012207 CC WS AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2007 7:30 P.M. or Immediately following
the Regular City Council meeting
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Review Agenda
DRAINAGE ISSUES (Att. — Engineer's memorandum)
RECYCLING SERVICES (Att. — Administrator's memorandum)
4. OTHER
Mayor Liz&
Woodruff
Turgeon
Callies
Wellens
5. ADJOURN
m
January 18, 2007
Honorable Jayorarid City Council
City of Shorewood
5"155 Country Club Roald
Shorewood,, NTT r5331
Re: Supplemental RePort
Analysis ofDraina Problem Areas in the City ol'Shorewood
WSB Pro No. 1459-04
Dear Nlayor and ("Ity Cewncill Men
7 0 Xenia '14 Somj
Sli'me 300
Pvll i e a o ti s, M N 1, 54 1
le!: 7K 1 -4i ii:?
Fax: 76;3.5 1 -; EJ
Tralisn'litted herewith is asuppleniental report which addresses additional drainage problern
"Ireas within the City
I \vfll be available to discuss this reporl at Itte January 22 work session. Please do not hesitate to
contact roo at 761-28'-' 64 if you have anv questions regarding this report.
ITS13 Associates, lnc,
----------
Ste Gurricy, IT
Project,
FAICIOSU!"C
I ,
v
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
ANALYSIS OF DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS
WITHIN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PREPARED FOR THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
January 22, 2007
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
(763) 541 -4800
(763) 541 -1700 (Fax)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................... ..............................1
II. DISCUSSION OF PROBLEM AREAS .......................... ..............................3
III. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... .............................xx
LIST OF APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A - Opinion Of Probable Cost For Selected Problem Areas
(Category 3 and 5)
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood
Shorewood, Minnesota
January 22, 2007
TOC
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Steven Gurney, P.E.
Date: January 22, 2007 Reg. No. 40497
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood
Shorewood, Minnesota
January 22, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 23, 2006, a report entitled "Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of
Shorewood" was approved by the Shorewood City Council. Since that time, other property
owners have contacted the City requesting that their property be added to the list.
The history behind the original report is not reiterated here; however, the various categories
previously established during the preparation of that report are outlined below:
1) PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH
Primary attention will be paid to those projects that impact the public health or safety.
These projects would include ice problems on the road, erosion that is causing a
hazardous structural problem (i.e. undermining a road), or storm water that is causing a
significant health problem (such as flooding the sanitary system).
2) SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE CITY
This category will include those projects that, while not endangering the public health,
will still have a negative impact on the residents as a whole. Projects in this category
include minor infrastructure replacement that cannot be funded cost effectively by other
means. Other potential projects include erosion causing property damage and minor
structure replacement.
3) PUBLIC NUISANCE
This category includes those projects that cannot be considered a substantial hazard, are
not likely to cause a financial loss to the City, but are a public nuisance. These projects
include standing water in the roadway, unwanted flooding in public parks, and minor
erosion projects.
4) PRIVATE NUISANCE WITH LIMITED CITY RESPONSIBILITY
This category includes projects that are a nuisance to a single residence or small group of
residences that the City Council deems that the City has some responsibility to help
correct. These projects include those instances where a large drainage area is causing a
problem to a small area or where a substantial portion of the runoff is generated within
the City's Right -of -Way.
In order for the City to participate, the homeowner(s) must be willing to provide a right -
of -entry to City crews and provide Drainage and Utility Easement over improvements
without cost.
5) PRIVATE NUISANCE WITH NO CITY RESPONSIBILTY
This category includes projects that are a nuisance to a single residence or small group of
residences that the City Council deems that the City has no responsibility to help correct.
These projects include those instances where a limited drainage area, consisting of
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 1
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
private property, is causing a problem to a small area. The nuisance problem will involve
little or no runoff that is generated from City Right -of -Way.
6) NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
This category includes projects that are under way, or have been addressed through
various means, such as individual homeowners correcting the problem himself or herself
or City crews fixing the problem.
The problem areas are all evaluated and a category assigned so that the City Council can begin to
prioritize the problem areas.
With the exception of three areas, the new problem areas are areas that either the City has no
responsibility for or no further action is required. Therefore, Tables 1 -6, created as part of the
original report, are not updated here. The new problem areas can simply be added to the bottom
of the lists as there is no prioritization needed for these new areas.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 2
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
II. DISCUSSION OF PROBLEM AREAS
Since the original report was approved by the City Council, the City received additional drainage
complaints. Since that time, we have investigated each of the various areas to visit with
concerned residents, gather additional information, take pictures, and where possible, observe the
problems.
The results of this preliminary investigation are presented in the following pages. Each problem
area has a brief description of the complaint expressed by the property owner followed by a
summary of the hydrologic characteristics of the subwatershed tributary to the site.
Next, possible alternatives that may be considered to address the problems at the subject site are
outlined. A preliminary cost estimate for each alternative is also provided.
Following that is a recommendation by WSB as to how the City should proceed. Most of the
areas are within private property and do not require much additional investigation by City Staff
or their consultants. However, there are several areas that, because of their proximity to or the
amount of public property involved in the tributary area, will require further review.
Unless otherwise noted, the hydrologic information is based on a cursory review of the
subwatershed tributary to the problem area. The Soil Conservation Service's TR -20 method was
used to estimate flow rates from the subwatershed directly tributary to the problem area.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 3
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 52 — 5985 Eureka Rd
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned about the amount of water flowing through
their property. They indicated that he water was so high during the September 2005 storm that it
overtopped Eureka Road. A review of the City's contour information indicates that this is
property contains a drainage way that conveys runoff from areas east of the property. Typically,
road culverts are designed to convey runoff from a storm event up to a 10 -year storm event.
After that, the runoff is allowed to overtop the road unless doing so would threaten to flood an
upstream property. The contours also show that the house is at least one foot higher than the low
point in the road, so runoff will overtop the road before flooding the house. It appears that the
culvert is functioning as designed.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 13.4 ac
• Impervious Surface: 10%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 26 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 48 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the system seems to be functioning properly,
and there is no danger of the house being flooded by surface water runoff. Should the property
owner decide to place fill in their yard, caution must be exercised that the grading does not block
runoff from other properties. Any fill greater than 50 cubic yards will require a permit.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the system appears to be functioning as designed.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 4
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 53 — 6180 Cathcart Dr
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about water being back up on her property.
The property owner had placed fill on the property and placed silt fence along the edges, as
required. Across the street, a small pond had been recently excavated. During the grading of
this pond, the outlet of the culvert under the road had been partially obstructed with riprap. The
riprap was re- positioned so the water would drain from the yard at 6180 Cathcart. In addition,
the silt fence placed on the property was blocking a small amount of additional water. Sediment
removal, consistent with usual maintenance of silt fence will address this condition.
Hydrologic Information:
• No hydrologic analysis completed since the problem has been addressed.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the system seems to be functioning properly,
provided regular maintenance is performed on the remaining silt fence. Once turf is established,
the silt fence can be removed.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the problem appears to have been addressed.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 5
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 54 — 4940 Suburban Dr
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall complaining that runoff from the road had flooded her
property. After further discussion, it was clarified that the only problem was actually just
standing water on a small portion of the yard. The property owner indicated that they were in the
process of constructing an in- ground swimming pool, and they were concerned about what could
be done with runoff from their driveway area. The proposed plan will essentially maintain the
existing flow patterns through his portion of the property; however, the runoff will be conveyed
in a pipe rather than via an overland Swale. The change is acceptable, provided the concentrated
runoff is allowed to dissipate at the edge of the property.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 0.88 ac
• Impervious Surface: 32%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.4 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 3.9 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the system seems to be functioning properly,
provided existing runoff patterns are not drastically altered during construction of the in- ground
pool, as required by the building permit.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since this will be addressed during the building permit process.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 6
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 55 — 5590 Timber Lane
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall complaining that his yard was soggy and did not drain
properly. The property owner indicated that he would like to place fill in the yard to eliminate
some of the low areas. A review of the City's contour information indicates that a low point is
present in the northeast corner of the property. The property owner indicated that he would like
to place fill in the yard to eliminate the low spot. He also asked if the culvert in the southeast
corner of his property could be cleaned out. This culvert is in the County right -of -way. During
the summer, the ditch downstream of the culvert was jetted out, which should improve the
performance of the culvert.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 0.88 ac
• Impervious Surface: 32%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.4 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 3.9 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area since there is no danger of the house being flooded
by surface water runoff. Should the property owner decide to place fill in their yard, a permit
would be require for fill greater than 50 cubic yards. The costs for this work will be $1,700 to
$5,000 depending on the amount of fill used.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Private Nuisance with No City
Responsibility" area (Category 5) since the poor drainage through the low area is an existing
condition not caused by any action of the City.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2
Shorewood, Minnesota Page e 7
7
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 56 — 24645 Glen Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall complaining about standing water on her property. The
property owner indicated that she thought the recent wetland restoration work done on the
Gideon Glen site created this condition. A review of the City's contour information indicates
that the low area on her property is several feet higher than the Gideon Glen wetland. The house
itself is approximately 6 inches above the overflow elevation of the low area. While this is less
than the minimum standard of 1 foot that would be applied for new construction, the small
drainage area tributary to this low point will not likely result in flooding of the house.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also reviewed the site and concurred that the problem
was not related to their work in the wetland. The standing water was most likely caused by snow
melting before the ground was thawed, which would have allowed it to infiltrate into the ground.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 0.60 ac
• Impervious Surface: 40%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 1.8 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 2.9 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area since there is no danger of the house being flooded
by surface water runoff. Should the property owner decide to pump the standing water from her
yard, it is anticipated that the costs for this work will be $100 to $500 depending on the duration
of pumping.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Private Nuisance with No City
Responsibility" area (Category 5) since the standing water in low area is caused by an existing
condition which was not created by any action of the City.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 8
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 57 — 6080 Strawberry Lane
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about standing water in her back yard. It
appears this was created when the builder of the new house behind her pumped out the into the
common backyard low area. This new house is part of the same development. A review of the
grading plan for the development indicates that a drainage swale was to have been excavated that
will convey runoff from the common back yards to the ditch adjacent to the HCRRA trial.
The developer has been made aware of this, and the swale will be constructed prior to releasing
the letter of credit associated with the grading work.
Hydrologic Information:
• No hydrologic analysis completed since the problem will be addressed
through the building permit process.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the problem will be addressed as part of the
building permit process and / or approval of the development.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the problem will be addressed by other avenues.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 9
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 58 — 26370 Peach Circle
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about standing water in the street. The source
of the water is the sump pump discharge from 26395 Peach Circle (see Problem Area 29) that is
directed to Peach Circle. A catch basin is located in the cul -de -sac, near the east lot line of this
property. The storm sewer then conveys runoff to a stormwater treatment pond at the back of the
property. The only apparent outlet for this pond is the overland overflow. Based on a review of
the City's 1 -foot contours, it appears the overflow is approximately 1.5 feet lower than the
elevation of the lowest building opening on adjacent structures.
Due to the relatively flat grade of the road and areas of settlement on the road surface, there is
standing water present immediately after rainfall events, or when the sump pump is discharging.
The property owner also expressed dissatisfaction with the pond on his property, which appears
to have been built as part of this subdivision.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.74 ac
• Impervious Surface: 36%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 4.9 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 8.0 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
The following alternatives are available to reduce the nuisance flooding in this area:
1. Re -grade the Peach Circle road surface and install curb & gutter along with additional
storm sewer. It is anticipated that the construction costs associated with this work will be
approximately $71,000. Substantial cost savings would be realized if this work was to be
completed as a part of the reconstruction of the Peach Circle road surface.
2. An interim fix that could be constructed to reduce the standing water on Peach Circle
would be to install a draintile along the south edge of the road, and connect to the catch
basin in the cul -de -sac. A bituminous patch could then be placed on the street to restore
the crown.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Public Nuisance" area (Category
3.) The project is not cost - effective unless it is done as part of an overall reconstruction of Peach
Circle. Therefore, it is recommended that the project not be undertaken until the City
reconstructs the road surface at Peach Circle. Prior to beginning work, the easements over the
storm sewer and pond should be verified and, if not in place, secured before proceeding.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 10
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 59 — 5875 Afton Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned about water flowing through his yard. The
runoff appears to be contained in a designed drainage swale that conveys runoff through the
property.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 34.4 ac
• Impervious Surface: 35%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 67.9 cfs*
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 113.3 cfs*
* Flow rate on runoff from entire tributary area, neglecting upstream
ponding.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this problem area as the system appears to be functioning as
designed. All runoff is being contained in the drainage and utility easements.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the runoff conveyed through this property is contained within the existing
drainage and utility easement.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 11
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 60 — 5935 Howard's Point Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned about standing water on his property. A
review of the City's one -foot contours confirms that there is a depression on the south half of this
lot. The adjacent low point, at the intersection of Howard's Point Road and Smithtown Road, is
approximately two feet below the apparent low building opening of the house on this property.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.5 ac
• Impervious Surface: 17%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.7 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 4.6 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area since there is no danger of the house being flooded
by surface water runoff. Should the property owner decide to place fill in their yard, a permit
would be require for fill greater than 50 cubic yards. The costs for this work will be $1,700 to
$5,000 depending on the amount of fill used.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since there is adequate freeboard above the overflow section that will convey runoff
away from the property before surface waters would flood the house.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 12
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 61— 5830 Echo Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned that the culvert located on the west edge of the
property was not function properly. A review of the site indicates that the culvert is functioning
as intended. There is a spot on the road that will hold water. It appears that over time the edges
of the lawns are higher than the edge of the road. This traps water on the road surface this can be
fixed by minor grading along the edge of the road.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.5 ac
• Impervious Surface: 17%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.7 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 4.6 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
The standing water in this area can be fixed by minor grading along the edge of the road.
However, it is likely that, over time, the edges of the road would again block the runoff from
leaving the road surface. In order to address this, a storm sewer and catch basin s could be
installed to convey runoff directly to the nearby ditch. The cost for this work is estimated to be
approximately $30,000. Substantial cost savings could be realized if the storm sewer
improvements are incorporated into the site plan for a new City Hall when that project is
initiated.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Public Nuisance" area (Category
3.) The installation of a storm sewer system in this area is not cost - effective unless it is done as
part of the overall reconstruction of the area for a new City Hall building. However, it is
recommended that limited grading be done by the City's Public Works crews to allow runoff to
leave the road surface.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 13
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 62 — 5520 Grant Lorenz Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned that the open channel that conveys runoff
through his property has become choked with sediment. He also contends that the alleged
sediment deposition has blocked the flow of runoff through his property, thereby creating
wetland conditions.
A comparison of the City's one -foot contours from 1966 and 1999 do not show an increase in
elevation within this property, or the nearby surrounding properties. This would most likely
indicate that sediment deposition, if any, was very limited. In fact, the majority of this parcel
appears to be slightly lower based on the 1999 survey compared to the 1966 survey. This is most
likely due to the presence of peaty soils that tend to compress naturally over time.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 53 ac (direct), 305 ac (direct and indirect)*
• Impervious Surface: 19%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 75 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 150 cfs
* Tributary area is approximated from larger tributary area (subwatershed
WC 4) as identified in CSMP.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this problem area as the system appears to be functioning as
originally intended. The property owner could raise the low area by importing fill. This would
require a conditional use permit, as well as permit from the MCWD. The property owner is
responsible for preparing a wetland delineation report to determine the exact limits of wetlands
on the property.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the system appears to be functioning as originally intended.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 14
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 63 — 23610 Gillette Curve
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about standing water in the street. This is
caused by the small bituminous hump placed at the end of the property owner's driveway. If this
were not in place, the runoff would be conveyed down the driveway and into the garage that is
approximately one foot lower that the edge of the street. The area of standing water is relatively
small (approximately two feet by four feet.)
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.09 ac
• Impervious Surface: 32%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.1 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 3.5 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
To reduce the nuisance flooding in this area, it is recommended that Gillette Curve be re- graded
and curb & gutter installed along with additional storm sewer. It is anticipated that the
construction costs associated with this work will be approximately $32,000 to $150,000.
Substantial cost savings would be realized if this work was to be completed as a part of the
reconstruction of the Gillette Curve road surface.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Public Nuisance" area (Category
3.) The project is not cost - effective unless it is done as part of an overall reconstruction of
Gillette Curve. Therefore, it is recommended that the project not be undertaken until the City
reconstructs the road surface at Gillette Curve. Prior to beginning work, the easements over the
storm sewer and pond should be verified and, if not in place, secured before proceeding.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 15
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
III. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally, the City's drainage issues outlined in this Supplemental Report can be classified as
nuisance flooding, with a few exceptions. Of the 12 problem areas, nine are identified as
"Private Nuisance with No City Responsibility" (Category 5) or "No Further Action Required"
(category 6.)
The three exceptions are areas classified as "Public Nuisance "(Category 3.) In all three cases,
the nuisance is a small area of standing water on the road, smaller than 500 square feet in size.
Based on this, it is recommended that no major construction be undertaken at these areas until
the roads are reconstructed. In the meantime, it may be possible to make temporary fixes that
will address the standing water until it can be permanently addressed as part of a larger project.
In order to address the three problem areas as separate projects, the estimated costs range is
between $107,000 and $251,000. The narratives in the report mention that, due to economy of
scale, significant savings may be realized by doing these projects as part of a larger road
reconstruction project.
Funding:
Currently, the City has in place a stormwater fee. As design alternatives are considered,
utilization of the stormwater fees, in conjunction with special assessments for benefiting areas,
will need to be considered.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22,
Shorewood, Minnesota Page e 6
1 16
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 17
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 55 - 5590 Timber Lane
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$200.00
$200.00
2
Imported Fill
275
CY
$12.00
$3,300.00
3
Restoration
1
LS
$500.00
$500.00
Subtotal
$4,000.00
+25% Contingencies
$1,000.00
Total
$5,000.00
1/18/2007 PA 55
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 56 - 24645 Glen Road
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
IDescription
I Quantity
I Unit
I Unit Cost
Total
1
Pumping (including pump rental)
4
HR
$100.00
$400.00
Subtotal
$400.00
+25% Contingencies
$100.00
Total
$500.00
1/18/2007 PA 56
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 58 - 26370 Peach Court
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
I
LS
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
2
Remove Bituminous Pavement
900
SY
$5.00
$4,500.00
3
Salvage and Reinstall Base Course Aggregate
160
CY
$12.00
$1,920.00
4
Excavation
120
CY
$15.00
$1,800.00
5
Catch Basins
2
EA
$1,200.00
$2,400.00
6
Storm Sewer (15" RCP)
350
LF
$40.00
$14,000.00
7
Bituminous Pavement
200
TN
$150.00
$30,000.00
Subtotal
$57,120.00
+25% Contingencies
$14,280.00
Total
$71,400.00
1/18/2007 PA 58
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 55 - 5590 Timber Lane
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
IDescription
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
I
Mobilization
I
LS
$200.00
$200.00
2
Imported Fill
275
CY
$12.00
$3,300.00
3
Restoration
1
LS
$500.00
$500.00
Subtotal
$4,000.00
+25% Contingencies
$1,000.00
Total
$5,000.00
1/18/2007 PA 60
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 63 - 23610 Gillette Curve
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost - Option 1 (Storm Sewer Connection to Minnetonka Drivel
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
I
Mobilization
1
LS
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
2
Remove Bituminous Pavement
1700
SY
$5.00
$8,500.00
3
Base Course Aggregate
550
CY
$14.00
$7,700.00
4
Excavation
120
CY
$15.00
$1,800.00
5
Catch Basins
2
EA
1 $1,200.00
$2,400.00
6
Storm Sewer (15" RCP)
700
LF
$40.00
$28,000.00
7
Bituminous Pavement
550
TN
$125.00
$68,750.00
Subtotal
$119,650.00
+25% Contingenciesl
$29,913.00
Totall
$149,563.00
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost - Option 2 (limited Storm Sewer at Cul -de -sac)
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
I
Mobilization
1
LS
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
2
Remove Bituminous Pavement
250
SY
$5.00
$1,250.00
3
Base Course Aggregate
100
CY
$14.00
$1,400.00
4
Excavation
50
CY
$15.00
$750.00
5
Catch Basins
2
EA
$1,200.00
$2,400.00
6
Storm Sewer (15" RCP)
75
LF
$40.00
$3,000.00
7
Bituminous Pavement
125
'FN
$125.00
$15,625.00
Subtotal
$25,625.00
+25% Contingencies
$6,406.00
Totall
$32,031.00
PA 63
1/18/2007
- 201 Xenia Avenue Sowi'i
Stfite 300
IM inneapolis, MN 5541
led: 763-54• AND
ax: 7 63-54 -1 1 100
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club R.oad
Shorewood, MN 5
Re: SUPplernental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problen'i Areas in the City of Shorewood
WS13 Project No. 1.459-04
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Transmitted herewith is as supplemental report which addresses additional dralaage problem
areas within the CAN
I will be available to discuss this report at thelauuary 22 work session. Please do not hesitate to
contact nic at 763-287-7 164 if you have any questions regarding this report,
Sincerely,
1111SW Associates, bic,
Steve Gurney, PE f�..
I"rQject Manager
Enclosure
U
Minnea nolis I St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity "E'alploypr
KJOI 459-04 Vocsil.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
ANALYSIS OF DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS
WITHIN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PREPARED FOR THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
January 22, 2007
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
(763) 541 -4800
(763) 541 -1700 (Fax)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION
I . INTRODUCTION ................................................... ............................... I
II. DISCUSSION OF PROBLEM AREAS .......................... ..............................3
III. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... .............................xx
LIST OF APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A - Opinion Of Probable Cost For Selected Problem Areas
(Category 3 and 5)
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood
Shorewood, Minnesota
January 22, 2007
TOC
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Steven Gurney, P.E.
Date: January 22, 2007 Reg. No. 40497
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood
Shorewood, Minnesota
January 22, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 23, 2006, a report entitled "Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of
Shorewood" was approved by the Shorewood City Council. Since that time, other property
owners have contacted the City requesting that their property be added to the list.
The history behind the original report is not reiterated here; however, the various categories
previously established during the preparation of that report are outlined below:
1) PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH
Primary attention will be paid to those projects that impact the public health or safety.
These projects would include ice problems on the road, erosion that is causing a
hazardous structural problem (i.e. undermining a road), or storm water that is causing a
significant health problem (such as flooding the sanitary system).
2) SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE CITY
This category will include those projects that, while not endangering the public health,
will still have a negative impact on the residents as a whole. Projects in this category
include minor infrastructure replacement that cannot be funded cost effectively by other
means. Other potential projects include erosion causing property damage and minor
structure replacement.
3) PUBLIC NUISANCE
This category includes those projects that cannot be considered a substantial hazard, are
not likely to cause a financial loss to the City, but are a public nuisance. These projects
include standing water in the roadway, unwanted flooding in public parks, and minor
erosion projects.
4) PRIVATE NUISANCE WITH LIMITED CITY RESPONSIBILITY
This category includes projects that are a nuisance to a single residence or small group of
residences that the City Council deems that the City has some responsibility to help
correct. These projects include those instances where a large drainage area is causing a
problem to a small area or where a substantial portion of the runoff is generated within
the City's Right -of -Way.
In order for the City to participate, the homeowner(s) must be willing to provide a right -
of -entry to City crews and provide Drainage and Utility Easement over improvements
without cost.
5) PRIVATE NUISANCE WITH NO CITY RESPONSIBILTY
This category includes projects that are a nuisance to a single residence or small group of
residences that the City Council deems that the City has no responsibility to help correct.
These projects include those instances where a limited drainage area, consisting of
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page I
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
private property, is causing a problem to a small area. The nuisance problem will involve
little or no runoff that is generated from City Right -of -Way.
6) NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
This category includes projects that are under way, or have been addressed through
various means, such as individual homeowners correcting the problem himself or herself
or City crews fixing the problem.
The problem areas are all evaluated and a category assigned so that the City Council can begin to
prioritize the problem areas.
With the exception of three areas, the new problem areas are areas that either the City has no
responsibility for or no further action is required. Therefore, Tables 1 -6, created as part of the
original report, are not updated here. The new problem areas can simply be added to the bottom
of the lists as there is no prioritization needed for these new areas.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 2
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
II. DISCUSSION OF PROBLEM AREAS
Since the original report was approved by the City Council, the City received additional drainage
complaints. Since that time, we have investigated each of the various areas to visit with
concerned residents, gather additional information, take pictures, and where possible, observe the
problems.
The results of this preliminary investigation are presented in the following pages. Each problem
area has a brief description of the complaint expressed by the property owner followed by a
summary of the hydrologic characteristics of the subwatershed tributary to the site.
Next, possible alternatives that may be considered to address the problems at the subject site are
outlined. A preliminary cost estimate for each alternative is also provided.
Following that is a recommendation by WSB as to how the City should proceed. Most of the
areas are within private property and do not require much additional investigation by City Staff
or their consultants. However, there are several areas that, because of their proximity to or the
amount of public property involved in the tributary area, will require further review.
Unless otherwise noted, the hydrologic information is based on a cursory review of the
subwatershed tributary to the problem area. The Soil Conservation Service's TR -20 method was
used to estimate flow rates from the subwatershed directly tributary to the problem area.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 3
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 52 — 5985 Eureka Rd
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned about the amount of water flowing through
their property. They indicated that he water was so high during the September 2005 storm that it
overtopped Eureka Road. A review of the City's contour information indicates that this is
property contains a drainage way that conveys runoff from areas east of the property. Typically,
road culverts are designed to convey runoff from a storm event up to a 10 -year storm event.
After that, the runoff is allowed to overtop the road unless doing so would threaten to flood an
upstream property. The contours also show that the house is at least one foot higher than the low
point in the road, so runoff will overtop the road before flooding the house. It appears that the
culvert is functioning as designed.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 13.4 ac
• Impervious Surface: 10%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 26 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 48 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the system seems to be functioning properly,
and there is no danger of the house being flooded by surface water runoff. Should the property
owner decide to place fill in their yard, caution must be exercised that the grading does not block
runoff from other properties. Any fill greater than 50 cubic yards will require a permit.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the system appears to be functioning as designed.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 4
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 53 — 6180 Cathcart Dr
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about water being back up on her property.
The property owner had placed fill on the property and placed silt fence along the edges, as
required. Across the street, a small pond had been recently excavated. During the grading of
this pond, the outlet of the culvert under the road had been partially obstructed with riprap. The
riprap was re- positioned so the water would drain from the yard at 6180 Cathcart. In addition,
the silt fence placed on the property was blocking a small amount of additional water. Sediment
removal, consistent with usual maintenance of silt fence will address this condition.
Hydrologic Information:
• No hydrologic analysis completed since the problem has been addressed.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the system seems to be functioning properly,
provided regular maintenance is performed on the remaining silt fence. Once turf is established,
the silt fence can be removed.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the problem appears to have been addressed.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 5
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 54 — 4940 Suburban Dr
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall complaining that runoff from the road had flooded her
property. After further discussion, it was clarified that the only problem was actually just
standing water on a small portion of the yard. The property owner indicated that they were in the
process of constructing an in- ground swimming pool, and they were concerned about what could
be done with runoff from their driveway area. The proposed plan will essentially maintain the
existing flow patterns through his portion of the property; however, the runoff will be conveyed
in a pipe rather than via an overland swale. The change is acceptable, provided the concentrated
runoff is allowed to dissipate at the edge of the property.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 0.88 ac
• Impervious Surface: 32%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.4 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 3.9 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the system seems to be functioning properly,
provided existing runoff patterns are not drastically altered during construction of the in- ground
pool, as required by the building permit.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since this will be addressed during the building permit process.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City ofShoreivood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 6
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 55 — 5590 Timber Lane
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall complaining that his yard was soggy and did not drain
properly. The property owner indicated that he would like to place fill in the yard to eliminate
some of the low areas. A review of the City's contour information indicates that a low point is
present in the northeast corner of the property. The property owner indicated that he would like
to place fill in the yard to eliminate the low spot. He also asked if the culvert in the southeast
corner of his property could be cleaned out. This culvert is in the County right -of -way. During
the summer, the ditch downstream of the culvert was jetted out, which should improve the
performance of the culvert.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 0.88 ac
• Impervious Surface: 32%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.4 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 3.9 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area since there is no danger of the house being flooded
by surface water runoff. Should the property owner decide to place fill in their yard, a permit
would be require for fill greater than 50 cubic yards. The costs for this work will be $1,700 to
$5,000 depending on the amount of fill used.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Private Nuisance with No City
Responsibility" area (Category 5) since the poor drainage through the low area is an existing
condition not caused by any action of the City.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 7
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 56 — 24 Glen Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall complaining about standing water on her property. The
property owner indicated that she thought the recent wetland restoration work done on the
Gideon Glen site created this condition. A review of the City's contour information indicates
that the low area on her property is several feet higher than the Gideon Glen wetland. The house
itself is approximately 6 inches above the overflow elevation of the low area. While this is less
than the minimum standard of 1 foot that would be applied for new construction, the small
drainage area tributary to this low point will not likely result in flooding of the house.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also reviewed the site and concurred that the problem
was not related to their work in the wetland. The standing water was most likely caused by snow
melting before the ground was thawed, which would have allowed it to infiltrate into the ground.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 0.60 ac
• Impervious Surface: 40%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 1.8 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 2.9 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area since there is no danger of the house being flooded
by surface water runoff. Should the property owner decide to pump the standing water from her
yard, it is anticipated that the costs for this work will be $100 to $500 depending on the duration
of pumping.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Private Nuisance with No City
Responsibility" area (Category 5) since the standing water in low area is caused by an existing
condition which was not created by any action of the City.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 8
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 57— 6080 Strawberry Lane
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about standing water in her back yard. It
appears this was created when the builder of the new house behind her pumped out the into the
common backyard low area. This new house is part of the same development. A review of the
grading plan for the development indicates that a drainage swale was to have been excavated that
will convey runoff from the common back yards to the ditch adjacent to the HCRRA trial.
The developer has been made aware of this, and the swale will be constructed prior to releasing
the letter of credit associated with the grading work.
Hydrologic Information:
• No hydrologic analysis completed since the problem will be addressed
through the building permit process.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area as the problem will be addressed as part of the
building permit process and / or approval of the development.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the problem will be addressed by other avenues.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 9
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 58 — 26370 Peach Circle
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about standing water in the street. The source
of the water is the sump pump discharge from 26395 Peach Circle (see Problem Area 29) that is
directed to Peach Circle. A catch basin is located in the cul -de -sac, near the east lot line of this
property. The storm sewer then conveys runoff to a stormwater treatment pond at the back of the
property. The only apparent outlet for this pond is the overland overflow. Based on a review of
the City's 1 -foot contours, it appears the overflow is approximately 1.5 feet lower than the
elevation of the lowest building opening on adjacent structures.
Due to the relatively flat grade of the road and areas of settlement on the road surface, there is
standing water present immediately after rainfall events, or when the sump pump is discharging.
The property owner also expressed dissatisfaction with the pond on his property, which appears
to have been built as part of this subdivision.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.74 ac
• Impervious Surface: 36%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 4.9 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 8.0 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
The following alternatives are available to reduce the nuisance flooding in this area:
1. Re -grade the Peach Circle road surface and install curb & gutter along with additional
storm sewer. It is anticipated that the construction costs associated with this work will be
approximately $71,000. Substantial cost savings would be realized if this work was to be
completed as a part of the reconstruction of the Peach Circle road surface.
2. An interim fix that could be constructed to reduce the standing water on Peach Circle
would be to install a draintile along the south edge of the road, and connect to the catch
basin in the cul -de -sac. A bituminous patch could then be placed on the street to restore
the crown.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Public Nuisance" area (Category
3.) The project is not cost - effective unless it is done as part of an overall reconstruction of Peach
Circle. Therefore, it is recommended that the project not be undertaken until the City
reconstructs the road surface at Peach Circle. Prior to beginning work, the easements over the
storm sewer and pond should be verified and, if not in place, secured before proceeding.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 10
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 59 — 5875 Afton Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned about water flowing through his yard. The
runoff appears to be contained in a designed drainage Swale that conveys runoff through the
property.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 34.4 ac
• Impervious Surface: 35%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 67.9 cfs*
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 113.3 cfs*
* Flow rate on runoff from entire tributary area, neglecting upstream
ponding.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this problem area as the system appears to be functioning as
designed. All runoff is being contained in the drainage and utility easements.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the runoff conveyed through this property is contained within the existing
drainage and utility easement.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 11
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 60 — 5935 Howard's Point Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned about standing water on his property. A
review of the City's one -foot contours confirms that there is a depression on the south half of this
lot. The adjacent low point, at the intersection of Howard's Point Road and Smithtown Road, is
approximately two feet below the apparent low building opening of the house on this property.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.5 ac
• Impervious Surface: 17%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.7 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 4.6 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this area since there is no danger of the house being flooded
by surface water runoff. Should the property owner decide to place fill in their yard, a permit
would be require for fill greater than 50 cubic yards. The costs for this work will be $1,700 to
$5,000 depending on the amount of fill used.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since there is adequate freeboard above the overflow section that will convey runoff
away from the property before surface waters would flood the house.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 12
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 61— 5830 Echo Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned that the culvert located on the west edge of the
property was not function properly. A review of the site indicates that the culvert is functioning
as intended. There is a spot on the road that will hold water. It appears that over time the edges
of the lawns are higher than the edge of the road. This traps water on the road surface this can be
fixed by minor grading along the edge of the road.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.5 ac
• Impervious Surface: 17%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.7 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 4.6 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
The standing water in this area can be fixed by minor grading along the edge of the road.
However, it is likely that, over time, the edges of the road would again block the runoff from
leaving the road surface. In order to address this, a storm sewer and catch basin s could be
installed to convey runoff directly to the nearby ditch. The cost for this work is estimated to be
approximately $30,000. Substantial cost savings could be realized if the storm sewer
improvements are incorporated into the site plan for a new City Hall when that project is
initiated.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Public Nuisance" area (Category
3.) The installation of a storm sewer system in this area is not cost - effective unless it is done as
part of the overall reconstruction of the area for a new City Hall building. However, it is
recommended that limited grading be done by the City's Public Works crews to allow runoff to
leave the road surface.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City ofShoreivood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 13
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 62 — 5520 Grant Lorenz Road
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted the City concerned that the open channel that conveys runoff
through his property has become choked with sediment. He also contends that the alleged
sediment deposition has blocked the flow of runoff through his property, thereby creating
wetland conditions.
A comparison of the City's one -foot contours from 1966 and 1999 do not show an increase in
elevation within this property, or the nearby surrounding properties. This would most likely
indicate that sediment deposition, if any, was very limited. In fact, the majority of this parcel
appears to be slightly lower based on the 1999 survey compared to the 1966 survey. This is most
likely due to the presence of peaty soils that tend to compress naturally over time.
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 53 ac (direct), 305 ac (direct and indirect)*
• Impervious Surface: 19%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 75 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 150 cfs
* Tributary area is approximated from larger tributary area (subwatershed
WC 4) as identified in CSMP.
Possible Alternatives:
There is no alternative identified for this problem area as the system appears to be functioning as
originally intended. The property owner could raise the low area by importing fill. This would
require a conditional use permit, as well as permit from the MCWD. The property owner is
responsible for preparing a wetland delineation report to determine the exact limits of wetlands
on the property.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "No Further Action Required" area
(Category 6) since the system appears to be functioning as originally intended.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 14
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Problem Area Number 63 — 23610 Gillette Curve
Description of Problem:
The property owner contacted City Hall concerned about standing water in the street. This is
caused by the small bituminous hump placed at the end of the property owner's driveway. If this
were not in place, the runoff would be conveyed down the driveway and into the garage that is
approximately one foot lower that the edge of the street. The area of standing water is relatively
small (approximately two feet by four feet.)
Hydrologic Information:
• Tributary Area: 1.09 ac
• Impervious Surface: 32%
• Peak 10 -year Flow Rate: 2.1 cfs
• Peak 100 -year Flow Rate: 3.5 cfs
Possible Alternatives:
To reduce the nuisance flooding in this area, it is recommended that Gillette Curve be re- graded
and curb & gutter installed along with additional storm sewer. It is anticipated that the
construction costs associated with this work will be approximately $32,000 to $150,000.
Substantial cost savings would be realized if this work was to be completed as a part of the
reconstruction of the Gillette Curve road surface.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this problem area be categorized as a "Public Nuisance" area (Category
3.) The project is not cost - effective unless it is done as part of an overall reconstruction of
Gillette Curve. Therefore, it is recommended that the project not be undertaken until the City
reconstructs the road surface at Gillette Curve. Prior to beginning work, the easements over the
storm sewer and pond should be verified and, if not in place, secured before proceeding.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 15
WSB Project No. 7459 -04
III. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally, the City's drainage issues outlined in this Supplemental Report can be classified as
nuisance flooding, with a few exceptions. Of the 12 problem areas, nine are identified as
"Private Nuisance with No City Responsibility" (Category 5) or "No Further Action Required"
(category 6.)
The three exceptions are areas classified as "Public Nuisance "(Category 3.) In all three cases,
the nuisance is a small area of standing water on the road, smaller than 500 square feet in size.
Based on this, it is recommended that no major construction be undertaken at these areas until
the roads are reconstructed. In the meantime, it may be possible to make temporary fixes that
will address the standing water until it can be permanently addressed as part of a larger project.
In order to address the three problem areas as separate projects, the estimated costs range is
between $107,000 and $251,000. The narratives in the report mention that, due to economy of
scale, significant savings may be realized by doing these projects as part of a larger road
reconstruction project.
Funding:
Currently, the City has in place a stormwater fee. As design alternatives are considered,
utilization of the stormwater fees, in conjunction with special assessments for benefiting areas,
will need to be considered.
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 16
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
APPENDIX A
Supplemental Report
Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood January 22, 2007
Shorewood, Minnesota Page 17
WSB Project No. 1459 -04
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 55 - 5590 Timber Lane
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
I
Mobilization
1
LS
$200.00
$200.00
2
Imported Fill
275
CY
$12.00
$3,300.00
3
Restoration
I
LS
$500.00
$500.00
Subtotal
$4,000.00
+25% Contingencies
$1,000.00
Total
$5,000.00
1/18/2007 PA 55
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 56 - 24645 Glen Road
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
IDeseription
I Quantity
I Unit
I Unit Cost
Total
1
Pumping (including pump rental)
4
HR
$100.00
$400.00
Subtotal
$400.00
+25% Contingencies
$100.00
Total
$500.00
1/18/2007 PA 56
M••- •
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 58 - 26370 Peach Court
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
I
Mobilization
1
LS
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
2
Remove Bituminous Pavement
900
SY
$5.00
$4,500.00
3
Salvage and Reinstall Base Course Aggregate
160
CY
$12.00
$1,920.00
4
Excavation
120
CY
$15.00
$1,800.00
5
Catch Basins
2
EA
$1,200.00
$2,400.00
6
Storni Sewer (15" RCP)
350
LF
$40.00
$14,000.00
7
Bituminous Pavement
200
TN
$150.00
$30,000.00
Subtotal
$57,120.00
+25% Contingencies
$14,280.00
Total
$71,400.00
1/18/2007 PA 58
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 55 - 5590 Timber Lane
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
I
Mobilization
1
LS
$200.00
$200.00
2
Imported Fill
275
CY
$12.00
$3,300.00
3
Restoration
I
LS
$500.00
$500.00
Subtotal
$4,000.00
+25% Contingencies
$1,000.00
Total
$5,000.00
1/18/2007 PA 60
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 61 - 5830 Echo Road
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
2
Remove Bituminous Pavement
300
SY
$5.00
$1,500.00
3
Salvage and Reinstall Base Course Aggregate
80
CY
$12.00
$960.00
4
Excavation
50
CY
$15.00
$750.00
5
Catch Basins
2
EA
$1,200.00
$2,400.00
6
Stornl Sewer (15" RCP)
45
LF
$40.00
$1,800.00
7
Bituminous Pavement
100
TN
$150.00
$15,000.00
Subtotal
$23,610.00
+25% Contingencies
$5,903.00
Total
$29,513.00
1/18/2007 PA 61
Appendix A
Opinion of Probable Cost
Problem Area 63 - 23610 Gillette Curve
A preliminary opinion of probable cost is given below. Costs are for the construction of improvements only and do not include
easements and / or land acquisition costs. It is anticipated that the benefited property owners will donate easements. Costs for
engineering and administration are also not included. Costs may vary significantly based on final scope of project. Actual costs will be
determined when survey and feasibility reports are completed.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost - Option 1 (Storm Sewer Connection to Minnetonka Drive)
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
I
Mobilization
1
LS
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
2
Remove Bituminous Pavement
1700
SY
$5.00
$8,500.00
3
Base Course Aggregate
550
CY
$14.00
$7,700.00
4
Excavation
120
CY
$15.00
$1,800.00
5
Catch Basins
2
EA
$1,200.00
$2,400.00
6
Storm Sewer (15" RCP)
700
LF
$40.00
$28,000.00
7
Bituminous Pavement
550
TN
$125.00
$68,750.00
Subtotal
$119,650.00
+25% Contingenciesi
$29,913.00
Total
$149,563.00
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost - Option 2 (limited Storm Sewer at Cul -de -sac)
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
2
Remove Bituminous Pavement
250
SY
$5.00
$1,250.00
3
Base Course Aggregate
100
CY
$14.00
$1,400.00
4
Excavation
50
CY
$15.00
$750.00
5
Catch Basins
2
EA
$1,200.00
$2,400.00
6
Storm Sewer (15" RCP)
75
LF
$40.00
$3,000.00
7
Bituminous Pavement
125
TN
$125.00
$15,625.00
Subtotal
$25,625.00
+25% Contingencies
$6,406.00
Total
$32,031.00
1/18/2007 PA 63
JAN -18 -2007 10:19 CentrPointEnergy 612 321 5220 P.001/'001
Cente P oin `, Home Comfort Sales Administration
Phone: (612) 321 -5283
Fax: (612) 321 -5220
FAXED
Re: Annual Update of our Permit Fee Database
JAN 0 $ 2007
To help our salespeople provide up -to -date information to our customers, we
update our permit fee database annually.
Could you please :review the information and answer the question below,
note any corrections we should make for 2007, and then fax this form back
to the number indicated above ?,
Thank you very much for your assistance!
City: Shorewood
Phone number to ask whether a permit has been pulled: 9524743236
Phone number to schedule an inspection: 9524743236
Fax number for your office issuing permits: 9524740128
PERMIT FEES: If there is no change in 2007, please write, "Same ".
Equipment Type:
2006 Fee:
200!7 Fee:
Replacement Water Heater — Natural Gas
$35.50*
Replacement Water Heater — Electric
$33.50*
Natural Gas Fireplace
(Value
Based)
If the fee is based on job value, do you expect your formula for fee
calculation to change for /in 2007 from that used for 2005? Yes No
(please circle one)
TOTAL P.001
CITY OF
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaI1 @ci.shorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years • 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator d
DATE: January 18, 2007
SUBJECT: Recycling Services, January 22 City Council Work Session
Background The City has provided recycling services to its residents for many years under a
contract with a firm to collect recyclables. For well over a decade it has participated with five other
cities in the Lake Minnetonka Recycling Group (LMRG - -which includes the cities of Excelsior,
Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Shorewood, Spring Park, and Wayzata) to arrange for services to collect
recyclables. In this manner, the cities have had a market presence to gain more favorable pricing for
services, although each city has had a separate contract with the recycling hauler.
For several years, E -Z Recycling was the contractor to all of the cities. In mid -2005, E -Z Recycling
was acquired by Waste Management, Inc., (WMI), and WMI assumed the contract that ran through
the end of 2006. Following that acquisition, WMI approached each of the cities separately with a
proposal to switch from weekly "dual- sort" collection to bi- weekly "single- sort" collection, provided
that the collection contract would be extended. (More about this key issue of dual- and single -sort
will be discussed below.) Staff among the cities believed that such fundamental changes should be
addressed as the LMRG, and subsequently worked with Hennepin County staff to secure a $15,000
County grant for assistance to develop a request for proposals (RFP), evaluate responses, and
negotiate terms for agreement(s). The timing for County approvals made for a lengthier process, and
subsequently the cities requested and WMI granted a three -month extension of the agreement for
collection services into 2007.
A new agreement for services will take effect April 1, 2007.
The RFP maximized the number of options on which a firm could make proposals, so as to maximize
the number of firms that would be interested in submitting a response. Firms could propose to collect
from any combination of cities and submit pricing for any such combination, whether to share any
revenue from the sale of recyclables, whether to collect with a single- or dual -sort method, and the
frequency of collection.
As it has turned out, the proposals generally affect each city differently in terms of price, and a likely
result that different contractors serving the different cities in the LMRG service area.
Key Issues The key issues are (1) whether to remain with dual -sort collection or switch to single -
sort; and (2) whether to continue with the goal of having one contractor serve the LMRG cities.
f% PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Recycling Services
January 22, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
Sortin : In the early days of recycling, the idea was to sort recyclables into as many materials as
possible, in order to keep them "clean" and thus easily marketed commodities with probable higher
prices. Mechanical systems to separate materials were expensive, and neither prevalent nor reliable;
another option, manual sorting at recycling processing facilities, was also expensive. Consequently,
"source separation" — separating recyclable at the "source" (the home or place of business) — was the
norm.
Over time, mechanical systems became more prevalent, reliable, and cost - effective, and most
recycling services migrated to the "dual sort" practice today — separating fibers (i.e., paper) from
containers (i.e., metal, plastic, and glass). While this practice is common, a problem usually remains
regarding glass. There is very little value to glass if the colors have been mixed, and the Twin Cities'
one recycled glass processor — Anchor Glass — has been in and out of bankruptcy several times, and
has often not accepted mixed glass. Glass then is destined at best for "beneficial reuse" in landfill
cover or road material; it is not recycled back into new glass products.
Within the past few years, a "single- sort" system has emerged. With this method, all recyclables are
mixed together and collected together. Most often, all of the recyclables are placed in a separate cart
(typically around 60gallons), and collected mechanically into a recycling truck. In this system,
collection is done bi- weekly, and the recycler amortizes the carts over five years. When WMI bought
out E -Z Recycling, it was the only firm in the Twin Cities market that offered single -sort service.
Within the past year, other recyclables collectors have entered the field to offer single -sort service in
the metropolitan area.
Single- vs. Dual -Sort The primary concern within the recycling industry, and among those in
government involved with recycling services, is that once you go to single - sort, you'll never go back
to multi -sort. It is not unrealistic to expect the commodity markets for recyclables to change. In
market cycles, it may become not cost - effective to collect some recyclables, and /or buyers of
recyclables require cleaner, better - quality materials. However, residents will have become used to
the convenience and habit of putting all of their recyclables together (and especially into a special
recycling cart), and will likely not separate them or decide just not to recycle.
Single -sort recycling generally has a bi- weekly collection schedule, due to the larger capacity of carts
compared to bins and /or bags set out for collection. The development of recycling in the Twin Cities
has focused on making recycling convenient, and consequently a weekly collection schedule like that
in Shorewood is the norm. Opting for single -sort recycling would end this long - developed habit.
Firms collecting recyclables have data to show that the amount collected from single -sort recycling
containers notably increases, and that "participation" also increases. There are not clear data,
however, that the net amount of materials recycled (i.e., the amount after removing "residuals" that
can not be recycled) significantly increases. Residents have been observed using their recycling carts
to handle the overflow from their regular trash carts.
While single -sort recycling is a method that is still being tested in the commodities market, it is the
case that the major players in collecting and processing recyclables are moving toward single -sort.
However, a risk remains in going with a system that is still working the kinks both in terms of
processing and the firms that will be able to compete.
Recycling Services
January 22, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 3
Attached is information regarding "Strengths and Challenges of a Single- Stream Operation" for
recycling.
Keeping the LMRG Together Given the proposals received and refined, staff of the LMRG
member cities determined that it would not be possible to have one contractor serve the six cities. It
may be likely that two or more different firms will be recommended to provide recycling services.
There was also a preference to go with the single -sort system in some cities. Although the RFP
requested services and pricing based on a 33 -month contract, firms were allowed to propose and
refine services for a longer duration. Other LMRG city staff members may be recommending a
contract with a 57 -month term. It would be the intent to include a 24 -month contract renewal for
cities opting for a 33 -month contract, so that the six cities' agreements would have a common
termination date and thus allow them to negotiate as the LMRG for service beginning in 2012.
Options for Shorewood The LMRG received proposals from Allied Waste (part of BFI), Randy's
Sanitation, Veolia Environmental Services (formerly Onyx), and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI).
Currently, the cities with weekly service pay $2.32 /household per month for dual sort collection.
From the RFP process, the best -value options available for Shorewood are:
1) Dual sort, weekly collection, continue use of City - provided bins, 33 -month contract (i.e.,
continuation of current program):
Veolia $2.50 /hhold /month "fixed price" (without "revenue sharing "). Under
the "fixed price" scenario, , the City would not receive any
revenue from the sale of recyclables.
$2.70 /hhold /month with revenue sharing
Based on market indices in October 2006, the net cost after
revenue sharing from sales of recyclables is approximately
$2.41 /hhold /month. Given the relatively close net pricing, the
volatility of commodities markets, and ease of administration,
staff would recommend Veolia's "fixed price" proposal rather
than the revenue sharing pricing option.
2) Dual sort, change to bi- weekly collection, continue use of City - provided bins, 33 -month
contract:
Allied $2.06 /hhold /month
3) Single sort, change to bi- weekly collection, continue use of City - provided bins, 33 -month
contract:
Allied $2.06 /hhold /month
4) Single sort, change to bi- weekly collection, contractor provides new carts:
Veolia $2.80 /hhold /month with revenue sharing ($2.65 net) for 57 - months
$2.95 /hhold /month without revenue sharing for 33- months
Recycling Services
January 22,2007, City Council Work Session
Page 4
Based on the discussion at the last meeting of the LMRG cities, their staffs would be forwarding the
following recommendations that included:
. Weekly dual-sort
. Bi-weekly single sort
. Continued use of City-provided bins
. Contractor-provided carts
. 33-month agreements
. Preferences for 57-month agreements
. 57-month agreements
The trend among the recommendations by individual staff members to their respective Councils
would be to change to single-sort collection and bi-weekly service. Councils, of course, will make
the final decisions.
Processin2 Facilities~ Residuals: Both Allied and Veolia would deliver waste to a materials
processing facility (MRF) owned by Allied. Allied has made significant investments in one of its
MRFs, and will be able to sort glass by color with optic separation equipment. Consequently, it has
less "residual materials" (i.e., not destined to be recycled) in processing recyclables. Allied has
contracts for glass in other Midwest metropolitan areas, and is not reliant on the continued operation
of Anchor Glass in order to recycle glass.
Other Services: Each of the firms satisfactorily met expectations of providing information to
customers, and to efforts to increase recycling participation and amounts of materials collected.
Firms are also required to provide carts and services free of charge to municipal facilities. In
Shorewood, municipal facilities to be served would be City Hall, Public Works, Public Safety, and
the South Shore Center. Residential recycling collection days would remain the same as they are
today.
Citv Administrator's Comments: There are advantages to the long-standing dual-sort system for
separating recyclables. It is a habit among residents that has become well developed over time. With
cleaner materials, there will be a better price for recyclables and fewer residuals, and keep collection
prices affordable to customers. It is a more labor-intensive method, not only for residents, but also
for the companies that collect and process recyclables. The cleaner materials can help offset the
expense of the labor-intensive system. As the recycling industry has progressed, however, it is
becoming more automated and the mechanical processing systems appear to be more reliable. Firms
in recycling are making one-time capital investments in processing equipment, and recycling carts
and automated collection, so that over a longer (5+ year) time horizon they may be more profitable
than continuing with the more labor-intensive multi-sort system.
Continued use of the City-provided bins, as proposed by Allied, is less expensive than using the
-contractor-provided carts. If Council chooses single-sort, it might be easier for residents to revert to
multiple-sort should that become necessary, as they will not have gotten into the habit of placing all
of their recyclables in one large cart. With bi-weekly service, residents might run out of space in
their recycling bins, but they could place other containers (e.g., grocery bags) next to their bins for
their excess materials.
Recycling Services
January 22,2007, City Council Work Session
Page 5
Fundamentally, the Council needs to decide whether to continue with a dual-sort system or change to
single-sort collection. Data provided by collection firms show that the total tonnage of materials
collected increases - anywhere from 20 to 40 percent in selected Twin Cities suburbs. They also
claim that "participation" increases, but this statistic is difficult to measure with reliability.
There may also be concerns expressed about a diminished value of service compared to the cost in
going from weekly to bi-weekly service. The volume of a single-sort recycling cart is about 60
gallons every two weeks, whereas the volume of a recycling bin is about 18 gallons every week
(equivalent to 36 gallons every two weeks). The available volume to be collected bi-weekly in
single-sort recycling carts is close to twice the volume available over two weeks in recycling bins. In
this sense, the cost is similar, and the value should be nearly equivalent.
Based on the proposals, I would recommend either one from Allied, or V eolia' s single-sort option.
Regarding the Veolia option, the items that I would flag for Council are the essentially irreversible
decision to go to single-sort collection and any concerns one might have with 57-month contract term
for a new service and provider.
City Council Direction: The Council should provide direction to staff regarding which option it
wants staff to develop an agreement for services.
Strengths and Challenges of a Single-Stream
Operation
R. W. Beck has provided the following table that includes a set of criteria associated
with recycling collection and processing programs, as well as a characterization of the
strengths and challenges of converting to a single-stream operation.
[Updated by Dan Krivit and Associates on 1-9-2007]
fi'~V'~ E ~ It,
II)
CI)
C)
c
.!!!
co
..c
(.)
-0
$
ro
E
.9
:::::J
ro
!If
<l.l
'0 -0
C <l.l
<l.l(/)
'0 ro
Ie..c
<l.l e
'05-
~~
19.9
c <l.l
ro >
> ro
"g..c
~itl
19E
.81::
..... <l.l
<l.lE
"E.Q-
o :::::J
cg
-
c
~
.....
:::::J
o
ro
.....
o
-0
~
:::::J
.....
1i5
c
8
<l.l
.0
.9
<l.l
>
ro
..c
32~
:::::J C
~ .2>
LL(/)
o::~
""",
..::::~
3: <l.l
<l.l C
Zo
-
c:
.g
.
a.
:::::J
o
-
~
ro
:;::;
c:
19
(/)
.0
:::::J
II)
-0
-0
ro
c:
ro
o~
~ (/)
ro 0
o 0
-OC:
<l.l 0
(i)1:5
CI) <l.l
..c =
:5:8
II)
CI)
C)
c
.!!!
cu
..c
<.J
"'C
C
cu
II)
..c
-
C)
c
CI)
...
-
en
c
o
:.;:l
e
CI)
c..
o
E
cu
e
-
en
.
CI)
c,
c
en
.!:
(/)
<l.l
o
:c
<l.l
>
C
o c:
:;::;0
a31i5
c.t::!
0"E
'O~
Ci5 ffi
.0 -
E (/)
:::::J'Q)
c: <l.l
<l.l<>=
~.9
c: <l.l
.- :::::J
.~~
t5<l.l
:::::J <l.l
-0<>=
<l.l <l.l
0::::5
c:
o
1:5
..!!2
8
'0
>-
o
c:
<l.l
:::::J
0-
&
<l.l
..c
-
.!:
<l.l
(/)
ro
~
o
<l.l
-0
16
;:;
c:
~
0...
II)
..c
-
C)
c
t!:!
-
en
<l.l
o
c:
<l.l
'2
<l.l
>
c:
o
o
.....
<l.l
E
.9
(/)
:::::J
()
(/)
'en
ro
.oE
~ro
(/) ~
lB1il
o ..!..
e ro
o..g
>-c:
ro ro
~=
<l.l_
0.0
I :::::J
c: .....
.9 US
ro 5
c 0
o 0
(/)-
LL<l.l
0:: .2:
::2~
E2i
ro ~
~ ""
1il~
I 0
..!!2E
C)
c:
00
.....
.g
.!!2
t::
ro.~ 3:
O.o.Q
{3:::::J16
:c 0.-0
3: gz:; (/)
-o'en ~ (i)
c: (/) >
ro ~ g,..!!2
1!? 0>._ c:
<l.l ~~.Q
'gcE15
:::::J <( ro.!:
(/) OE
"Em~19
~.2~5
'en ~ Q) 0
Q) ..... <l.l
.;: ~ ~.t::!
ro~roE
; gz 'g :5
_(/)roE
:::::J <l.l c: 0
(/):00-
ffi jg 1i5 ~
1il~gs
:::::J 0-0 0
::2~<l.l()
<l.l
..c
.....
-o.9c:
$-00
ro<l.l:;::;
E(/)O
.9jg<l.l
~e8
.....:::::J E
10 a.
: <l.l ro
: ~.o ~
! 15 .9 1{)
IE <l.l..!!2
1.9~g>
i ~ ..c 'en
i ...!. -0 """0
, E:;
I <l.l o~
I(/) 3: <+=
: (/) (/) <l.l
! a. <l.l c:
!~.~~
: <l.l ..c <l.l
io.gz~
,-0 c: <l.l
I ffi :8 .t::!
I (/) a3.5
i 16 = ~
I () 8 E
..-.1..
I
.!: ~
(/) :::::J
<l.l 0
:e() ~
E .~ .!: ~ ~
ro""" a. Ie ~
~E~ '60>.....
1i5roc: .s,l<l.l
. ~ <l.l <l.l .!: -g,
..!!2 - :c ~ 0'-
0> (/) _ ..c _ ..c
.!: ..!!2 lB >- ~ .!:
(/) 0> 3: ro:::::J
gz.!: 0> E = ~
ro (/) c: >- J!! ~
..c <l.l'~ ::!: ~ ~
~ ~ <l.l '0 (/)
.g I- ~ J!! .~ g
c _ O><l.lC(/)
<l.l en c .!: 15 8 (i)
~~~ ~E~a;
.Q 0 ~ ~ .~ = c
t5 J!! 0 e ~ ~ .Q ,
..!!20>3: 0.-0--1
8 .!: I- ..... 0> <l.l ~ :
(/) <l.l c: - -- i
--(/)c:' =:;::;roEi
<l.l ro <l.l :::::J ro I
~ 0 .Q m E ~ g"E I
oeo>~ (/)ro-oO!
Zo.~ro<(Eroo:
...._-,_.__.._--~_.._--------_._..__....- ..-._.~
..c
-
.~
E
~
0>
e
a.
0>
.!:
~
o
~
.9
~ E
"e: ~
"*e
Eo.
-oE
-oro
ro ~
~U)
~ <b
'en 0,
ro c
UJ 'en
~
16 ..!!2-o
'0 .0 c:
c: ro ro
_ro <l.l(/)
; jg ~ ~~
:--0 ro ro
l-g ffi Eo
i <+= >- '" ~
!~ro ~~
I::; 5 ~o
1 jg 1i5 ..c c:
i n. ~ c:- .Q
! "" "" 0 t5
'150. :;::;<l.l
i> 0 0=
l'a.!!2 <l.l 8
l+-JC 80
I ~ ,Q E ::
IEt5 ro<l.l
i _..!!2 <l.l <l.l
cO(/) ....<>=
20:::::J1i5<l.l
'0>0 <bco
O>c:<l.l
lC:;::;O> cO><l.l
.Ororo N
! Q; E"E 'en = <l.l
1::5.9~ :2'5.2
,c:::::J'O>OQ)
!-roro >_....
..........-..+.. ....---.-......---..--............-................-.....
:
"'-"--'.1
gz
c I :;::;
0 :;::;
I ~ ! <l.l
ro ; a.
0 I E
c=- :::::J 0
j -0 ()
1i5 I UJ
:::::J a. j ro ~
-0 :::::J <l.l
-= I e o><l.l
-0 CD ~:Q
c: :::::J >
c ro i 0 oe
.... :c 00...
0 <l.l 1 a. j c <l.l
.. C ~ i UJ. 0 ~
Q. 3: I I =-~ <)
-;:= 0 0> (I)
0 <l.l 0 :5: <l.l a:l
II) E E I >-CI)
CI) 0 <l.l 0> .... ~
C :c I 0 ! 0 .g
ca .9 <l.l I c -
-;:= ~ c <l.l ~
CI) ..... <l.l ..c ~
- (/) 0
-;:= 0 > I <l.l ro
(.) () is I- ~
(/)
LL
~o::
ro::2
c
o
1:5
..!!2
C
o
(/)
(/)
e
o
ro
(i)
c
c
o
~
<l.l
a.
'0
c
.Q
15
N
'E
:;::;
a.
o
I
! '+-
:0
10>
1.5
It::
'0
(/)
c: 0
o c:
1a I
~ -0 i ....
<l.l ~ I.~ (/)
Eo.~ gzi~<l.l
O (/) 0: <l.l:O
o 0' <l.l jg
~ 0 ~I.o<)
.....16 <l.ll-~
<l.l ~ 0>1 -g, <l.l
-g 5t ~ I 'E -a
3: '6 OlE(/)
.!: .!: - i ro <l.l
(/) <l.l <l.l .!: I ~ ~
,g ~ ~ ~!1{)-;;;
~ ~ ~ ~!..!!2 5
<l.l a3 a3 t5 I g>.c:
g- 0 0 -=,00 ~
........-..-.........-..-.-....------.-1-..-...-.-..--..
t/)
CD
0)
s:::
~
c;;
..s:::
U
"'C
s:::
ClS
t/)
..s:::
-
0)
s:::
CD
...
-
en
s:::
o
:;::;
e
CD
c.
o
E
ClS
CD
...
-
en
.
CD
1>>
s:::
en
.J:: ;
I .~ ~ Q) ~ I .2
I .~ I,' _Q) Q) .2: :5 i .5
115.. 'CO o coca c:i..Q
I 0 I ::J.5 g> u> ~ I $
I 0 -0 ; g C C ro .;::: I ~
I ~ ffi I -0 co co';::: "9 I co
lCOC '1'~~Q).$EI5r
1 ~ .Q .- - > co co I en
. w _ , '" 0 co E '-'-
I Q) 0 1 ~ C ..c 0)1 ~
I~Q) IcoQ)c~ei~
co,.J:: > co _ 0..; '"
o ,_co 00-01""
; Q) .J:: 1 co .J:: .J:: >- C I C
1 ..0 _ i:5 en .S::! ~ co; +::l
1 :g ..8 I en o...J:: L;. 0 I en
!::J 'ILJ..$ 3:......=1
, 0 C ex:: en 0 .- I -0
". i - en~ ""- ~ 1 :;
! :> ._~ - 1:2 12 (j) ~- 0..1 0
len~~ IEc>:.cenj3:
II ~ '0 E 1 co 0 ~ _co ""-I en
; 2 co..' +---, Q)
I ;.;:::; .92 'S 1 ~ 0 C Q) := I en
~ 0 !I' (j) ~B -to: aL ~
l~lEg IcbroCO~""'lc
I ~ Q)!2> I c, ::J .5 .!a I '(i;
I '" C ~ ; C 0" E C Q) 1 ::J
; .... o'(i; ! '(i; ro co 0 ::J I ..0
! J9 1:5 ~ I Q) .;::: 1:: 1:5 ~ I ... Q)
I '0.. ~ 0 I E $ 0 co.- 1 :g, en
,,.. 0 10COoo..enl"'~
i",o... IU)EcE:2IC01i)
.__.___m........._.._ m_'l..~'- c:.--~----+-..---.-...:~--:=--::..l.-=-..~.--.-.
!~
I C ~ C
g> .5 I .92 'co 0
.~ € .?;o 1 ~ ~ m 1 ~ ~ ~ C
12 :so .- I' Q) >- C I co ex:: 'E- I ~ 0
0) 12 ~. ~ .Q ~I':; 00:::: 1..0 +::l
co 0) o..! 0 0.. X 0.."':: J9 ! co co
.!a ~ ~ I E lB ~ I 8. 16 8 I ~ ~
0) 2= aen ...o,c Q) Q)Q)
c ::s ..2 11.F-o..92 Q) ~ i.- J::;.5 "I' ... L;.
'(i; .... '1 en..o 3: co I 0) <{> Q) ... -g
en .J:: "" 3: co .Q !!2 1,.5 '" en I.E co
Q) :t:~ 0- ~"..... .
o 3::51= ~ .-Q)I:> C,CO .,1"9. ~
12 1 co ~ en 0..1 12 C ~ .... w
0.. -o_Q) ~ i !2> ~ ~ Eo I 0) '(i; $:2 i ~ ~
s:: (..) ~ ! .: ~ ~ (.) ! ~ "'C.: ! Q) "en
.Q 2 ~ I en 0 C5.. en 1 co $ C 1..0 ::J
1:5 _""enc len COco 1-0..0
_Q) en-ol ~ 0 Eij).LJ.. ... 0 1-::;
C Q) i 0'- Q) ~ I TV ~ =..... I ~ 0
o 0_'",,0 o...!..... oC ,0
o o~IO"Q)_OI:2 0) 10~
16 ~ 8-11 16 8 .~ ~ I 16 "ffi .~ 1 ~ 2
~ co -0 ~ ~ .2, co, ~ g. C I ~ ~
tr ~ ffi 1 tr tti .5 G; I tr 0. g> ,I, 0 .co_ coen
Q) ~- ~ I Q) E ... > I Q) Q) 'E en
!!~Jl~ill~-!!!J~J
i i
:t:
en
Q)
0)
s:::
~
(ij
.c
<.)
~
$Q)c
ceo
Q)::J+::l
E 0 ~
Q) en ::J
C5..coC)
.~ .9 'E
.!a 13 8
ECO~
co ..0 0
.... 0 ::J
C> 0) J:::
12 0
0...9 -
E:::~
coG-o
~~E
en-o.$
cb 2:' en
c,Q)>-
c > en
'(i; Q) ~
(\j..oCii
~~ffi
coo..
03:m
(J)
.c
-
C)
s:::
CI)
...
CiS
c
o
a
.;::
o
en
Q)
C
co
";::
CI)
-
";::
<.)
t::
<(
I
Q)
:5
<5-g
cb >
-12
J9o..
~E
Q)-
,g~
x
~.9
LJ..Q)
Q)-
m~
5>-
>co
>-::J
0).5
.Q1::
o 0
.E0
0-0
Q) C
I-CO
~
Q
Q)
o:l
~
~
i
I~
!0
1-0
Ic
lco
len
I.~
1 0)
10
10
IC
, .J::
'0
I~
iC
'Q)
I~
IQ)
1..0
I~
IC
I..!!!
lCO
100
i
I
I
i~
,-
lCO
i~
'5
IE
IQ)
10
1-0
IC
lCO
IQ)
1:0
lCO
IC
I 'ffi
; .......,
I~
IU)
! >-
j 0)
10
Ig
1 .J::
10
IQ)
II-
I ~
1-0
10
, .J::
IQ)
! ~ ..!Q
I 0 Q)
1::C >
I' - Q)
, co -l
Ijg
I ~ co
I E ~
!~&
I E-o
!- C
; Q) co
I CO -
I C en
1 co ~
10 C
! >-'(i;
IO)::J
I g 00_
I C 0
I.J:: 0
1 0 .J::
I Q) 0
p- U)