discuss this idea. Councilmember Woodruff stated he attended the joint meeting and one of the open houses held prior to that meeting. He stated had asked the consultant making the presentation what the projected use of the trail would be and the answer lie received was it was hard to tell. He then stated the resolution references the County Road 19 Trail Concept Design plan. It appears that Council is being asked to support the plan, and from his vantage point Council is indicating to the Three Rivers Park District that it is willing to support spending approximately $15.8 million to implement the Community Boulevard option for a benefit that can't be identified. He thought there were a lot of good qualitative benefits to doing this. He commented if 5,000 people per year for 20 years were to use the trail then each of them may as well be handed $150. He indicated it makes no sense to him. He stated he could support a resolution that indicates Mayor Lizee apologized for there being lack of support for the Cities of Orono and Tonka Bay. FEW MI . Mayor Lizee stated Richard Fursman will make a presentation about the City's pay - for - performance system that is being developed. The broad highlights of Mr. Fursman's presentation are as follows. (A copy of this presentation is on file.) ➢ The City has good job /task descriptions for its non -union employees and its current process for evaluations is typical. Specific performance measurements and expectations are lacking. ➢ With a pay - for - performance (PFP) system an employee's base pay is linked to a performance rating (this was formally termed merit pay). With a PFP system competence, motivation /disposition, value alignment and goal achievement are measured. The expectations are clear rating expectations, increased supervisor responsibility and accountability, equity and fairness, and targeted performance. The expectations must be clear, and the performance ratings must be based on job specifications (these are currently very good). ➢ A PFP system is more accurately a performance management process. It starts with planning. There is agreement on what an employee is expected to specifically accomplish as part of their job. There is periodic dialogue on progress, problems, and unexpected developments. The year -end evaluation is a sunnnary of what has occurred; there should not be any surprises. ➢ The progress to date is as follows. A new performance template is being used. A new rating system has been devised based on meets or did- not -meet expectations for performance competencies. For some measures the rating is did- not -meet, meets, or exceeded expectations. ➢ The items still being worked on are as follows. Staff is setting goals for increased performance. The City's goals are being incorporated into the evaluations. Department directors are comparing evaluation criteria to ensure there is some consistency. Soft measures (e.g., values, attitudes, work ethic, team work, etc.) are being identified for inclusion in the evaluation along with a scoring system for them. There is discussion about how the City Administrator's evaluation should fit in with the rest of the staff s evaluations. ➢ Pay expectations have to be set. Employees who exceed expectations will receive the base increase and will be provided additional compensation. ➢ The conditions for not meeting expectations include the following. An employee did not complete projects or tasks on time or within the guidelines established by the department manager and employee. An employee did not make improvement on issues identified by the department manager during informal discussions. ➢ An employee's rating may also be down graded for other reasons. They may exhibit a poor or negative attitude about the work, other employee's, council, and so forth. They CITE' OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Novenber 23, 2009 Page 9 of 23 did not respond to residents and others in a timely manner. They showed general disrespect for residents, council, or other staff. They did not seek to improve their knowledge, skills, or abilities. They were reluctant to participate with others in problem solving, or were perceived as a general road block to change and improvement. The conditions for an employee meeting expectations include the following. They completed projects and /or tasks and successfully met the expectations as agreed between the employee and department manager. They generally have a positive attitude, address team members directly and professionally when there are issues, participates in collaborative problem solving, and so forth. The conditions for an employee exceeding expectations include the following. They complete the projects and /or tasks assigned and they meet the expectations identified by the employee and department manager. In addition they are a self starter and motivated, they seek creative solutions to overcome issues, they seek out opportunities to improve skills and abilities on their own, the participate in group problem solving, and they are willing to take measured risks and offer new ideas and ways of operating. ➢ Employees' performance tie into the City's mission statement and goals. Mayor Liz6e thanked Mr. Fursman. Councilmember Woodruff stated Mr. Fursman's presentation was good. He asked how close the City is to completing the implementation of this performance management system. Mr. Fursman stated the goal is to wrap this up in December 2009. He explained performance measures have been identified for each non -union staff member, and the identification of soft measures is almost complete. He encouraged staff to start smaller; it shouldn't do the entire change to this type of system at once. He noted the employee's goals for 2009 were not designed for this type of system. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Proposed Improvements for City Project 10 -02, Installation of Watermain as Part of Meadowview Road and Segment of Wild Rose Lane Street Improvement Project Mayor Liz6e opened the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M. Engineer Landini stated during its October 26, 2009, meeting Council accepted the feasibility study for improvement to Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane. The feasibility report and supplement report consider the following. ■ Potential watermain extension for Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane. ■ Making storm sewer improvements for Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane. ■ Making repairs to the sanitary sewer for Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane. ■ Reconstructing a 24- foot -wide driving surface for Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane with edge control outside of driving surface. It was noted that during its October 26 "' meeting Council discussed reducing the driving surface to 22 feet wide. Landini then stated Staff held a public information meeting on the proposed project on November 5 to answer any questions the property owners in that neighborhood had about the project and the possible assessment for watermain extension. Three residents attended the meeting. Because of the low attendance a printout of the presentation was mailed to the property owners, and he explained where they could find CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 10 of 23 Landini explained the meeting packet for this evening contains three draft resolutions for Council to consider. The first resolution is to reconstruct Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane with a 22- foot -wide driving surface and edge control outside of driving surface, make sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements, and extend watermain. The second resolution is to reconstruct Meadowview Road with a 22- foot -wide driving surface and edge control outside of driving surface, and make sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements; it does not include the extension of watermain. The third resolution is to reclaim Meadowview Road with a 22- foot -wide driving surface and make sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements; it does not include the extension of watermain. Council can also direct Staff to prepare other resolutions. Mayor Lizee stated the meeting packet for this evening indicates that three property owners responded to the online survey. She then stated Council will address the questions from the audience once the public testimony portion of this public hearing has been closed. Mayor Lizee opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:27 P.M. LarryOpfer, 25900 Wild Rose Lane asked how much the City has spent on the feasibility study. Engineer Landini explained that to date the City has spent $4,500 and there will be additional costs for the Wild Rose Lane segment. Mr. Opfer asked why the City didn't ask the property owners about the potential project before the City spent money on the feasibility study. Mayor Lizee expressed that according to the City's roadway plan it's time to make improvements to Meadowview Road. Mr. Opfer asked if the assumption is that Wild Rose lane will not be fixed unless watermain is installed. Mr. Opfer then stated the property owners in attendance do not want to be messed with. Mr. Opfer expressed his opposition to this project. Judith Benka, 25780 Sunnyvale Lane commented that although one side of her property abuts Meadowview Road her address is Sunnyvale Lane. She stated the meeting notice she received indicated it was to consider installing watermain as part of the Nelsine Drive improvement project. The area to be assessed was Nelsine Drive. Upon attending the public hearing she was floored to find out the properties were being considered for assessments. She thought Meadowview Road is a lightly traveled roadway. It appears that traffic flows out to Eureka Road. She asked if a traffic survey had been done to determine if Meadowview Road needs to be reconstructed. She stated the drainage is terrible for all of the residents that live in that area. Her property is the lowest on the street. Stormwater flows across her driveway then over her front lawn and into a drainage ditch. She expressed concern that any change in the roadway could exacerbate her drainage problem. She stated it would make no sense for her to connect to watermain on Meadowview Road because the line would have to go across her front yard. She had heard that four years from now watermain could possibly be installed under Sunnyvale Lane and connecting to it there would be a much shorter distance, noting she was not saying she wanted to hook up to watermain. She thought it makes sense to install watermain when a roadway is reconstructed. She asked if property owners could be assessed for the installation when they decide to hook up to watermain. She also asked if property owners would be required to hook up to the water system when watermain is installed, to which Mayor Lizee responded they would not be required to hook up. Engineer Landini explained that during CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page t t of 23 the feasibility stage the City only has sketches. As part of the plans and specifications the City can identify how to mitigate existing drainage issues and design the improvements in such a way as to not create new issues. Mayor Liz6e stated during the public hearing for the Nelsine Drive road improvement project Council chose to reclaim the roadway rather then reconstruct it. Council asked the property owners to work with the City on granting the City the necessary easements that would allow the City to mitigate drainage issues. Pete Davis, 5495 Valleywood Circle stated all of the stormwater that flows down Meadowview Road flows on to his property. He commented there is nothing to help manage stormwater flow other then ditches along Meadowview Road, noting the ditches are from one foot to three feet deep. Those ditches are continuing to erode. He indicated his biggest concern is to fix the drainage issues. He stated there is a wetland on the back of his property which can handle much of the stormwater. He stated everyone on Valleywood Circle was canvassed and none of the property owners are interested in connecting to watermain at this point in time. Mayor Liz6e stated the roadway improvement plan indicates that Valleywood Circle and Valleywood Lane are the scheduled for improvements in 2012. Rian and Karin Firkus 25625 Wild Rose Lane stated they are connected to the City's water system yet the City is planning on assessing them for installation of watermain under Wild Rose Lane. She questioned why they would want to pay for something they already have. She explained the City has not been able to find documentation showing their property was not assessed for watermain or paid a hookup charge in the past. Mayor Liz6e noted their property is located on the corner of Eureka Road and Wild Rose Lane. Director Burton explained that so far she has been able to determine that this property connected to watermain in July 1998. The City can establish that the previous owner purchased a water meter and a water permit, but it has not been able to establish if the previous owner paid for a connection charge or if they were assessed. Burton offered to discuss this mater in person or over the phone. Mr. Firkus asked how the City could stub out watermain under Eureka Road without the City Public Works Department knowing. Burton stated it's her understanding that the City's Director of Public Works thought the connection was going through a back or side yard. Mr. Firkus stated it did. Mr. Firkus then stated the property owner behind them stated that she had been assessed $5,000 for watermain. Engineer Landini stated there are records indicating this property had connected to watermain and that connection was inspected. Mr. Firkus questioned why the City would allow a property owner to connect to watermain without charging for the connection charge or assessing the property. Mayor Liz6e stated the City will continue to research this matter. Liz6e explained the installation of watermain under Eureka Road was part of a larger project. Ms. Firkus stated she supported making improvements to the roadway, but not the installation of watermain. Because they have three young children, they wanted assurances that the speed of traffic would be reduced, not increased, because of the proposed improvements. Jon Luetgers, 25745 Wild Rose Lane stated he is opposed to the installation of watermain. He asked what the benefit would be to him for having the watermain installed, noting he already has well water and Ile thought it worked fine. Mayor Liz6e stated when the City is contemplating reconstructing a roadway it's the City's duty to consider all of the elements of the City's infrastructure. Liz6e then listed some considerations she has regarding City water, noting it has not been totally expanded. They are: the future safety of water; ground water issues; the depth of the ground water; and the future state of the aquifers. She stated the City needs to protect its water system and ensure that the City can count on it. She stated it is Council's decision as to whether or not to expand the water system and stub it out to property owners' lots so it is available CITY OF SH REWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 12 of 23 when property owners want access to it. She expressed concern that down the road there will be additional agency mandates relating to water that the City will have to address. Mr. Luetgers stated his house was built in 1938 and there have not been any problems to date. He did not see the benefit to him. Bonnie Rislund 25785 Wild Rose Lane stated she echoed Mr. Luetgers' comments. She submitted a petition from some of the property owners along the affected segment of Wild Rose Lane indicating their opposition to the installation of watermain. The property owners have wells that work fine. During these tough economic times the expense would be a burden to her. She stated she has lived in her home for 33 years. She expressed her opposition to the installation of watermain, but she thought the roadway surface could use new blacktop. Ron Tholen 25715 Wild Rose Lane stated he thought the condition of the roadway is not great, but it is usable. He commented that he has lived in his house for 31 years. He commented Wild Rose Lane has been patched many times. He did not think the roadway needed to be reconstructed at this time. He noted that he spent several thousand dollars on his well just three years ago and Ile has no problem with his well. He expressed his opposition to the installation of watermain. Paul Sadek 25850 Wild Rose Lane stated he has lived in his house since 1953 before there was a Meadowview Road. Prior to there being a Meadowview Road there was simply an easement road. He then stated he has gone to great expense to drill and maintain his well, and to treat the water from the well. He recently had it tested for arsenic and lead, and the water is free of both. He expressed his opposition to the installation of watermain. Michael Messina 25720 Wild Rose Lane expressed his opposition to the installation of watermain. He stated he was not present to speak about the drainage issues that need to be addressed. He then stated that every day he reads in the newspaper that the government wants to spend more of his money. He urged Council to take the property owners comments into consideration when making its decision, commenting the property owners have no interest in watermain. He expressed his amazement that this has gotten as far as it has without there being property owners' support. Sue Davis, 5495 Valleywood Circle stated she was present this evening to speak for the residents at 25825 Valleywood Lane noting they are opposed to the installation of watermain. She then stated she did not think the drainage issue Ms. Benka spoke of earlier can be addressed by making the proposed improvements. The 25825 property is flooded a lot of the time. She thought the proposed improvements could exacerbate the stormwater problem on her property as well as some of the other properties. She stated the average daily traffic count for Meadowview Road is probably six with two of the six being school buses. She commented that when she sees a car coming down Meadowview Road she looks because she knows it doesn't belong there. Darrel Jones, 25775 Valleywood Lane stated his property is at the bottom of the ditch and all of the stormwater flows to his property. He commented that the property owners with well water get their water from the same place as the City's water comes from. He has purification and filter systems designed for drinking water. Therefore, he did not see the need to install watermain just so he could get the same water as he is already getting. He expressed support for improving the roadways if they need it. He stated drainage is a significant issue for him. He has two sump pumps in his house because of the water saturation in the ground. Trees on his property fall over because of water saturation, noting he took out eight trees last summer. If the roadways have to be repaired to mitigate the drainage issues then so be it. He expressed his opposition to installing watermain. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 13 of 23 Mayor Lizee commented that Shorewood is a very wet city and that water always wins. She stated the goal from an engineering perspective with regard to stormwater is to keep the water away from properties. There was a question from the audience asking if the City's goal is to eventually have a City -wide water system. Mayor Lizee stated she did not see that as the goal. The City wants to keep its water system safe and viable, and to keep it viable the system probably does need to expand. That expansion is being considered as part of road reconstruction projects. She explained the original water system expansion study conducted many years ago considered the age of wells, the age of roadways and the conditions of roadways. She noted the conditions of the City's roadways are updated every year to determine which roadways need to be improved first. Mr. Opfer stated from his vantage point it boils down to the City is not going to fix the road or drainage until watermain is installed. Mayor Lizee stated that is not correct. Mr. Opfer asked if the City could then move forward with fixing the drainage issues without installing watermain. Mayor Lizee stated Council is considering three resolutions this evening. One is the reconstruction of Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane including the installation of watermain. Another is the reconstruction of Meadowview Road without the installation of watermain. Both reconstruction options include the installation of curb and gutter. And the third is the reclamation of Meadowview Road. Mr. Opfer stated he would like to have speed bumps installed on Wild Rose Lane. Lizee commented that the speeders are the people in the neighborhood. Mr. Opfer commented he thought the road was fine as is. Ed Benka, 25780 Sunnyvale Lane asked if the budget for the roadway improvements include the cost to install watermain. Mayor Lizee stated watermain installation is included in the cost, if watermain is not already there, because the cost to install it varies by project. In response to a comment from Ms. Firkus, Engineer Landini explained the reason watermain installation is proposed tinder Meadowview Road is that the City wants watermain to be looped to provide greater reliability from a system perspective. Watermain would be proposed to run down Sunnyvale Lane and hook into the Meadowview Road watermain, and also down Valleywood Lane to make a loop in the system. A dead end system has higher maintenance costs. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:00 P.M. Councilmember Woodruff clarified that the installation of watermain is not the main reason for making the improvements to these two roadways. He stated Meadowview Road has been high on the list of proposed roadway improvement projects for a couple of years. Staff has worked diligently to prepare a roadway improvement plan which ranks the condition of each City roadway. As part of a roadway improvement project, the City has the opportunity to fix storuwater management issues and snake sanitary sewer improvements. When a road is reconstructed a new road base and road bed is put in, curb and gutter is put in, and improvements to the storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems are made. In previous meetings Council has discussed that Meadowview Road is not suitable for reclamation because of the base of the roadway, a condition identified in the engineering reports. When a roadway is to be reconstructed the installation of watermain is considered because it would be the opportune time to do that from a cost perspective. This evening Council is considering whether or not the installation of watermain should be considered as part of the detail design. As part of a road reclamation project some CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2000 Page 14 of 23 stormwater managea_nent improvements can usually be made, but not the level of improvements that appear to be needed based on resident feedback. Councilmember Woodruff then stated the City does not assess for roadway improvement projects; it's paid out of the general tax fund. Sanitary sewer improvements are paid for out of the Sanitary Sewer Fund which everyone pays into. This is the same for storm sewer improvements. The current policy is to assess the property owner for the installation of watermain. When a property owner hooks up to the water system they pay a connection charge. The maximum amount a property owner will pay for this is $ 10,000. Councilmember Woodruff went on to state should Council direct Staff to prepare the plans and specifications to include the installation of watermain Council will have two more opportunities to decide if it wants to do that; when the project is let for bids and when the project is approved. Council is not making a decision this evening to install watermain. Prior to making that decision Council will discuss how the installation of watermain should be paid for. He noted that Council clearly understands that it could potentially ask for design work that may never be used. Mayor Lizee recessed the Public Hearing at 9:10 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the Public Hearing at 9:21 P.M. Mayor Lizee again reviewed the three resolutions Council is considering this evening. One is the reconstruction of Meadowview Road and a segment of Wild Rose Lane including the installation of watermain. Another is the reconstruction of Meadowview Road without the installation of watermain. Both reconstruction options include the installation of curb and gutter. And the third is the reclamation of Meadowview Road. Councilmember Zerby stated Council can direct Staff to prepare another resolution or to do nothing at all. He then stated he heard residents say they did not think the roadways were in need of repair. He finds that disturbing because it implies the City's rating system is not accurate. He has previously stated that traffic counts should factor into the rating, noting some of the members of the audience this evening had indicated the need to consider that. He commented the intent is to mitigate drainage issues as part of a problem, not exacerbate them. He thought the comment about the entire area functioning together when it comes to stormwater management was good. He stated Council expanded the Meadowview Road project already to include a segment of Wild Rose Lane. He wondered if it may be prudent to include Sunnyvale Lane and Valleywood Lane as part of this project. Mayor Lizee stated expanding this project would delay this project. She asked Staff how long it would be delayed. Engineer Landini stated adding the two roads would delay the project by two months; the bids would not be opened until July 2010. Lizee indicated that would mean construction would be in 2011. Landini stated it would be difficult to construct the four roadways in the fall of 2010. Councilmember Turgeon stated the City needs to get a right -of -way easement and the City was to have that information on November 20` Engineer Landini stated he researched that at Hennepin County. The City already has a right -of -way easement at 5570 Meadowview Road and a 17 -foot easement for sanitary sewer. The City does not have a stormwater management easement. Landini indicated the residents are willing to discuss such an easement, but it must be amenable to both parties. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL [SEE MINUTES November 23, 2€ 0 Page 15 of 23 Councilmember Turgeon asked if Meadowview Road was reclaimed would it address the drainage issues. Engineer Landini responded the current estimate in the feasibility report covers only the installation of drain tile. There would be an additional cost to address any other stormwater issues. Councilmember Bailey stated it was his recollection that Engineer Landini had previously indicated that reclamation was not an option for Meadowview Road. Landini explained the soils report states there is approximately 6 inches of bituminous and dirt underneath the roadway; there is no rock or sand. This roadway has lasted 36 years this way. If this roadway were to be reclaimed maybe similar results could be achieved, but he had no way of knowing how long the rock and reclaimed road material would last. The freeze thaw cycle has a definite impact on it. Drain tile is proposed as part of a reclamation effort to try and divert some of the stormwater away from the roadway to minimize that, but the ground water issue will not be totally solved. Councilmember Bailey asked if Meadowview Road was reconstructed, is there any likelihood that additional drainage problems will be created. Engineer Landini explained there would have to be some additional stubs out for stormwater on Sunnyvale Lane to take care of the stormwater problem on the Benkas' driveway. The stormwater issue could be mitigated without causing further damage. Bailey asked if the stubs out would be an additional cost or is it included in the project. The feasibility study sketch for storm sewer does not include any stubs out for Sunnyvale Lane or for the corner of Meadowview Road and Wild Rose Lane. That would be an additional cost. Maybe fewer catch basins could be put in on the west side of Meadowview Road. Those types of give and take situations would be considered as part of the design. Bailey asked if that was necessary to avoid creating some harm by this project. Landini explained this project would not create any additional runoff. The stormwater will be concentrated and collected into a storm pipe which will improve it from an erosion standpoint. He stated it would be beneficial to pick up additional locations to help further mitigate the drainage problems. Councilmember Woodruff explained the initial Meadowview Road project did not include a segment of Wild Rose Lane. A decision was made to include the reconstruction of the portion of Wild Rose Lane between Eureka Road and Meadowview Road in the feasibility report because the construction vehicles would likely use that road and that roadway would deteriorate quite rapidly. He stated that considering Sunnyvale Lane and Valleywood Road as part of this project would have a negative impact on staff work load. Also, it would create cash flow issues. There is insufficient funding in 2010 to make the improvements. Those two roadways are not scheduled to be improved until 2012 and 2013. He commented that each year funds are transferred into the Local Road Fund from the General Fund to make roadway improvements, but there are insufficient funds to repair all the roads that need repair. He again reiterated that this evening Council is only approving what to include in the design of this project. He stated the only way to know what the cost of the full blown project will be is to do the design and specification work. The project can be scaled back at a later date. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09 -063 "A Resolution Ordering Finalization of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the Meadowview Road Improvement Project' which includes the reconstruction of Meadowview Road and the segment of Wild Rose Lane between Eureka Road and Meadowview Road, sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements, and the installation of watermain. Councilmember Bailey stated that he is not going to support the installation of watermain as part of this project unless Council redefines its financing policy to one where property owners are not charged for the cost until such time they decide to connect to the water system. He has no issue including the installation CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 16 of 23 of watermain in this next phase of the project. Mayor Lizee stated she thought there is full agreement of the Council on that. Council is scheduled to discuss the water policy in January 2010. Councilmember Zerby stated he agreed with Councilmember Bailey's point of view. He then stated he thought property owners were reacting to something which is not necessarily the viewpoint of the Council. He expressed he can support including watermain installation in this next phase of the project, but before he would approve the actual installation he wants to have the water policy redefined. Councilmember Bailey stated he equated this to punting the decision about installing watermain down the road for a month or two. He expressed that he will not support assessing for watermain at the time of installation for this project. From his vantage point, if Council decides to install watermain property owners will be charged when they decided to connect to the water system. Councilmember Turgeon stated that will be the case if that is what Council agrees to. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Engineer Landini stated Council would be approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the project for bid most likely in March. Mayor Lizee stated councils have had many discussions about investing in the City's fixture and considering the big picture. After public safety (police and fire) the next thing the City offers is a safe and maintained infrastructure which includes roadways, sewer, and water where available. The sanitary sewer system was installed in the early 1970s. Some of a water system has been installed, but the City opted not to install the full system at that time. Council has to consider the longer term needs when making decisions about things such as watermain installation. She expressed that she cannot support the reconstruction of any roadway if it does not include updating and installing all of the utilities. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Hearing at 9:42 P.M. 7. PARKS Park Commissioner Davis asked if Council had any questions about the matters considered and actions taken at the November 10, 2009, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She commented she answered some questions asked of her by some of the Councilmembers earlier in the day. Davis stated the Commission has asked to receive a treasurer's report every month under the agenda item for reports. She stated the Commission was quite surprised to fund out it had approximately $380,000 in the Parks CIP (capital improvement program). The Commission was also surprised to find out it had only spent $16,000 of the $148,000 in the 2009 Parks CIP. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had a question about the agenda item related to 2010 guidelines for the community garden which consists of 10 plots. She asked if the Park Commission discussed what the startup costs will be to get the community garden going. Commissioner Davis stated the Commission has never received an accounting of how much the community demonstration garden cost because it was buried in the Public Works budget. But, the Commission has heard via the grapevine about the amount of trouble that went into keeping the bins full and keeping the spray away from the gardens. This concerned the entire Commission. She indicated the Commission had been led to believe the gardeners would be self sufficient. The Commission wanted to ensure going forward that there were clear guidelines so that Public Works staff would not have to take care of it again. The main issue for the gardeners is the availability of water. There needs to be a rain barrel at each of the 10 plots for 2010 and the gardeners are expecting the City to provide them. She commented she was not aware of any other public entity that provides water for CITE' DE S OREW OD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 17 of 23 the cost that the City is going to provide it for. The Commission agreed to have Parks and Recreation provide the fencing in order to maintain some aesthetic control over how it looks. The Commission recommended $5,200 for that purpose. She thought the community garden is a wonderful amenity to offer the community and the location is excellent. Councilmember Zerby stated the Parks CIP is based on rough estimates. He recommended that the Park Commission exercise caution so as not to assume it should spend any funds that are not needed for a particular project on something else. He stated he appreciates when Commissioners are frugal when it comes to seeking authorization to spend funds in the Parks CIP. If a project identified in the CIP is later deemed to be not necessary then the City should not spend the money. He recommended the focus should be project oriented not budget oriented. Mayor Lizee noted that the Park Commission is a recommending body only. The Commission's recommendations come before Council for consideration. She stated an update on the Parks CIP is helpful to help the Commission stay on track. 8. PLANNING Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission met on November 17, 2009, and during that meeting it considered two of the items on this evening's agenda. The matters considered and actions taken are detailed in the minutes of that meeting. A. Comprehensive Plan — Draft Updates and Explanation Cover Letter to the Metropolitan Council Director Nielsen stated during its November 17, 2009, meeting the Planning Commission recommend the proposed text be added to the Comprehensive Plan under Land Use /Zoning Changes. The Metropolitan Council's request regarding new development at three units to the acre and redevelopment at five units to the acre is not practical for Shorewood. The text identifies two areas (the site currently occupied by Xcel Energy on County Road 19 and the northwest quadrant of Smithtown Crossing) that may be suitable for higher density development. It states the two sites have the potential to attain the average minimum sought by the Metropolitan Council when combined with lower density infill development over the next several years. The Planning Commission has been reluctant to specify the type of housing that may achieve the higher density. Staff has suggested senior housing may achieve that. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, approving the text be added to the Comprehensive Plan under Land Use /Zoning Changes as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. Shorewood Yacht Club Report Director Nielsen stated this item could have easily been placed on the consent agenda for this meeting. He explained the conditional use permit for the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) states the City will monitor activity, primarily complaints, at the SYC. The City has not received any comments or complaints from the area residents or the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department this year or last year. Last year the City received a compliment about the SYC. C. Clear Wireless LLC — C.U.P. for Telecommunications Equipment 1. Site l: 26352 Smithtown Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL i EE,rIN(; MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 18 of 23 Director Nielsen stated Christopher Coughlin, representing Clear Wireless, LLC (Clearwire), has applied for three conditional use permits (C.U.P.) to install telecommunications facilities at three locations in the City. Site I is the Minnewashta Water Tower site located at 26352 Smithtown Road. Site 2 is the Southeast Area Water Tower site located at 5500 Old Market Road. Site 3 is a private property located at 24285 County Road 19. Because the rules for the sites are the same and issues associated with each site are similar he stated he will discuss the three applications at the same time. Nielsen explained in all three applications the applicant proposes to mount three panel type antennas and three "backhaul" antennas as well as place a small array of ground equipment on each site. On Site I the antennas will be mounted on the stem of the water tower, and the ground equipment will be located between the two equipment shelters on the site. On Site 2 the antennas will be mounted on the stem of the water tower. The ground equipment will be located on the east side of the base of the water tower. An existing easement precludes locating the facilities on the south or west side of the tower where it would be less visible. The applicant has proposed to plant a double row of Black Hills Spruce trees on the east side of the driveway to the site to mitigate the visibility issue. The trees will screen some of the other equipment there as well. Staff recommends the trees should be a minimum of six feet in height and they should be planted no later than 1 June 2010. A condition of approval is the applicant must submit a letter of credit extending to June 30, 2010, for one and one -half times the bid price for the plantings. On Site 3 the equipment will be located on an existing monopole. The ground equipment will be located within an existing equipment compound at the base of the existing monopole. Nielsen displayed the site configurations for each of the three locations noting where the antennas and ground equipment will be located. Site 3 is dependant on the applicant obtaining a long -term lease for that site. Nielsen then explained that the City Code requires initial and ongoing monitoring of FCC radiation emission requirements. The City's standard lease agreements between telecommunications carriers and the City provide for annual monitoring and, if necessary, testing. The City uses Owl Engineering for such work. Nielsen stated Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the three conditional use permits subject to the following conditions. The recommendations of the City Engineer with respect to structural and operational issues. (The City Engineer has an outside firm do the structural analysis to make sure the equipment doesn't damage the City's tower.) The applicant must enter into the City's lease agreement including provisions for annual monitoring. The applicant must submit a bid for landscaping on Site 2. The City should require a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one -half times the amount of the bid and extending to at least 30 June 2011. Nielsen stated Staff is seeking Council's direction to prepare resolutions approving the conditional use permits and the two accompanying lease agreements for the two public sites for Council's consideration during its next regular meeting. Nielsen stated Christopher Coughlin was present to answer any questions Council may have. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Mr. Coughlin stated Cleat-wire provides a wireless 4G (fourth generation) broadband service. CITE' OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL, MEETING i INUTtss November 23, 2009 Page 19 of 2 Councilmember Zerby asked if Clearwire is still 51 percent owned by Sprint, to which Mr. Coughlin replied it is. Councilmember Zerby asked what would happen to the equipment if Clearwire should ever go out of business. He stated there had been an instance where a carrier went out of business and left its equipment on the tower. Director Nielsen stated the current Lease agreements state carriers are responsible for removing equipment. Nielsen explained if a carrier goes out of business the cost to remove the equipment would have to come out of the lease payments they have made. Director Burton stated for the carrier that went out of business the City had money in escrow that helped to pay for the removal of the equipment. Councilmember Zerby stated as long as the removal of the equipment is addressed in the lease agreement he is in favor of bring other wireless broadband carriers to the market in order to give residents a choice. Councilmember Woodruff stated it's his understanding that Clearwire's 4G wireless data service would offer 1.5 megabits per second speed. He was not aware of any other carrier that is offering 4G service. He then stated that in order for the City to approve the C.U.P. for Clearwire to locate equipment on the private property site Clearwire has to have legal control over the area. Clearwire needs to have the lease agreement with the property owner. Mr. Coughlin stated Clearwire has a fully executed lease in place for the private property and Clearwire will be recording of memorandum of understanding with Hennepin County. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing Staff to prepare resolutions approving Clear Wireless, LLC's three conditional use permit applications to install telecommunications facilities at the Minnewashta Water Tower site located at 26352 Smithtown Road, the Southeast Area Water Tower site located at 5500 Old Market Road, and a private property located at 24285 County Road 19 and to also prepare standard lease agreements for the two public sites. Motion passed 5/0. 2. Site 2: 5500 Old Market Road This was addressed as part of Item 8.C.1. 3. Site 3: 25825 County Road 19 This was addressed as part of Item 8.C.1. 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Manor Pond Sediment Survey Mayor Liz& stated the meeting packet for this evening contains a copy of a proposal from Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide professional services for the Manor Pond Sediment Surveying for an amount of $1,470. The Staff report recommends awarding the contract to the firm. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, awarding the contract for the Manor Pond Sediment Surveying to Bolton & Menk, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,470. Motion passed 5/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE November 23, 2003 Rage 20 of 23 Ae property and Liability Insurance renewal This was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff s request. Councilmember Woodruff stated the reason he removed this from the consent agenda was because it was not clear what Council would be voting on. electing Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, accepting the property and liability insurance renewal proposal as presented and not to waive the right to limit of b: 510. This was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Turgeon's request. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought asking for approval of the community garden plot pilot project guidelines for 2010 was premature. She did not think the Council had a very clear understanding of what occurred at the demonstration garden in 2009. She asked if the City was responsible for purchasing the ten rain barrels and topsoil. She also asked what the City's responsibilities are with regard to the community garden plot. She wanted to be provided with more of an income and expense type analysis. She stated the City will receive $30 each for nine of the plots. It's estimated that the fencing around the garden could cost as much as $5,200. There is $7,500 budgeted for the drinking fountain. She questioned if that was basically for the gardeners, and wondered if it covered the entire cost. She stated she did not think this was a core service the City should provide this year. She wanted to be provided a better business plan. She thought there needed to be a better understanding of who is responsible for what at the garden. Mayor Lizee stated this proposal discusses having ten plots in the garden with one of them for the demonstration garden, noting there have been dozens of people asking when the City will have community garden plots. She thought asking for a business plan for the community garden was too much. She thought the guidelines were good. She noted that the City has discussed bringing water to the South Shore Skate Park since it was built. There are ways to provide water to the gardeners. Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, approving the guidelines and registration form for the 2010 community garden project. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the basics of a business plan were included in the Staff report. The income is $30 minimum for nine plots. There is a not -to- exceed cost of $5,200 for the fencing and signage. There is an estimated cost of $7,500 for a water fountain. Engineer Landini stated the City has the rain barrels in stock. Zerby noted there was a demonstration project in 2009. He also noted a drinking fountain has been desired for the Skate Park for a long time. He stated he considered using it for the community garden a bonus. The fence was questionable to him, but he was confident a good solution will be found. Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted to know how much Public Works time will be spent on the garden. She commented that Council has been told what didn't work from the gardeners' perspectives in 2009, but it doesn't know what did work. Councilmember Woodruff stated unfortunately he will have to vote against the motion. He supports the need for a drinking fountain because there've been requests for it for a long time. He does not support the community garden at a cost of $5,200 for ten plots. He thought the City may as well hand people money lay MjM3=AjPAMR11N1 r I �1 C. Approving the Purchase on One Tot Lot Piece for Each of the Five Parks Renewal This was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Turgeon's request. Councilmember Turgeon stated her question is about what is used to base the not -to- exceed cost of $1,000 per tot lot piece of equipment for each of the five parks on. She questioned if it included installation. Councilmember Zerby stated the Council Action Form states the equipment will be installed in the spring of 2010 by the company. Councilmember Woodruff stated this should be tabled until Council is provided with the supporting quote. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, tabling this item to the December 14, 2009, Council meeting and directing Staff to provide Council with additional information about this request including the quote sheet. Motion passed 5/0. D. Approving the Definition of Manor Park Shelter Improvements This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Zerby's request. Councilmember Zerby stated it's his recollection that the last time this item was discussed by Council a decision was made to form a committee consisting of a Council representative, a Park Commission representative and residents to work with Staff to determine what the residents thought the purpose the shelter should be. That has not occurred to date. He expressed he wants that to occur before this item is considered. Councilmember Turgeon stated it's her recollection that Council had asked the Park Commission to outline its vision for the shelter, which the Commission did. The Commission's vision is to expand programming for Minnetonka Community Education (NICE) and the recommended improvements support that. Councilmember Zerby noted NICE doesn't pay for space. Therefore, lie is not interested in what improvements NICE wants to have made to the building. He expressed concern about the need for the shelter to also serve as a warming house when no decision has been about there being a suitable skating surface. He thought this item is premature and more information is needed. Councilmember Turgeon stated the recommendation includes having more space for indoor recreation. It's her recollection that Park Commission minutes indicated Staff could help out with the design of the shelter. CITY OF SHO EWOC D GIG IA COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 23, 2009 Page 22 of 23 Councilmember Woodruff stated the meeting packet for this meeting contained a copy of the draft Park Commission meeting minutes for its November 10, 2009, meeting. He read the motion made by the Park Commission regarding manor Park Amenities /Vision which is "... Manor Park Shelter be cleaned up, winter storage moved elsewhere, bathrooms added to the facility, running water and sewer made available, review the lighting and roof conditions making the necessary alterations, completing necessary ADA improvements, and that an interior work table be added to the facility all to support the end goal of offering programming and a more complete facility for public use on the east side of Shorewood ...." He stated using the facility for a warming house is a secondary use. He did not think the specific desires of the Park Commission had been communicated very well to Council in the Council Action Form. Councilmember Zerby read an excerpt from the October 26` Council meeting minutes about the motion made regarding the item titled Warming House Preliminary Design Approval. The motion is as follows: " Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, directing the Park Commission to form a committee to work with Staff to solicit resident input about improvements to the Manor Park facility." The motion passed 4/0. He stated he has not been provided with any input from residents. The August 10, 2009, Council meeting minutes state that during a discussion about the 2009 — 2010 Parks CIP "[Director] Brown explained the Park Commission has discussed adding restrooms to the warming house in Manor Park. The $50,000 cost is for re- roofing the structure and adding restrooms." Three months ago improvements were to cost $50,000 and now they are estimated at $120,000. Zerby moved, to table this item until better information can be obtained from the Park Commission and until resident input has been obtained regarding amenities in an improved shelter. Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not think there was any reason to table this item because the Park Commission was very specific in its motion. In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Heck explained if an item is tabled any Councilmember can take it back from the table. He then explained an item can be deferred to a certain date. Zerby amended his motion to defer this item until the Park Commission has formed a committee to work with Staff to solicit resident input about improvements to the Manor Park facility, per the October 26, 2009, Council meeting, and the results have been presented to Council. Woodruff seconded. Motion passed 510. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff CITY OF SHOREWO0D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Noveaber23,2AQ9 Page 23of23 There was nothing additional to report. B. Mayor and City Council Couno|mcmber Woodruff stated during the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (.MCC) full Commission meeting the previous week the Cunonniaaion agreed to have the LMCC Executive CununuiUee explore more in depth the possibility of funding the broadband build out in the LMCC`a aevon(ouo member cities with private bonding funds. The Executive Committee will discuss that during its December 17 "' meeting. Mayor Liz6e distributed blank copies of the City /\dnniniybntor`o pcdbnnanoe evaluation K`oo to the o1bcrCounui|nuonnbo,a. She asked that they return the completed fbnnm to her no later then Deoombu' 14, 2UO9. She stated Administrator Heck will receive his review ouJanuary H, 2010. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting nf November 23, 2009, at 10:42 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Liz6e, Mayor