The URL can be used to link to this page

121007 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2007 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 2 3 B. Review Agenda APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Callies Wellens A. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 26, 2007 (Att. Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 26, 2007 (Att.- Minutes) C. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, December 3, 2007 (Att. -Minutes) CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the patblic an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Staffing -Approving the Regular Appointment of James Landini as City Engineer (Att. -Staff memorandum, Resolution) C. City Clerk's License Approvals (Att.- Deputy Clerk's memorandum) D. Property and Liability Insurance Renewal (Att. -Finance Director's memorandum) E. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Lift Station No. 9 -Fatima Place (Att. -Director of Public Works' memorandum) F. Adopt Resolution Approving Minor Subdivision (Draft Resolution) Applicant: Dan and Melissa Nelson Location: 25865 Birch Bluff Road G. Accept Final Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the Southeast Area Well / Amesbury Well Interconnection Project; City Project No. OS-OS (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. H. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Public Works Tire Changer (Att. -Director of Public Works' memorandum) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -DECEMBER 10, 2007 Page 2 of 2 I. Accept Proposal for Professional Services from KLM Engineering for SE Water Tower Rehabilitation (Att. -Director of Public Works' memorandum) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. Lot Line Rearrangement (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum; Draft Resolution) Applicant: Linda Beutel-Ilsop Location: 5865/5875 Division Street B. Minor Subdivision (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum; Draft Resolution) Applicant Mike McCarthy Location: 5770 Ridge Road C. P.U.D. Amendment (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum) Applicant: Boulder Bridge Association Location: Outlot C, Boulder Bridge 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approving the 2008 Budget and Approving the Property Tax Levy Collectible in 2008 (Att. -Proposed Resolution) B. Establishing the 2008 Pay Scale and City Insurance Contribution (Att. -Proposed Resolution) C. Authorizing the Transfer of Funds (Att -Proposed Resolution) D. Approval of the 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Att. -Staff memorandum, CIP) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Right-of--Way Ordinance (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Ordinance, Resolution) 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN CITY nF -~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ^SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 ' FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, l0 December 2007 Last meeting of the year Have a safe and happy holiday season! Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: James Landini successfillly completed his six-month probationary period as City Engineer in July, 2007, as well as an extension of his probationary period to date. At its Work Session on November 26, 2007, the City Council discussed Mr. Landini's accomplishments, and determined that his regular appointment would be approved at tonight's meeting. A resolution approving Mr. Landini's regular appointment as City Engineer is provided for Cotu~cil approval. Agenda Item #3C: Several Garbage Hauler, Tree Trimmer and Therapeutic Massage license requests have been received at the City and reviewed for completeness. As all license fees and requirements have been met, licenses will be issued to the Licensees listed. The City also received a request for a new Tobacco License from Park Square Subway, Inc. DBA Shorewood Liquor, located at 23670 State Hwy 7; as the applicant meets the license requirements, a Tobacco License will be issued. Agenda Item #3D: The City's property and liability insurance is provided through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), and it's time to renew the insurance coverages.. Overall, the premiums total approximately $103,000, compared to the $121,000 budgeted. The Council also needs to decide whether to waive the statutory limits on claims, and the Council has chosen consistently to follow recommendations not to waive these limits. Staff recommends approval of the property and liability insurance renewal with the LMCIT and not to the waive statutory limits on claims. Agenda Item #3E: Staff is recommending approval of the authorization for expenditure of fields to Lift Station 9 to resolve ongoing operating issues. A proposal by Braun Pump, hoc has been provided in the amount of $2,950.00. Agenda Ilem #3F: This resolution approves a minor subdivision for Dan and Melissa Nelson. It was noted at the last minute that the requirement of a driveway easement and maintenance agreement was not included in the conditions. A revised resolution will be forwarded under separate cover. vs ~®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 10 December 2007 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Item #3G: The Southeast Area Well / Amesbury Well Interconnection Project has been completed. As the normal path of the project, the contractor and the City have to verify construction records and tally all costs involved. This has been completed, and the project is ready to be accepted and final payment is to be issued to Minger Construction, Inc. Staff recommends approval of the draft resolution. Agenda Item #3H: Staff recommends approval of the expenditure of funds from the Public Works Operating Budget for the Tire Changer provided by Delegard Tool. The amount of $1,910.15 is well within the amount budgeted. Agenda Item #3I: The 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) calls for the rehabilitation of the Southeast Area Water Tower located at 5500 Old Market Road. Council may recall that KLM Engineering had initiated the process of preparing plans, specifications and estimates previously. However, this was put on hold while Council and Staff considered various Capital Improvement project timing and alternatives. Staff has asked KLM Engineers to update the proposal for design and inspection services. KLM has provided said proposal in the amount of $38,015.00. Agenda Item #8A: The Planning Commission has recommended that a minor subdivision and lot width variance be approved for Linda Belrtel-Ilstrup, subject to conditions. She proposes to rearrange the lot line between her two properties on Division Street. Staff recommmends approval of the draft resolution. Agenda Item #8B: Mike McCarthy proposes to subdivide his property on Ridge Road into two lots. Both lots meet or exceed the minimum zoning requirements for the R-lA/S zonng distl°ict. The Plamiing Commission has recommended approval of the proposed division. Staff recommends approval of the draft resohrtion. Agenda Item #8C: The Boulder Bridge Homeowner's Association has requested an amendment to the PUD agreement for Boulder Bridge Farm. The amendment would reduce the rear yard setback for lots that adjoin the perimeter trail system on the eastern portion of the project. Even with the reduction of setback from 50 to 30 feet, the lots would have greater setbacks than anything surrounding Boulder Bridge. The Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation to approve the amendment. The Council should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption at the next meeting. Agenda Item #9A: On September 10, 2007, the Council approved the Proposed 2008 budget and tax levy which was subsequently certified to Hennepin County. The City held a Truth-in-Taxation Hearing on December 3, 2007 to discuss and receive public comment on the Proposed 2008 budget and tax levy, and the Council indicated a continuation of the hearing would not be held. The levy nnist be certified to the County Auditor by year- end. Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed resolution approving a final 2008 Budget and 2007/2008 Tax Levy. Agenda Item #9B: The 2008 budget process included discussion about adjustments to City employee salary ranges and the City's contribution toward the employee insurance plan. The proposed resolution approves these adjustments to the pay ranges and sets the City's insurance contribution at $756 per month per employee, as directed by the Council; the Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 10 December 2007 page 3 of 3 schedule provides fora 3.0% economic adjustment increase in January only. If adopted, the changes will be effective January 1, 2008. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Agenda Item #9C: The City Council- approved budgeted transfers of monies to and from various funds for capital improvement and other purposes in the 2007 Budgets. In addition, there was discussion at several work-sessions this year relating to transfers. Tlus annual resolution authorizes the transfer of funds as previously approved by the budget and discussed at work-sessions by the Council. Agenda Item #9D: The 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has been prepared for approval by the City Council. It includes the changes as indicated by the Council during the year's budget work-sessions. Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution approving the 2007-2011 CIP. Agenda Item #I OA: Two ordinances are proposed for approval under this item. The first would amend Chapter 900 of the City Code and is an update to provide for better management of the Public Rights-of-Way. The second would amend City Code Chapter 1300 (the fee section) for the fees and charges identified in the Right-of--Way ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance as well as the resolution authorizing publication of slunmaries of these two ordinances. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 26, 2007 MINUTES L CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call t Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellcns, anal Woodniff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS Administrator Dawson stated Council had requested information regarding the employee economic salary adjustments being considered for the 2008 budget. I [e stated in the information provided there was a significant amount of background information about the City's compensation plan. He explained during the budgeting process the adjustments ~~~ere proposed based upon an understanding of inflation, what the neighboring cities were considering. and what the budget would be able to support. He stated he had also provided a couple of Consumer Price Index (CPI) indices from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - a CPI-U (All Urban Consumers) and CPI-W (Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers). He explained the City had more typically used the CPI-U because of the City's Joint Powers Agreements were tied to that and a l~gure existed for the Minneapolis/Saint Paul in the CPI-U. He also explained the 2008 proposed budget reflected an economic adjustment of 2 percent on January 1 and again on July I (which amounted to an overall increase in outlay ~f 3.04 percent). The budget also reflected $20,000 for a performance adjustment pool. In recent discussions some Councilmembers wanted to decide what indicators} should be used as a guide for the economic adjustment. Councilmember Callies stated the discussion was prompted by Councilmember Woodruff's suggestion that the economic adjustment. should be the same as the Social Security adjustment, which was 2.3 percent. Councilmember Woodruff stated the CPI-U for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area for the first half of 2007 reflected a 2.83 percent increase over the first half of 2006. He stated the Social Security adjustment was derived from the CPI-W; it removed the effect of fuel and food in the inflation factor. Councilmember Callies questioned if it was assumed that people on Social Security used less fuel. Woodruff stated it may also be to take out the highly volatile effects of the energy situation. Woodruff explained that part of his reason for suggesting the 2.3 percent (the Social Security adjustment) was there were probably some residents in the City whose only income was Social Security. He stated he could support an economic adjustment equal to the CPI-U index; he thought a 3 percent economic adjustment would be too high. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 26, 2007 Page 2 of 8 Callies questioned why 3 percent was too high; she suggested the economic adjustment remain at the 3 percent budgeted based on the CPI-U and the proposed economic adjustments of the neighboring cities. Councilmember Woodruff suggested that Council pick one metric to use for the economic adjustment. Councilmember Wellens stated it was more relevant to use the Minneapolis/St. Paul index. Councilmember Callies questioned if it was more appropriate to wait for the CPI-U index for the entire calendar year to be determined. Administrator Dawson stated that figure would not be available until March or April of 2008. Mayor Lizee stated it was important the City's pay scale be coli7pe-titive with neighboring cities. Councilmember Turgeon stated it was also important to factor in the population size of the cities when comparing cities' compensation. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if it was more beneficial to give the econonuc adjustment annually or bi-annually, although she was not advocating one .over the other. Administrator Dativson stated employees looked forward to a second adjustment. ~i~ur~eon stated employees could get. their entire increase up front. Director Burton stated over the course of a year the City's would be financially indifferent. Dawson stated the outlay would be the same. Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted insurance benefits to remain consistent with economic adjustments. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the economic adj ust~ncnt be made once at the beginning of the year after performance appraisals were done and retroactive. to the lust of the year if need be. He stated the financial outlay for the City wouldbe basically the same in one year if the economic adjustment were administered annually or semi-annually. But, the employee's base salary would be 4,04 percent higher at the end of 2008 then it was at the end of 2007 if the adjustment were administered semi-annually; and he was not in support of that. Councilmember Callies stated the purpose of the adjustment was in effect a "cost of living" adjustment; therefore.. wiry did performance appraisals have to be done before it was administered. Councilmember Woodr~iff stated it was easier to administer economic adjustments and performance-pay adjustments at the same time. Administrator Dawson stated the performance appraisals were scheduled to be done by year-end. Mayor Lizee stated she understood Council to agree that the economic adjustment and performance-pay adjustment would be done once on January 1 and the economic adjustment would be 3 percent. Councilmember Wel1cns stated he would prefer to use the CPI-U index. Administrator Dawson stated the issue was whether the Council wanted to use one specific metric or also to use other factors when determining the economic adjustment the way it had in the past. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Dawson explained the survey data on budget planning salary adjustments for neighboring cities was gathered in August of 2007; he would not know what the cities' actual increases would be until the budgets were finalized, Councilmember Wellens stated he preferred the Minneapolis/St. Paul CPI-U be used as the guide for the economic adjustment which would be administered the first of the year. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was advocating the CPI-U index of 2.83 percent. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 26, 2007 Page 3 of 8 Councilmember Callies stated she thought the economic adjustment should be 3 percent like the neighboring cities. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would agree to an annual 3 percent economic adjustment; but, he wanted Administrator Dawson to find out what the other cities decided to do (although that didn't have to be done before the adjustment was administered). Director Burton stated Council always adopted a resolution that documented the salary chart and the City's insurance contribution. With regard to the performance-pay adjustment, Councilmember Woodruff statedhe did not think it was appropriate to give an employee whose salary was under market wage a per[ormance-pay increase if their performance rating was below acceptable perfornance. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would like the performance-pay adjustment table and the performance table in the sample performance assessment form to be made consistent. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like the pcrt~~rmance-pay increase chart to be modified such that any employee with a performance rating less than 3 would npt receive a performance-pay adjustment. Councilmember Callies questioned if there could be circumstances where an employee needed improvement, yet it was appropri-ate to give them a performance-pay adjustment. Woodruff stated, for example, giving someone with a 2.75 ranking (out of 9) a 4 percent pay range adjustment if they were below market wage was not appropriate and it sent the wrong~rrlessage to the employee. Anyone with a performance rating less than 3 should be zero. Administrator Dawson stated the reason for an adjustment was the expectation was to reach market wage within five years. He stated there were no employees with a rating less than 3. 3. HEALTH INSUKANCE DISCUSSION Administrator Dawson stated the 2008 proposed budget reflected a City contribution of $730 per employee per month for insurance benefits; the largest portion of that was for health insurance. He then stated Council had requested it review some of the insurance options that had been presented to the City to see if the insurance contribution could be kept close to the amount contributed for the last three years (which was $680). The City had received quotes fi-om HealthPartners (which the City had used for coverage in 2006 and 2007). lle~ explained the City exited the LOGIS group (a consortium of cities) in June 2002 when it was determined it could get better rates as a small group; it went with Medica (2003- 2005) for small group coverage. He stated the City's experience modification rate changed for 2008 because of very heavy usage in 2007; the rate had been 0.75 in 2006 and 2007 (which was the best it could be) and it changed to 0.86 for 2008. Dawson then explained for 2007 the City offered a $15 co-pay, 100% coverage plan and a health savings account (HSA) plan with a $1,500 deductible and 100% coverage, both through HealthPartners. HealthPartners only allowed the City to choose two plans. The Benefit Committee met and recommended that one of the plans for 2008 should be ahigh-deductible HSA plan. The Committee spent a great deal of time considering what other plan would be a suitable replacement for the HealthPartners 15-100 plan currently in place. Although the out-of-pocket cost for employees would be more for the 15-100 plan, the employees indicated they preferred to keep the existing plan. Director Burton highlighted a memorandum on 2008 Employee Health Insurance dated November 26, 2007, which she and Administrator Dawson had prepared and distributed to Council for discussion purposes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 26, 2007 Page 4 of 8 In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Burton stated the City did not go out for bid for 2008 insurance coverage because Staff thought it beneficial to stay with one provider for three years; if an organization went out for bid annually the organization developed a reputation and insurance coverage was priced accordingly. The City did go out for bids for 2006. She stated that the City's insurance broker stated because of the City's heavy usage in 2007, the rate for 2008 was as good as it would be from HealthPartners. Director Burton explained the monthly City contribution amount was based nn an average family medical premium (for health insurance, dental insurance, short-term disability, long-term disability, and life insurance) multiplied by 67%. The average family amount could vary based on family composition, size, participant age, and medical plan. This method of calculation was adopted by the Council sometime in the mid-1990's, This percentage formula ensured both the City and the employees shared in the rising costs of health-care coverage. She stated life insurance was one-times the employee's salary and it was a very small portion of the cost of the coverage. She commented that the City fully paid for single-coverage employees. Burton then explained the renewal rates received for- 2008 had increased approximately 17°io for the HP 15-100 plan, and 8% for the HSA 1500-100 plan. If the 2008 plans were renewed exactly as they were in 2007, the calculated maximum monthly City contribution would be 5756 per month, per employee. The 2008 budgeted amount for employee insurance was $730 per month; per employee. She explained that part of the reason for the increase in rates for 2008 was the premiums paid to the insurer ($145,387) compared to the expenditures paid on the City's behalf ($233,974), or a ratio°~of expenses to premium of 160.93%. In other words, HealthPartners paid out more money than it took in. Burton went on to explain amongst the plans revie~~~cd, the Benefit Committee considered a) increasing the deductible to $20 with ] 00°/, coverage; and b) increasing the deductible to $25 with 80/20% co- insurance hospital in-patient coverage. capped at 52,000 per person. The estimated City's monthly contributions for those plans would be a) $751 and b) $727.,After consideration, the employees indicated they preferred to keep the c~tisting plan (HP 15-100), even if it meant they would have to pay more out of pocket. There had been interest in changing the 11SA plan from a $1,500 deductible to a $2,200 deductible NSA. plan. Burton stated if all employees were to participate in the HSA 2200-100 plan (the high deductible plan), the estimated City contribution would be $546 per month. Even though this plan would save money for the City, it would be a hardship for sever-al employees with families and children who do a lot of doctor visits. Burton noted that the South I,akc Minnetonka Police Department paid 100% of single employee medical coverage and also paid them a monthly supplement of $65 per month. It paid $760 per month for family coverage plus the $65 supplement. Councilmember Woodruff stated he understood and could support the increase in the City's contribution to $756 per month for 2008. He stated based on his insurance costs for his wife and him the amount seemed reasonable. He requested the City go out for bids for 2009 and the process be started earlier in the year. Director Burton explained that coverage rates were not available until November 1. Director Burton stated the City must let HealthPartners know by December 15, 2007, which two plans it would like for 2008. There was consensus to raise the City's monthly insurance contribution per employee to $756. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 26, 2007 Page 5 of 8 Mayor Lizee recessed the work session to a City Council regular meeting at 6:55 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the work session at 9:18 P.M. 4. ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION Engineer Landini stated after the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road Road Reconstruction Project was ternlinated, Staff thought it was an appropriate time to discuss standards and procedures for future street reconstruction projects. He then stated he had researched the ?006 Fire Codes, City Ordinance No. 401, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the City's cun~ent street standards with regard to road widths. Staff had provided Council with document listing some of the codes that were currently in place as well as some ideas on how to streamline the process for fixture road reconstruction projects. Mayor Lizee stated the document was well done. She stated Staff and Council had learned it would be very beneficial to have more public involvement in the design phase of a road reconstn~ction project. Councilmember Wellens suggested Staff prepare . a glossary of terms and definitions used when describing road widths and road standards; that would help Council to have a better and common understanding of a project. He stated he understood the document to say if City watermain was being installed as part of a project then the road width would have to be much wider. He also stated the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle road widths would riot meet current State Fire Codes. Engineer Landini explained that the only requirement far watermain was the watermain pipe had to be ten feet away from other pipes (such as sewer pipe). Wellens clarified the City's Ordinance 401 stated when a fire hydrant was located on a fire apparatus access road, the mini mum road with shall be 26 feet. Director Brown explained the road did not have to be ~~~ider because of City watermain; there could be bump-out for a fire hydrant and the entire road would not have to be that width. Brown stated he agreed that the Wedgewood Drive. Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle road widths would not meet the current State Fire Codes. Brown tl~~n stated Stai~f alsa had to interpret the various teens in the different codes. Councilmember Wellens suggested the City should ask for the required easements during the survey phase of a project. Councilmember Callies stated the Staff suggestions in the document relating to process were very good. She thought people expected a list of th.c ``"Top 30 Frequently Asked Questions". She understood Staff to be asking Council for its perspective on how involved the public should be. She did not think it was appropriate for the public to tell the City what it wanted with regard to the entire design of the road; there were certain things where public. input could be taken and other things that were dictated by standards and Council and Staff. Councilmember Turgeon suggested different road design templates be developed for different types of roads (e.g. a dead-end road, a collector street, the purpose of the road, etc.). She questioned if the new State Fire Codes were applicable to new developments and not necessarily for existing roads in neighborhoods that were completely developed. Director Brown stated the City did have a set of plans which identified what the standards were for local roads. He commented it was prudent for Staff and Council to be in agreement on the standards before taking public input on the road design; the public should not be able to have a say in what standards should be adhered to. He stated that people should be able to expect the City would construct to its own standards. He commented that Staff had met with the EFD Fire Chief and the Chief stated the City may choose not to adopt some of the State Fire Codes, but it was irrelevant because the State had adopted the Codes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 26, 2007 Page 6 of 8 Councilmember Turgeon stated she could not imagine a community such as Greenwood which had very narrow roads having to reconstruct a road in compliance with State Fire Codes. Director Brown commented that was why roads like that were not reconstructed; they were repaired. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if the State and City road standards would be complied with for a street such as Star Circle in an older neighborhood. Director Brown stated from a technical perspective the road would be designed to have a 24-foot-wide driving surface to comply with the standards. He then stated Council could decide not to adhere to that standard, Turgeon stated Star Circle was adead-end street and there were approximately 12 houses on that street; she questioned haw a 24-foot-wide driving surface plus curb and gutter could be justified for that type of street. Brown stated a 24-foot-wide driving surface was, from an engineering perspective, frequently considered the "bare" minimum. Turgeon stated there was a development in Lake Elmo with roads that were 18-feet .vide, 20-feet wide or 25-feet wide. Brown questioned if the roads were public or private. Turgeon did not laiow. She then stated she thought there were other designs the City should consider. Director Nielsen stated a road should not be less than 20-feet wide in order to comply with the State Fire Code. Councilmember Callies stated she thought there may be different standards for private roads than public roads. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would also like to have Staff prepare a glossary of terms. He then stated he had not been aware that fire apparatus access roads 20 -- 2C feet. wide had to be posted on both sides as a fire lane per City Ordinance 401; he stated the City was delinquent in adhering to that. He stated roads in a new development should adhere to State and City regulations. He commented that the City had almost all of the roads it was going to have and many of them were substandard from a width perspective. He stated there would be public uproar if the City was going to~reconstruct an existing 18- foot wide road to 32-feet wide. He suggested standards be developed for road reconstruction of differing width roads. Councilmember Wellens stated maybe the City should not have a template; maybe each road construction project should be considered uniquely. Councilmember Callies stated in the past Staff prepared a design report on a road reconstruction project and then Council discussed the standards used in the design. Director Brown stated for the Shady Tsland Bridge reconstruction project, the engineer's reconunended a design for the bridge in compliance ~VithState and City codes. Council aclrnowledged that design, but decided not to comply with the codes. Mayor Lizee stated Staff and Council could agree to disagree. Each project could be considered based on the characteristics of the project. Councilmember Callies stated there should be a requirement that a road should not be reconstructed unless City watermain was installed (unless watermain already existed). Also, there should be a requirement that a project would not be done if the City could not obtain the necessary easements. Administrator Dawson stated the City had a policy to do a watennain installation feasibility study with any road reconstruction project. Councilmember Turgeon stated she agreed there were some things that were nonnegotiable as part of a road reconstruction project. Director Brown stated Staff and Council should agree before hand what items were nonnegotiable. He then stated some level of preliminary design had to be done before a project could be effectively evaluated. With regard to easements, the City's roadway fund could not fund compensation for easements; not compensating for easements was a non-traditional approach. Councilmember Callies stated it was prudent for the City to be prepared to compensate for easements if CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 26, 2007 Page 7 of 8 absolutely necessary. Mayor Lizee stated the City had to able to convey to residents what easements were necessary, what the City's and residents' rights were, and how the easements would be obtained. Director Brown stated Staff would further develop the road reconstruction process. 5. CITY ENGINEER POSITION Administrator Dawson explained that in July 2007 Staff recommended that James Landini be appointed to the position of City Engineer; Mr. Landini had completed asix-month probationary period at that time. Council decided to extend the probationary period another six months at that rime. Since that time, Mr, Landini continued to perform at or above expectations. Staff had pre}iarcd a report which had been distributed to Council listing many of Mr. Landini's accomplishments during his tenure with the City (both part of and outside the scope of his job description). Dawson stand his office was located next to Mr. Landini and therefore he had the opportunity to over hear acid observe. many of the things Mr. Landini had done. Mr. Landini had exhibited the skills and characteristics he would expect of any member of the Staff. Dawson noted that the addition of a Staff city engineer had been. cost-effective when compared to the 0.8-time contract city engineer arrangement in 2006 (a savings of X15,000 -- $20,000), while at the same time realizing at least 25 percent more productive time as well. Dawson then stated Staff again recommended the regular appointment of Mr. Landini to the position of City.Lngineer. Director Brown stated there had been a lot of thought put into the report describing Mr, Landini's accomplishments, He explained that during Mr. I ,andini's 6-month pcrfrn-mance review there were a few areas recommended for improvement; but, there were very few of them and they were very minor. Overall, Mr. Landini had well exceeded the expectations of the city engineer job description. Mr. Landini was a good fit with the Staff. Mr. Landini had demonstrated his ability to handle difficult and challenging situations (e.g., and Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Gien Road Road Reconstruction Project). The staff city engineer position was a cost savings for the City when compared to the 2006 city engineer consulting arrangement. Brown stated he could not speak highly enough about Mr. Landini. Councilmember Callics stated she had been disturbed about the process in July 2007 when Council denied the recommendation for the regular appointment of Mr. Landini to the position of City Engineer. She questioned i f it ~~as possible to separate the consideration of Mr. Landini's performance from whether or not the City should have a staff city engineer. Councilmember Turgeon stated what was missing in July 2007 was information about what Mr. Landini had accomplished. The decision to have a lull-time staff city engineer had already been decided, although she had presented that argument at that meeting. It appeared, based on his performance, that Mr. Landini was the correct person for the position, Councilmember Wellens stated the document describing Mr. Landini's accomplishments was very persuasive and he would support the regular appointment of Mr. Landini to the position of City Engineer. Councilmember Woodruff stated had similar information on Mr. Landini's performance been provided in July 2007, he may have taken different action on the recommendation at that time. He then stated he was convinced that Mr. Landini's performance was acceptable. He went on to state the report provided had answered the questions he had in July 2007. He suggested Council and Staff have a discussion in general about the organization of the engineering department at a future date. Mayor Lizee stated she thought Mr. Landini had done an exceptional job. Mr. Landini worked well with Staff. She extended her gratitude to Mr. Landini for all that he had done. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 26, 2007 Page 8 of 8 There was consensus that the regular appointment of Mr. Landini to the position of City Engineer would be approved at the December 10, 2007, Council meeting. 6. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of November 26, at 9:56 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizec, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Counci] Worl< Session Minutes, November 5, ?007 Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of November 5, 2007, as Amended in Item 3, Pagc 3, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1, change "the draft 2008 budget uicluded $170,000 for the second half" to "the draft 2008 budget included $170,000 to fund the remainder". Motion passed 5/0. E3. City Council Regular Mc.c.ting~-Minutes, November 5, 2007 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November ~, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing - No action required C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-073, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Signs to Shorewood Village Center." #ZB SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 2 of 15 D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-074, "A Resolution Accepting Final Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle Road Reconstruction Project; City Project 02-02." Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report on Intercongregation Communities Association (ICA) activities Annette Poeschel, Executive Director, and Shirle}~ Buehler, Project Coordinator, both with Intercongregation Communities Association (ICA) provided an update on ICA activities. Ms. Poeschel stated ICA was the local emergency food shelf and emergency financial assistance agency for the residents of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Shorewood and Woodland. She explained the fund raising goal for the "ICA -Housing and More" was $150,000. She stated ICA had a transportation program for the community's senior residents; there were 55 volunteer drivers to provide the service. There were approximately 300 volunteers that provided assistance to the ICA. She commented that many of the residents that ~~se the services of the ICA do not want family members and other residents to know they had done so. She thanked businesses, and civic organizations for their contributions to the 2007 Thanksgiving program. The 1CA purchased 656 turkeys for the program; it served 1,849 people as part of the program of which 787 were children. The ICA would conduct a December 2007 holiday program. She explained the ICA had a new program called the Lifestyle Education Action Program (LL'AP) for which it had received a grant from the University of Minnesota; the puiposc of the program was to teach families how to prepare a holiday meal with limited funds. ICA's goal was to reduce hunger by 20 percent by 2009. Ms. Buehler invited residents to come and sec the ICA's new facility located at 12990 St. David Road, Mini~ietonlca. She stated operating out of one facility (as opposed to the two it had been operating out of) made operations much more efficient. The facility was created by the various organizations, businesses, and residents in the community. She commented that 87 percent of the ICA volunteers were seniors. She stated three junior high groups packaged all of the Thanksgiving holiday gift bags that were distributed with the turkeys. She explained9 three youth attained Eagle Scout status for their efforts in moving the ICA to its new facility. Onc individual coordinated the move of all of the ICA's food from the old Excelsior fire station to the new facility; that effort required the involvement of 60 scouts. The second individual was responsible for coordinating the move of all non-food supplies from the Williston Road house location. The third individual coordinated moving all of the furnishings from both the old locations and held a fundraiser to raise funds for a dumpster (for the items that would be purged). The move was completed on March 1, 2007. Ms. Buehler stated the ICA collaborated with a number of other organizations such as Hennepin County Emergency Assistance, Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) in Hopkins, Schools and Communities in Partnership (the Hopkins School District collaborative and the Minnetonka Family Collaborative), the Hopkins / Minnetonka Family Resource Center, Second Harvest, and State SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 3 of 15 and County legislators. She stated it was ICA's goal to see that everyone in need got signed up to receive food stamps; residents were often intimated by the volume of information they had to sort through before they could apply for food stamps. Ms. Buehler stated there were two upcoming ICA fundraisers; all the proceeds from the fundraiser to be held on December 3, 2007 would go to the ICA. Mayor Lizee stated the rotary club she belonged to had held its meeting at the new ICA facility last week and she was very impressed by the facility and the activity there. PUBLIC HEARING None. PARKS -Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held iovember 13, 2007 Director Brown reported on matters considered and actions taken at a November 13, 2007, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative Director Nielsen stated there were two items considered at a November 20, .2007, Planning Commission meeting and he would discuss them in great detail next on the agenda. A. L-R Zoning District Text Amendment and C.U.P Amendment Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club Location: 600 West Lake Street Administrator Dawson stated the public hearing w~ls held during the October 2, 2007, Planning Commission meeting to take public commenton a proposed Lakeshore -Recreational zoning district text amendment and the Shorewood Yacht Club's (SYC) request for an amendment to its Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.). He then stated the City had received a great deal of communication on these items; all of the communication received as of 5:15 P.M. this evening had been distributed to Council. The cornniunication was both in support of and against the SYC's request. Director Nielsen stated there were two zoning items for consideration before Council that evening. The first item was a text amendment to the City's Lakeshore Recreational (L-R) zoning district which would allow the City to consider allowing powerboats at multiple-dock facilities on Gideon Bay. The second item was an amendment to the SYC's current C.U.P. which would allow the SYC to rent no more than 35 of its slips for powerboat use. The 35 dock slips for powerboats would be in addition to the ones that were currently allowed (the SYC was allowed three powerboats which were used by management, one powerboat for the residents of 5585 Timber Lane, and the Excelsior Fire District's rescue boat). He noted the SYC had requested they be allowed to rent 50 percent of its 118 dock slips (this included the one slip for the EFD) for powerboat use. He explained the Planning Commission had considered a great deal of information that had been provided. The Commission discussed the items at its October 2, October 16, and November 20, 2007, meetings. After careful deliberations, the Commission decided to recommend an ordinance amending Section 1201.24 Subd. 10.d (L-R Licenses) of the City Code; it also recommended approval of a resolution granting the SYC's an Interim C.U.P. which would allow the SYC an additional 35 powerboats to be water harbored at the SYC and they would all be harbored at pier 4. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 4 of 15 The interim C.U.P. would be in effect for three years to assess the impact of the powerboats; at the end of that three-year period a public hearing would be held with public notice to determine whether or not the use should be continued on a permanent basis. Nielsen stated the property currently consisted of three separate parcels of land and they were to have been combined as part of the last C.U.P.; the parcels must be legally combined as a condition of the resolution. In addition to attempting to rent slips to City residents first in accordance with a provision in the City Code (a condition of the resolution), the applicant proposed a discount for the residents. With regard to the number of additional powerboats allowed, Nielsen stated the Planning Comnssion thought the 35 slips on pier 4 at the SYC (which was the pier furthest away from the residents) would be relatively easy to monitor. The Commission also though the applicant should specify where the five powerboats currently allowed would be docked; the applicant had provided such a plan. The configuration of pier 4 limited the size of the boat that could be docked to 30 feet maximum. With regard to quiet waters designation, Nielsen stated the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) had advised that a quiet waters designation existed 150 acct out from all shorelines and from st1-uctures such as docks on Lake Minnetonka. Staff had s~iggestcd it was possible for the City to request an expansion of the quiet waters designation from the LMCD. ~ relatively easily defined and logical area was described by drawing a line from the shoreline north of the Timber Lane cul-de-sac to Duck Island to Frog Island to the peninsula at Lafayette Avenue. The Planning Commission thought most of the area was already designated as quiet waters; if the LMCD were to classify the entire area as quiet waters that would prohibit property owners from activities such as skiing. Therefore the resolution did not contain any condition regarding quiet waters. Nielsen stated Staff had suggested a trial solution of a three-year interim C.U.P. which would be monitored on an annual. basis and the results reported back to the Planning Commission. The Commission had questioned what types of things would be monitored during that trial period. He explained verifiable complaints and the nature of the complaints would be monitored; any complaint filed through the_South l,al:c Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) would be considered a verifiable complaint. IC, for example; the City received a complaint during normal business hours that there were power boats docked at slips other than those designated, Staff could go down and research the complaint. Nielsen noted that Council had been provided a formal ordinance approving the text amendment that evening; the Council packet contaitled the actual text amendment. Nielsen explained the proposed resolution incorporated the original resolution adopted in 2000 which set forth all the requireii~cnts for the. SYC's original C.U.P. as modified by the proposed change. Mike Maloney, 231 Third Street and co-owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club and Gabriel Jabbour 985 Tonkawa Road and co-owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club stated they were present to answer any questions Council may have. Mayor Lizee stated a public hearing had already been held to take public continent; but, if there was any one in the audience who had not provided comment at the public hearing, or had not called or emailed or written the City with their comments then Council would be willing to take their 1 - 2 minute long comments. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 5 of 15 Steve Haskins, 5455 Timber Lane, stated most of the pertinent information had already been published in local newspapers. He became a resident of the City 27 years ago. Shortly after that he had attended various discussions regarding access to the Lake. At that time he was concerned about the physical number of boats on the Lake; he continued to have that concern. He stated if a person was out on the Lake on the weekend it was not enjoyable due to the volume of boats. To add another 35 powerboats to Gideon Bay (and therefore the rest of the Lake) would only add to the problem. He asked Council to consider denying the request for the benefit of the Gideon Bay residents and the users of the entire Lake. Mike Kramer, 5425 Timber Lane, stated he had been a resident of the City for 52 years with the last 27 of them being at his current address. He stated the residents on Timber Lane were comprised of either two-wage-earner families or retired individuals. He recited a passage from a nineteenth century novel, .lane Eyre. He then reviewed what had changed from his vantage point in the last 32 years after John Cross had first established the Yacht Club (now known as the Shorew-ood Yacht Club). With the sailboat marina operating at the SYC the number of canoeists, rowers, and kayakers had increased significantly in the small sub-bay of Gideon Bay where they are generally free from the wakes of powerboats. He stated in the past the City Council had been excellent stewards of the small amount of Lakeshore resource on the Lower Lake. He explained that Mr. Cross's request For additional sailboat dockage had been recommended, but before the additional dockage was installed Mr. Cross began to market slips for powerboat use which was contrary to what he had told the neighbors of his property; therefore, Council had denied his request. He cautioned Council to be sensitive to responding to what, from his vantage point, was essentially an economic argument; financial hardship was seldom allowed in the variance process in the City. He stated Mr. Jabbour had not kept it a secret that he ~wara`ted the SYC to make more money by renting dock slips for powerboat use. 1-ic then stated from his ~~antage point the Council would put itself at serious risk for the appearance of subsidizing a commercial enterprise at the prospect of the reduction of the livability of the neighborhood and the congestion. of a very small part of Gideon Bay. He asked Council to please continue its good stewardship of the most livable city in the western suburbs by denying the SYC's request. Mayor Lizee stated the Council was considering an application on the SYC's property. Gene Marien, 5815 Echo Road, stated he was a SYC sailboat member and as most of the City's residents he did not live on the Lake. He was able to enjoy the Lake because he had the availability of the SYC. He thought there were a lot of residents of the City who did not live on the Lake that would like a place available Like the SYC. He stated he thought the SYC was a beautiful facility for the City. He commented the SYC members wondered every 2 -3 years whether or not the SYC would remain in business. He then stated he would like the SYC to remain in business and he understood the problems the SYC was experiencing trying to increase the number of sailboats at the SYC. He would like the SYC to remain sailboats only but that was not. realistic. He would support granting a request for a small number of powerboats of limited size. Perr~yan 31395 Casco Circle, Navarre, stated he also owned the property located at 422 Lafayette Avenue and he had previously lived at 430 Lafayette Avenue for 8 years. He stated the applicant's request letter stated "we are seeking this change as the demand for sailboat slips has diminished to the point where we have currently leased 52 of our t 17 slips". He then stated he had not been privy to how many slips had been leased at the time the current owners purchased the SYC. He went on to state the request letter stated "the purpose of the L-R zoning district was to give Shorewood residents access to the Lake", He noted the letter did not refer to the statement in the City Code which said "it behooved the city to subject the possible areas available for access to the lake to close scrutiny and limitation so as to insure that use of the land does not unduly infringe upon property rights and public health, safety and SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 6 of 15 welfare of others residing on nearby residential sites". He distributed a graphic depicting the residential locations in the Gideon Bay area of the people who signed a petition to deny the request. He stated granting the request would result in an infringement upon property owners' rights; it would pose additional threats to health, safety, and welfare; and it would result in additional environmental impact, erosion, and damage to the shoreline. He distributed a graphic from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Patrol which he thought depicted that once a boat was past the first set of buoys (especially near Lafayette Avenue) it could speed up. He commented that according to the Sheriff's Patrol, the area past the first set of buoys should not be posted as quiet waters. He stated the request letter stated "Failing this change, we will need to seek other ways to make this property meet its financial obligations"; that type of threat had been presented before. He stated at a Planning Commission meeting Director Nielsen had stated that the SYC property could support 12 condominiums. That number would result in an additional 10 - 12 boats on the Lake at the same time. He then stated Planning Commission Chair Schmitt was quoted to say "if it doesn't work as a sailboat-only marina and it has to close up its doors, who knew what the property could be developed as". He suggested the number of powerboats allowed should not be any more than what would be allowed if the property were developed into a residential area. He again asked what had changed since 2003 to have the Council consider allowing 40 power boats at the SYC «-hen only 10 - 12 condominiums could possibly be developed there. He stated Director Nielsen's report dated September 26, 2007, stated (with regard to the City Code) "these criteria should guide City officials in determining the acceptability of the proposed changes". Stanley Shapiro 14614 Karyl Drive, Minnetonka, stated he had a sailboat on the Lake for over 30 years. He had a vested interest having the SYC stay in business because there were not many marinas on the Lake for sailboats. He then stated since 2003 the volume of boat traffic had increased substantially around Gideon Bay and Frog Island; the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company was very active and it made a great deal of noise doing business; and there had been an increase in non-residents and lakeshore property owners in the area waterskiing and pulling people on various flotation devices. He suggested if the powerboats in the area were going to be a problcn~ maybe the boating recreational activities (except for anchoring a boat~or lisping) could be limited to ciltering and exiting Gideon Bay, He stated he had observed residents water ski. from their docks and he thought that created problems. He had also observed a resident wakeboarding and hc; thought that created more havoc than other boating activities. He stated the number of boaters on Gideon Ba}~ had increased since 2003 because there were more boats on the Lake already. Mr. 'Jabbo.uc stated that although he was reluctant to speak this evening he thought it prudent that he provide some comment. He commented that since the American Indians lived on the lakeshore a lot had changed. He stated the SYC was in the mode of rejuvenate or liquidate (a mode of every business). He noted Mr. Cross had requested that the SYC be allowed to rent all of its slips for powerboat use, He then stated he and Mr. Maloney understood they had a right to request a change and they asked to be allowed to use 50 percent of the dock slips for water-harboring of powerboats; they did not challenge the Planning Commission for fewer than that. He explained a 2004 LMCD and DNR joint study indicated there had been a 25 percent reduction at the peak time in the number of powerboats on the Lake; also, at any given time the number of powerboats harbored at a marina that left a marina harbor was 21 percent and at a maximum peak it was 29 percent. Therefore, if there were 35 additional powerboats harbored at the SYC the maximum that would leave the SYC at any given time would be 9 - 10. He stated he had demonstrated his ability to convince boaters who harbored their boats at his other marinas to be good custodians of the Lake. He commented he believed in allowing everyone public access to the Lake. Mr. Jabbour then stated in 1992 the Lake Access Task Force identified the SYC property as having the potential to become a Lake access site. In 1994 the DNR, the LMCD, the Cities of Shorewood and Tonka SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 200'7 Page 7 of 15 Bay, and the Metropolitan Council approved it. He clarified that he was not threatening anything. He stated he wanted the SYC to remain in business to be able to a render a service to the Lake communities. He noted that the SYC was the only yacht club on the Lake that catered to non-racing sailors. He stated the SYC had commissioned a survey by members of the marketing fraternity at the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management which documented the decline of the sailing market as well as the desire for residents to have access to rental dock slips. He explained that 2100 surveys had been sent out and approximately 20 percent had been returned. Based on a rating of 7 being high and 1 being very unlikely, the respondents average was close to 5 with regard to the likelihood of their docking a boat at a marina that gave priority to the residents of the City and the average was close to 6 for docking at a marina that offered a discount to residents. Dave Ronal, 55 Crabapple Lane, Tonka Bay, stated in 1985 he would observe approximately 25 boats on Gideon Bay on a very busy day; this past summer the average ~~~as 34. Gideon Bay was known as a great bay to be in for waterskiing and floating around on. The Bay had become so busy it was harder to enjoy. He questioned what the environmental and lake use impact of the increased number of~ powerboats would be. He suggested someone determine what the Lake can bear. He stated he appreciated the SYC may have to increase its boat harboring density to be eeor~omically viab]c; but to ask for a zoning change now was presumptuous. Mayor Lizee stated there were a number of entities that dealt with public waters (e.g., the State, the DNR, the LMCD, etc.); and although the City had some jurisdiction with rc~~ard to shoreline, it looked to those other entities for legislation and help regarduig boat density and other legal issues. Dan Frederick, 422 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsioi; stated 1~c had been renting the house on that property for the last two years and he anal his wife were building a house a few properties down (the property was located on the south shore o[' Gideon Bay). He explained the rental property was located at the choke point between Frog Island and l~xcclsior where the buoys were located. He stated on any given day he could call the SLMP~ to report boats that did not honor the minimum wake restriction; it did not seem realistic that people would call the SLMPD that many times to ensure they had a verifiable complaint. He commented that. he moved li-om Wayzata Bay so he could live in a quieter area on the Lake. He stated from his vantage point po~~~cr boaters used the bake differently from sailors, in particular during the evening. Ne c~pressed concern that if the SYC was allowed to rent 35 dock slips for powerboat use that it would eventually request more. 1-Ic stated the Planning Commission had stated there was a difference between a marina and a yacht club. He then stated from his perspective the only reasarl that the application would be approved would be for Mr. Jabbour to make more money. James Hancock, 2350 Lawtonl:_a Drive, stated he kayaked on Gideon Bay and he harbored a sailboat at SYC. He commented he was the President of the Gideon Cove Homeowners Association which consisted of 12 twin-homes. He stated those homeowners had no place to harbor their powerboats on the Lake. He commended the Planning Commission for recommending a plan for the public to be able to use the Lake as they should be able to. He stated the viability of the SYC was an asset to the neighborhood and the City. Todd Frostad owner of the Southlake Office Building located at 23505 Smithtown Road, stated if the SYC was not able to be economically viable then someone like himself would acquire the property and develop it for other uses. The quaintness of the SYC area today would change. Peter Watson, 5495 Timber Lane, stated he had lived at that location for 35 years. He stated he would like to have the recreational quality of Gideon Bay and the rest of the Lake preserved. He stated he would SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 8 of 15 like to understand what the impact on the City's carbon footprint would be if the request were approved. He commented that other cities around the Country were beginning to work very hard to try and reduce their carbon footprint. He asked that Council vote no as its way to do a little bit in the right direction on that. Tom Nicol 3895 Glacier Count Minnetrista, stated he was a business owner in the City. He then stated he had been working with Mr. Jabbour as a captain out Mr. Jabbour's marina, as well as using his services over the years. He also stated the comment that Mr. Jabbour made his request only to make more money was ridiculous and a disservice to a man that had done a great deal for the Lake. He went on to state as a business owner he would be the first in line to request the opportunity iv rent a dock slip for his powerboat. He commented that many residents wanted access to the Lake. ITe stated the character attack on Mr. Jabbour was unacceptable. Deb Termer 438 Lafayette Avenue, stated she had lived on her property for 22 years. She then stated there was a difference between how lakeshore property owners used and respected the lake and non- lakeshore residents. She was concerned about what could be the lack of accountability of the non- lakeshore power boaters to the City and the residents. John Mielke 16311 Limerick Lane Minnetonka, stated he ~~~as a SYC member and a SYC Boardmember. He stated the SYC had a social membership and any person who harbored a boat at the SYC was a member. He stated the SYC members were held accountable and the powerboat members would be held to the same standards. - Duane Bagdons, 5585 Timber Lane, stated his property was located next to the SYC property. He commented he had a powerboat and he loved to fish. IIc stated he had empathy for the Council for having to make the decision as Council had heard good arguments in support of and against the request. He then stated he would like the SYC to remain economically viable under the current use or the requested use. He asked Council to O~prove the request. Mayor Lizee stated the Council did not make decisions based on the number of people that were in support or against an application. The application was considered by Council based on its merits, after a public hearing had been and aFtcr the Planning Commission had evaluated it. Cou~cilmember Callies questioned how athree-year timeframe for the interim C.U,P. was arrived at. Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission thought aone-year timeframe would not be adequate to fairly assess the success or failure of the situation. The Planning Commission agreed with the suggestion in the Staff report that the interim C.U.P. be in effect for three years; Staff would provide the Commission with a status report annually. Councilmember Callies stated the applicant had a right to make a request about the use of its property. Tonight Council was considering the applicant's request to rent out a percentage of its existing dock slips for powerboat use. She stated she did not agree with the statements made earlier that lakeshore owners were more concerned and well behaved individuals than non-lakeshore owners. She explained one of the reasons for considering an interim C.U.P. rather than a permanent C.U.P. was to allow the City an opportunity to assess the impact of water-harboring an additional 35 powerboats at the SYC. She stated if a resident had problems with a neighbor having loud overnight parties repeatedly then they should file a complaint with the SLMPD or the City, She commented that economic factors were a fact of life for anyone, but the economic viability of the SYC was not germane to the issue. Council needed to consider SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 9 of 15 whether or not the applicant's request was permitted based on the City Code as well as considering what the effect granting the request would have on the Lake and the SYC's neighbors. Collies went on to state based on the information that had been provided and discussed, she thought it would be appropriate to grant an interim C.U.P. Public access to the Lake was important, She again stated the request did not include the addition of dock slips. She connnented things do change over time. She stated the applicant requested it be allowed to rent a percentage of its dock slips for powerboat use. She commented that many people used the Lake and many people used the Lake inappropriately. She had not heard any comments that there had been particular problems with boaters who water-harbored their boats at the SYC. There had been comments about powerboat operators, water sl.crs, wake boarders and power boaters partying on their boats into the evening but there was no evidence linking that to the SYC. She explained that when she drove around the area near the SYC and nearby properties on Gideon Bay and in the City, it appeared that all of those lakeshore residents had poi-verboats. She stated it was difficult for her to make a distinction such that powerboats should not be allowed at the SYC yet they should be and are allowed at many more places on the Lake. She then stated it was prudent for the City to exercise caution; that was the reason for the interim C.U.P. which would allow the City the opportunity to monitor the effects (both positive and negative) of the additional powerboats. She stated she was in support of granting the interim C.U,P. Councilmember Wellens stated he was also in support of granting the interim C.U.P. The new SYC owners realized it was not appropriate to request the SYC be allowed to use 100 percent of its dock slips for water harboring of powerboats; the previous owners had requested it be allowed to use 100 percent of its slips for powerboat use and that request had been denied. The interim C.l J,P. would be re-evaluated in three years. At that time it could be possible to consider petitioning the LMCD to make all of Gideon Bay a quiet waters area. The purpose of the L-R zoning district was to address the lakeshore recreational needs of the City. The Lake had been described as a park and it did not make sense to have a park if people couldn't access the park Granting the applicant's request would increase public access to the Lake which was in concert with the I,-R zoning district. "Fhe, City's residents would have a priority to rent the dock slips and they would receive a residential discount. He went on to state there were a lot of people who were hostile to~~~ard and sr~spicious of businesses and business owners. He stated businesses and businesses owners were of great benefit to the community; he expressed his gratitude toward them. With regard to what had changed, he cited the example that Excelsior had many regulations on store fronts: some of its storeli-onts were boarded up because Excelsior was not willing to change its regulations to conform to hoti~~ the economy was changing. From his vantage point, he thought government needed to change to realize the changes in the marketplace and to support and accormnodate businesses to some. degree. He stated the DNR and the LMCD identified the area as one lacking in Lake access based on a sur~~ey of boaters; the LMCD and the DNR had encouraged the Lake area cities to contribute to the goal of a more equitable distribution of access to the Lake. Councilmember Wellens. questioned if the applicants would be willing not to water-harbor any boat that had an exhaust system above the water. Mr. Jabbour explained that Lake Minnetonka was the only lake in the United States that adecibel-sound rule that was 2 decibels below the national average (an 82- decibel sound rule); boats with motors having a decibel level higher than that were against the law. Also, it was not legal to have an exhaust system that could be switched to be above or below the water. He stated the SYC intended to abide by those rules and it would ensure that all boats water-harbored at the SYC were within compliance with State Statute. He stated the SYC's contracts with it members were extremely extensive. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 10 of 15 Councilmember Turgeon stated she was not in support of the interim C.U.P.; she did not think it was an appropriate use. She commented that in 2003 the previous owners had requested it be allowed to use 100 percent of it docks slips for powerboat use. The Planning Commission recommended that request be denied because it was inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan in two areas -the natural resources section (which related to the natural and aesthetic quality of the lakeshore environment and the reduction of lake pollution); and to the protect the lakeshore from over intensification and use and development, along with protection of the residential neighborhoods from adverse environmental impacts (including noise, air, and visual pollution). She stated from her vantage point she did not think anything had changed since 2003; she had the same concerns that she had in 2003. In 2003 the Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was not in support of the intci~im C.U.P. He commented that this request was a contentious issue. He stated fiom his vantage point it was strictly a financial discussion. The SYC appeared not to be viable without changing the use ofits property. The City had a long history of stating economics were not a reason for considering a variance or change. He stated earlier in the year the Council had a contentious discussion about the Upper .Minnetonka Yacht Club's use of some of its dock slips for powerboat use (which was located on Enchanted Island).. The Council ultimately adopted a resolution to clarify the resolution which granted the UMZ'C a C.U.P. to dock or moor boats; the original resolution inadvertently omitted the word "sail" in front of "boats". Ile considered the SYC's request to be similar to, if not exactly the same as, the UMYC's. The UMYC was claiming financial hardship and it needed to be allowed to use some of its dock slips for powerboat use to be financially viable; Council denied that. He went on to state the interim C.U.P, referenced the SLMPD. H~explained the SLMPD had no jurisdiction over the Lake, and was incred~~lous thatanyone thinks that the City will tool for this 3- year interim C.U.P. He then stated the LMCD and the L~cnncpin County Sheriff's Department were not effective in enforcing their responsibilities too. He related that he lived on the Lake and was a sailor and power boater. He observed that the decibel rule is violated routinely every weekend, as was the speed limit, and the no-wake gone, as is the. unsafe boating practices. He did not think that Shorewood was going to be able to monitor and track.. and after three years with some good judgment, evaluate the results. He again stated he was not in support of the request. Mayor Lizec stated she was in support of the interim C.U.P. She stated Council was considering an application foe a C.U.P.; itwas not considering a variance. She stated one of the things the interim C.U.P. was intended to do was address behavior. She stated public access to the Lake was very important; the Lake was an asset that everyone should share. The interim C.U.P. would open Lake access for more residents to use and have safe harbor for their boats. The Lakeshore Residential District permitted the use being requested. In 2003 the previous owners requested the SYC be allowed to use 100 percent of its dock slips for powerboat use. The current owners' application requested the SYC be allowed to use 50 percent of its dock slips 1 or powerboat use. There was a significant difference between the SYC's request and the UIVIYC's request: the UMYC was located in a R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and the SYC was located in a Lakeshore Recreational District. She stated the Sheriff's Water Patrol which would be dispatched through the 911 call center could also be responsible for calls. She believed there would be a lot of monitoring of activities by members of the SYC. Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 443, "An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.24 Subd. 10.d. (L-R Licenses) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. Motion passed 3/2 with Turgeon and Woodruff dissenting. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 11 of 15 Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 075, "A Resolution Granting an Interim Conditional Use Permit for Michael Maloney and Gabriel Jabbour Allowing a Certain Number of Power Boats at the Shorewood Yacht Club." Director Nielsen stated the interim C.U.P, required the applicant submit a plan subject to approval by the Council. The applicant had submitted a plan and it had submitted a drawing depicting where all powerboats would be located. The plan did not address the residential discount. He suggested the applicant's plan be set aside for future consideration. He explained the plan could be approved by a motion. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated he suggested the resolution not be released for recording until the three separate parcels of land had been legally combined. The maker and seconder of the motion amended the motion to include approval subject to the three parcels of land on the Shorewood Yacht Club property being legally combined. Motion passed 3/2 with Turgeon and Woodruff dissenting. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 8:37 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 8:45 P.M. B. Minor Subdivision Request Applicants: Dan and Melissa Nelson Location: 25865 Birch Bluff Road Director Nielsen stated Dan and Melissa Nelson owned the property at 25865 Birch Bluff Road, and they proposed a minor subdivision of their property into two lots. He explained the property was zoned R- lA/S, Single-Family Residential/Shorcland, and the westerly portion of the property was occupied by the applicants' house. Both lots would exceed the width requirements of the R-lA district. The westerly lot (Parcel A) would contain ~S,g95 square :feet of area, exclusive of wetland area; the easterly lot (Parcel B), or new lot, would contain 40,000 square (cet of area, exclusive of the wetland area. The major issues with the requested subdivision were. site alteration and access. With regard to access, Nielsen explained the existing home was accessed via a private driveway that was located in the right-o~i=way of Second Street, a "paper street" that had never been improved. The second property could share that comtnon driveway. A common driveway could have a minimum width of twelve feet which was the width of the driveway; twelve feet was all the existing right-of--way could accommodate leaving five feet on each side of the traveled surface for snow storage. The issue was when the lot to the east of Second Street (Block 5) needed to have access to it; if an access were to serve three properties it would require, at a minimum, a private road. While private roads were highly discouraged, the Comprehensive Plan allowed them where no other alternative existed, where no more than three properties were served, and where a 50-foot-wide easement with an adequate turn-around was provided. A Fire Code access road (a 20-foot paved surface) was the minimum design for a private road. A private road design could not be achieved within the 22-foot-wide Second Street right-of--way. Consequently, the existing lot of record on the east side of the right-of--way (Block 5) could not be built upon unless an additional right-of--way or easement was acquired and the Fire Code access road was constructed, placing the entire cost of it on that owner. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 12 of 15 With regard to site alteration, Nielsen explained the original plans submitted would have resulted in approximately one-half of the site being altered by tree clearing and grading. Existing grades were at 33 percent over much of the property. The proposed grades would have resulted in disturbed slopes as steep as 46 percent -all of which would result in extensive tree removal. The City's Comprehensive Plan recommended that development which would result in disturbed slopes exceeding 3:1 (33 percent) should not be allowed, except in extreme situations. Nielsen noted this request had been discussed at a September 4, 2007, Planning Commission and had been continued to an October 16, 2007, and again to a November 20, 2007, Conuiussion meeting. Nielsen explained at the October 16, 2007, Planning Commission meeting Gcne Ruffenach, who owned Block 5, stated he would be willing to establish a protective covenant stating that Block 5 would never be accessed from Second Street. That would eliminate a good share of any of the issues associated with the subdivision. Mr. Ruffenach had followed up with a letter slating that he would be ~~~il1ing to waive any right to use the Second Street right-of--way, which eliminated the problem of having to develop a private road to serve three lots. The Ruffenachs' were satisfacd fliat their property could be adequately accessed via Meadow View Court, which extended to the southeast corner of their property. Nielsen commented that Meadow View Court had been extended to Block 5 when Watten Ponds had been platted; that extension provided the opportunity for a driveway to be extended info Block 5. With regard to site alteration, the applicants had submitted a revised ~n-ading=plan which would result in significantly less site alteration than their previous plan had. The revised plan still depicted the driveway branching off to the corner of the property. Tlic revised plan limited the amount of site alteration by proposing a retaining wall that would achieve the 3:1 maximum slope required in the City Ordinance. Construction on the new lot would likely require fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. The revised grading plan dated October 23, 2007, would be used as a guide for the future development of the new lot; the revised plan only demonstrated that a house could be built on the new lot without a variance. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions identified in a November 15, 2007, Staff report. He highlighted two of the conditions identified. A deed restriction or development agreement must be prepared and recorded against the Ruffenach property to the east, including the waiver of any right to use Second Street for the future development of the Ruffenach property. That deed restriction or agreement must be recorded at Hennepin County, together with the resolution approving the subdivision. 2. The applicant must have a deed restriction or development agreement prepared for the new lot, suitable for recording, with the City as a signatory; that deed restriction or agreement would be recorded with the resolution approving the division. The deed restriction or development agreement should put future property buyers on notice that the lot was restricted as set forth in the resolution. Construction on the site would likely require fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and thereby require a conditional use permit. The retaining wall, because of its proximity to the common driveway, would likely have to be designed by a registered professional engineer. No site alteration shall result in a disturbed slope in excess of 3:1. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 13 of 15 Nielsen commented that he had not yet had the opportunity to ask the City Attorney if a deed restriction or a development agreement would be his preference. Nielsen suggested Council direct Staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next Council meeting on December 10, 2007. He stated the resolution may have some "blank spots" in it (re: the deed restriction or development agreement). He then stated given the amount of legal and surveying work involved with this matter, it was recommended that the deadline to complete the items should be 60 days rather than the normal 30 days. Nielsen stated Mr. Nelson was present this evening to answer any questions Council may have. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had spoken with Director Niclscn prior to this meeting. Woodruff questioned if a retaining wall had to be built on the new lot if a house were to be built on it. Director Nielsen stated it was possible, although highly unlikely. that a 3:1 slope restriction could be accomplished without a retaining wall. Woodruff stated he and Nielsen had earlier. discussed what must be done for a minor subdivision. Woodruff stated he had some reservation with the Cii_y approving the minor subdivision which in effect was saying the ne~~ lot would be a buildable lot; he had not been aware that the City generally stated a subdivided lot was buildable. FIe commented he did not care if the new lot was buildable. He went on to state he went out to the property and observed that a number of trees were tagged; he questioned if they were to be cut. Mr. Nelson explained those trees had been tagged as part of the original survey to show which trees may'bc impacted if a new driveway were to be installed; they were not identified as trees that had to be cui. Mr. Nelson stated there ~veie alternative locations for where the driveway could be located. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if Director Nielsen would have had the opportunity to confer with the City Attorney prior to the December 10, 2007, meeting ou a deed restriction or development agreement approach for the Rufhcnach property. Nic1sen stated the verbiage in the resolution would reflect the preference. With regard to a question fi-om Councilmember Wellens, Director Nielsen stated if alternative locations for the driveway were to be considered the driveway maintenance and easement agreement would have to be drawn wide enough and broad enough to accommodate either desi~m. Wellens moved, Callies seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution approving the minor subdivision for Dan and Melissa Nelson, 25865 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the provisions specified in the Staff report. In response to a question From Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained that the lots on the plat along Clara Avenue addition to Birch Bluff were mainly double-deep lots. Motion passed 5/0. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Contract for Audit Services Administrator Dawson stated the City had received a proposal from its independent auditors Adbo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, for services for the December 31, 2007, annual audit. He then stated Council had had discussions about issuing Request for Proposals (RFP) for those services. Staff recommended the City SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 14 of 15 retain the firm's services, which it had used in the past. Staff thought it would be more effective to use that firm because of the complexity the City had as a result of the sale of its liquor operations and its conversion to a new financial system, and the firm's fanuliarity with City's financials. Staff recommended. entering into the engagement contract with the firm of Abdo, Eick and Meyer, LLP, for auditing services for the year ending December 31, 2007. Councilmember Wellens stated he had been pushing for "new eyes" to audit the City's financials. He questioned if Council considered the sale of the City's liquor operations to be a justifiable reason to retain the firm's services. Councilmember Callies stated there were many accountants but there ~~~cre not as many firms that conducted audits. She stated this firm was always well prepared and its presentation of the year-end audit was always well done. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had recommended the City pursue the RPP process and he still recommended the City request bids in the future. He then stated the quote from Abdo, Eick and Meyer was reasonable. He also believed the firm did a good job. fe went o~~ to state there was value in having a firm that knew the City's financials and operations conduct the audit for 2007 year-end. He suggested Council direct Staff to conduct the RFP process with a timeline for the bids to be received by July 2008. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, autho~-iring the City Administrator to enter into the audit engagement contract with the firm of Abdo, Eick and Meyer, LLP for auditing services for the year ending December 31, 2007, and directing Staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for those services and request responses back by Jule 2008. Director Burton and Administrator Dawson stated that would be a reasonable time for the RFP process. Motion passed 5/0. ,~ B. Authorizing Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Adminish~ator Dawson stated the city had received two Applications for an Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor License. There were no criminal or lnancial reasons to deny the applications. The licenses would become effective upon the closing of the sale of the liquor operations. He commented that it appeared that the closings «~ould be November 30, 2007, or December 3, 2007. He stated one of the applicants had a lease issue. Staff recommended Council adopt the resolutions. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 076, "A Resolution Approving the Off-Sale Intoxicatinl; Liquor License for The Cellars Wines and Spirits of Shorewood, Inc." and Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 077, "A Resolution Approving the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Park Square Subway, Inc., DBA Shorewood Liquor." Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS None. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 Page 15 of 15 Administrator Dawson stated there was a meeting scheduled for the Southshore Center working group on November 27, 2007. There was an EFD Board meeting scheduled for November 28, 2007. The City's Truth-In-Taxation hearing was scheduled for December 3, 2007. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Attorney Keane stated confirmation had been given that part of the settlement funds from Ascending Praise Church had been sent but the full amount had not yet arrived. Keane then stated a draft contract for the services of Collaborative Design Group, Inc, for the City Hall renovation project had been prepared and it world be submitted to Staff on November 27, 2007. Administrator Dawson stated a kickoff meeting was scheduled for November 28, 2007. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Lizee stated she had held a coffee with the mayor session on November 8; 2007, and a number of residents had attended. She then stated a family attended and asked how they could ~rolunteer to help the City. Mayor Lizee then extended condolences to Deephaven Mayor Skrede for the unexpected loss of his wife Paula Winter. Ms. Winter had been an asset to the community. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had attended a Lake Minnetonka Cori-imunications Commission (LMCC) full Board meeting and he reported on that meeting. He stated the LMCC staff had been directed to research a new technology that would allow a vie~~-er to tab through a broadcast meeting and to allow for better presentation. There were five member cities that had not yet approved the amendment to the LMCC JPA or the 2008 LMCC Operating Bridget. Mediacom had stated there would be a minor rate increase and it was still in discussions with the Big Ten network. The Federal Communications Commission had issued asecond ruling which stated that incumbent cable companies had some of the same rights granted under the first ruling regarding how PEG monies could be collected. 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 26, ~ 9:16 Y.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLP SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman; Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon. and Wcllens: Administrator Dawson; and Finance Director Burton Absent: Councilmember Woodruff B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Callies seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING A. Staff Presentation Administrator Dawson explained the City was holding the statutorily required Truth-in-Taxation Public Hearing. The purpose of the Public Hearing was for Council to hear public comment on the City's 2008 Proposed Budget and 2008 "haz I,eti~}~, There would not be any action taken this evening. After this evening's meeting Council could decide if it wanted to reconvene this public hearing at a future date and the next date would be December 10, 2007. A reconaened meeting may take place at a regular Council meeting. Action on the 2008 Proposed Budget and 2008 Tax Levy would be taken at the December 10, 2007, Council meeting. Although it ~-vas not required dy State Statute, Staff would also be reviewing the City's Enterprise Budgets which were not supported by taxes. This was not the forum to discuss the assessor's evaluation of a property for. tax purposes; that took place at the Board of Review, which was generally conducted in mid to late April "1'he values for Pay2008 had been set and they could not be changed at this meeting. Only the City's tax, which was slightly less than 25 percent of the total property tax levied on a property, could be discussed. Dawson went on to elplain the City's taxes were the subsidy for the City's operations; the tax i°ate was computed after the City set its levy and the rate changed every year. The City must submit a proposed tax levy by September 15 each. year; that proposed levy could not be exceeded at final certification. The City's published proposed levy was to increase 9.3 percent or approximately $410,000. However, as the Council continued its budget deliberations into the fall, the tax levy was revised to be an increase of 4.9 percent or approximately $215,000. The revised tax levy resulted in the same percentage increase in the tax levy as it was for 2007. The resulting tax on an individual property may be greater or less than this percentage, depending on whether the property's assessed market value rose more or less than the percentage increase in the City's tax capacity, which was 9.05 percent. The 9.3 percent proposed levy increase that was published was more than the estimated 9.05 percent increase in City's adjusted net tax capacity, so the City's tax rate as shown increased slightly. With the revised 4.9 percent levy increase, the City's tax rate would decrease slightly. Levy limits were not in place for 2008 and had not been since Pay2004; levy limits had been in place 26 out of the last 34 years, #Zc SHOREWOOD CITY SPECIAL MEETING December 3, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Dawson went on to explain overall City tax-supported expenditures and transfers were proposed to increase 3.67 percent or approximately $188,000. Of that amount, there was a net increase of $81,000 in Public Works which was the result of a $300,000 increase over the current level of roadway maintenance improvements; most of the $300,000 was offset by not continuing the $170,000 level of funding ui 2007 toward a new equipment bay at the Public Works building, and also by discontinuing a $25,000 transfer to the stonnwater management utility. There was a $69,000 increase in costs for police (South Lake Minnetonka Police Department) and fire (Excelsior Fire District and Mound Fire District). There was a $65,000 increase in costs for general government activities. There was a reduction of $24,000 for parks and recreation, but there was no anticipated reduction in levels of service. Director Burton first highlighted the City's 2008 proposed budget and tax levy. `1'he highlights included: there were no levy limits in place for Pay2008; the tax levy was reduced from the levy certified on September 15; the budget included the use of $100,000 of the General fund Reserves; transfers to the Capital Funds were planned primarily to the Local Street Tmprovcment Fund; expenditures without considering transfers had decreased from 2007 levels; and, the City's tax base increased approximately 9 percent. Burton then presented information on the City's property tax distribution for 2008 and reviewed the budget preparation calendar. e Burton stated the proposed General Fund Budget for 2008 (~a~hich was set in September 2007) was contemplated at approximately $5,320,000, an amount that retlccted an increase of approximately $188,000 over 2007 (or 3.67%). That budget-also reflected a tax levy of app~°oximately $4,612,000. She summnarized the 2008 Proposed Budget revenues and expenditures. The City also received revenues from sources other than taxes; revenues from licenses and permits were anticipated to decrease approximately 16 percent in 2008 and there was an increase in charges/services revenue which was the result from rental income for the City-owned house. She then summarized the major contributors to the proposed 2008 levy increase. They ~wcre: 1) a $300,000 increase over the current level of roadway maintenance improvements, which was mostly ol~fsct by not continuing the $170,000 in funding in 2007 for a Public Works Building Addition and by discontinuing a $25,000 transfer to the Stormwater management utility; 2) $69,000 for public safety costs; 3) 565,000 loi~ general government activities; and 4) a $24,000 reduction in parks and recreation. Burton reviewed the estimated tax impact of 2008 estimated over 2007 actual based on the September 15 certified tax levy. Total property taxes on a median value home of $431,000 home in Shorewood for the City portion of that tax bill would be approximately $1,164 for Pay2008 or a $5 increase over Pay2007. That tax amount. would decrease as a result of the revised levy which had been reduced. For that amount of money, residents received a value in City services in the areas of police protection, fire protection, clean drinking water, snow plowing, street maintenance, parks and trails, building inspections, and other City services. Burton briefly summarised the Enterprise Funds, and subsequent proposed budgets for those funds, including Water Operations, Water Debt Service, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Management, and Recycling. She noted those funds were designed to be self-supporting (i,e., they would be run similar to a separate business). She highlighted the capital improvement projects planned for the City's Water System (for a cost of $386,000) and its Sanitary Sewer System. She stated the largest anticipated project (for a cost of $540,000) for the City's Stormwater System (Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road) was removed from the Stormwater Budget; that budget did include $100,000 for yet-to-be determined projects. She explained the largest expense in the Sewer Budget was for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) wastewater treatment charges. She noted that no rate increases were SHOREWOOD CITY SPECIAL MEETING December 3, 2007 Page 3 of 4 planned for the City's 2008 enterprise budgets. She commented the City's liquor operations would be sold, therefore, no liquor budgets were required for 2008. B. Public Hearing Mayor Lizee opened the Public Hearing and Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. Ron Johnson, 5355 Shady Hills Circle, suggested the Council adopt Governor Pawlenty's leadership. He stated the State was in a deficit; job growth in the State was almost zero; the Country was going into a recession; and housing prices were dropping. Those demographics should be considered when finalizing a budget. He stated when he would review corporate budgets he was used to seeing what was changing; he stated he did not see much of what was changing for the City in the budget presentation with the exception of increased roadway improvements, He noted that the City of Deephaven accepted the Governor's leadership and adopted azero-increase budget. He then commended Council for a number of actions it had taken: it decided to sell its liquor operations; it reduced the scope of the renovation to/replacement of City Hall; and, it terminated the Anilce Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Road Reconstruction project. He suggested Council adopt a ?ero-increase budget for 2008. Tom Skramstad 28020 Woodside Road, stated the City's portion of his >?ay2008 proposed property tax increased approximately 17 percent. The value of his propertyincrcased approximately 15 percent and the Hennepin County portion of the property tax increased more than 15 percent. He stated he owned property in Florida and the tax rates and values had been increasing fi>r many years; this year the value of his property decreased 20 percent and his property taxes also decreased. ~~ Mayor Lizee closed the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. Administrator Dawson explained because limited market value was phasing out he assumed that impacted Mr. Skramstad's propert}~ taxes. He stated in this State local governments were highly dependent on propert=y taxes. `1'hc City did not receive any State aid towards the City's general revenue. Some other states had other taxes and fees that were allowed, and those states may find other revenue sources to offset property taxes. Councilmcmber Turgeon stated the phasing out of limited market value had a more significant impact on lakeshorc property owners. She then stated Council was trying to find a way to improve the City's streets which were in dire need of improvement. Councihllenibcr ~~ellens stated there had been reductions in some areas of the budgets in order to increase the level of roadway improvements. Councilmember Turgeon stated Deephaven was the only local city that had zero-budget increase, and the City was second to Deephaven in having the smallest tax levy increase. Administrator Dawson stated each city's circumstances were unique. He commented that this Council had been diligently involved in the evolution of the proposed 2008 budget. He stated the City had fallen behind on roadway improvements. Director Burton stated the Council had considered the budget based on exceptions and it scrutinized the budget in great detail. She suggested that Mr. Skramstad contact the Hennepin County assessor about his property valuation. Administrator Dawson explained the value of a property was determined by January 2, 2007, for Pay2008. It was his understanding that there would not be much of a tax base increase for the City for Pay2009. SHOREWOOD CITY SPECIAL MEETING December 3, 2007 Page 4 of 4 Mayor Lizee thanked Staff and Council for its efforts. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. C. Council Deliberation/Decision to Reconvene There was consensus there was no need to reconvene. 3. OTHER None. 4. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of December 3, 2007, at 7:32 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 12/10/2007 Council Meeting ~.~ t ~ ~ _. ~~ ~ Prepared by: % J z ~ ~ ~ _ .~.-~~ Date: --~ ,~ Michelle T. Nguyen, Sr. Accounting Clerk ;~ ~_ ~ ,~ r ,, Reviewed by: ~-._ ~~~ `..,~. w ~ ~~ ..~.- Date: / -~ Bonnie Burton, F~~ce Director ~- Approved by: '~ '' _ _ Date: ~,, ` r - ,~- Crai ~ Dawson, City Administrator ~r~ .` l PAYROLL APPROVALS For 12/10/2007 Council Meeting r ~..~_ Prepared by: - ~~' ~..~._ ~f Date: ~ 1VI i chelle T. Ng`iiyci~, Sr. Accounting Clerk ,~ ,~ Reviewed by: , . ~~- -~~ -~-- Date: ~~- ~ ~~" L . Bonnie Burton. F i n ~~nce Director Approved by: ~ ~~~ A Date: Craig ~awson, City Administrator CITE' F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • {952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mh.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: December 6, 2007 SUBJECT: Regular Appointment of James Landini to the Position of City Engineer In July 2007, the City Council considered our recommendation of the regular appointment of James Landini to the position of City Engineer. At that dine, the City Council decided to extend the probation period. At the November 26, 2007, work session, the City Council reviewed information we prepared regarding the scope of activities that Mr. Landini has undertaken during his nearly 11 months of service, as well as our report on our assessment of his performance assessment that he is meeting and generally exceeding expectations. At the conclusion of the discussion, Council indicated that it had sufficient information from us regarding the recommendation for regular employment status for Mr. Landini as City Engineer. In view of the recency of discussion on this matter, neither the memorandum from July 2007 nor the memorandum for the November 26 work session is attached. We affirm our recommendations that the regular appointment be made. Recommendation: The City Administrator and Director of Public Works recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution making regular appointment of Mr. James Landini to the position of City Engineer. t 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER '`~ ®M CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REGULAR APPOINTMENT OF JAMES LANDINI AS CITY ENGINEER WHEREAS, James Landini was hired by the City of Shorewood on January 8, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the probationary status of his employment on July 9, 2007, and decided to continue that status; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed information prepared by the City Administrator and Director of Public Works at a work session on November 26, 2007, in which they related that Mr. Landini has continued his positive work performance and done so over a broad range of activities, and has done so in a manner that merits consideration for regular appointment status; and WHEREAS, the City Administrator and Director of Public Works have reaffirmed their recommendation that the City Council make a regular appointment of James Landini as City Engineer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that it hereby make its regular-status appointment of James Landini as City Engineer. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this l Ot" day of December, 2007. Christine Lizee, Mayor Attest: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator CITI' Ut' SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www:ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: December 5, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council Members r~ FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk ~- CC: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk RE: .2008 License Renewals for Refuse Haulers, Tree Trimmers and Massage Therapists; New Tobacco License for 2007-08. For Council information, the attached list of Garbage Hauler, Tree Trimmer and Therapeutic Massage license requests have been received at the City and reviewed for completeness. As all license fees and requirements have been met, licenses have been issued to the Licensees listed. The attached Resolution issues a license for the sale of tobacco products to a new establishment in Shorewood. The applicant, Park Square Subway, Inc., DBA Shorewood Liquor, has submitted the license application and has paid the license fee. A background check was conducted in late November, 2007, for this applicant's off-sale Liquor License; there was no disclosable record in the files for convictions within the past five years for any violation of laws. The license is for the period of December 10, 2007 to October 31, 2008. COUNCIL ACTION Approval of a Resolution issuing a License to Sell Tobacco Products to Park Square Subway, Inc., dba Shorewood Liquors, located at 23670 State Hwy. 7 in Shorewood. ~ : PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®M City of Shorewood - 2008 License Approvals City License No. Licensee Address City TREK, TRIn'INIER LICENSES 08-01 Vanderkloot Inc. DBA 6501 County Rd 15 Mound Amberwood Tree Service 08-02 Landbergs Tree Service 715 Nelson Rd Maple Plain 08-03 Shorewood Tree Service 14015 Co. Rd. 122 Watertown 08-04 Viking Land Tree Care, Inc. 716 Northwood Drive Delano 08-OS Majestic Tree Care, Inc. 4247 Queen Ave. N. Mim~eapolis 08-06 Ostvig Tree Inc. Suite 31 1, 1161 E. Wayzata Wayzata Blvd. 08-10 The Davey Tree Expert 1500 N. Mantua St. Kent, OH Company P.O. Box 5193 08-11 Treecare, Inc. P.O. Box 358 Shorewood 08-12 Jolm Duff Tree Trimming 7295 Lee St. Loretto 08-13 Tongen's Tree 30 Wildhurst Rd. Tonka Bay 08-17 Four Seasons Tree Service 32 lOt~' Ave. South, Suite Hopkins 213 08-18 Top Notch Treecare 5055 N. Hwy 169 Plymouth 08-22 Rainbow Tree Co. 2239 Edgewood Ave S St. Louis Park GARBAGE LIA ULER LICENSES 08-07 Blackowiak Disposal Inc. 1195 Sunnyfield Rd. N Mound 08-08 Haugen's Haulers, Inc. 7386 - 31St St. SE Buffalo 08-15 Randy's Sanitation, Inc. 4351 U.S. Highway 12 SE Delano 08-16 Allied Waste Services of 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie North America 08-19 Thaemert Custom Work 953 Park Ave, PO B ox 37 Hamburg Disposal / TCW Disposal 08-21 Waste Management of MN, 490 Industrial Blvd., P.O. Winsted Inc Box 609 7'HERAPEU'I'IC 1~~IASSAGE LICENSES 08-09 Joan L. Rousar, CMT 5585 Shorewood Lane Shorewood 08-14 Catherine M. Fogarty 19285 State Hwy. 7, Ste. 4 Shorewood 08-20 Maggie's Lake Area 4828 Rustic Way Shorewood Massage Therapies clTy of sxoREwooD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION APPROVING LICENSES TO RETAILERS TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 302 and 1301 provide for the licensing of the sale of tobacco products in the City; and WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, and shall pay a licensing fee; and WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application and paid the appropriate fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That a License for the sale of tobacco products be issued for a term from December 10, 2007 to October 31, 2008, consistent with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 302 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicant: Applicant Park Square Subway, h1c. DBA Shorewood Liquors Address 23670 State Highway 7 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 10th day of December, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk °.~.~ ==_ ~ " ~ ~ ~ r ~:G:; ~i ,_ MEMORANDUM DATE: December 5, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers ~ FROM: Boiulie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer RE: Almual Property & Liability Insurance Renewal CC: Craig Dawson, City Administrator Backgrouizd The City's Property and Liability Insurance package renews each November. The City's municipal insurance coverage is through the League of Mimzesota Cities Insurance Tnist (LMCIT). Tlus municipal package inchides general property, municipal liability, worker's compensation, bond, and umbrella insurance coverages. This year, the City purchased one quarter (three months) of liquor liability insurance and will receive a refund of the unused portion. (The League has been notified of the sale of the liquor stores effective yesterday.) Pretnii~m Sun~a~nary The proposed premiums for the property and liability portion of the package decreased this year from $84,249 for 2007 to $71,439 for 2008. Worker's Compensation increased somewhat from $29,813 in 2007 to $34,132 for 2008. (The City will receive an adjustment for the removal of the liquor store employee work comp premiums.) The total package renewal premium for next year will be is approximately $103, 000 after all adjustments and refunds. The 2007 budget programmed $121,000 (excluding liquor liability) across all funds for insurance. There have been fewer claims this year and with continued good efforts at loss control, the City's Experience Loss Mod decreased from 1.159 to 1.074, which resulted in a decrease in premium. In addition, the League has provided a general rate decrease of 3% to participating cities. A summary of the City's coverage is attached for your review. ~®~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PRPER Insurance Renewal -Page 2 Liability Coverage Limits This motion is considered by the City Council each year. Miluzesota State Statutes set tort liability limits for govenunental units at $300,000 per claim/$750,000 total claims per occurrence. The City carries tort liability at statutory limits and has excess liability coverage of $1,000,000. The City's insurer allows cities the option of waiving this limit, thereby allowing payment of a larger claim. By waiving the statutory limit, the city opens itself to larger claims acid higher insurance costs. In prior years, staff has recommended, and the City Council has elected, to not waive the statutory limits. It is again the staff's recommendation that the Council approve a motion that does not waive the statutory tort liability limits for the 2007/2008 insurance renewal. Recommended Action The City Council is requested to accept the property and liability insurance renewal and elect to not waive the statutory limits as described above. FEET-G_1^o-1996 ~7~ 5P P. ~2/G~ LEAGUE 0l= IVIiNNE~aTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST LIACiIL.1TY COVI=RAGE -WAIVER FORM Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must decide whether or not to waive the statutory tort (iabiliky limits to the.extent of the coverage purchased. The decision ko waive ar not to waive the statutory limits has the following effects: o !t'the city does not waive the statutory tart limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover na mare than ~~OO,QOO.an any claim to which the statutory tack limits apply- The fatal which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tart limits apply would be limited to $1 QOO,ClO~. These statutory tort limits waul~i_a.~}~~iy reg~rdEess of whether or not the c4#~_.__._ _____-~. - purchases the optional excess liabili#y coverage. o !f the city waives the sfafutory tort limits and daea not purchase B?fCeSS liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover up to ~1,a0i],OQO. on a single occurrence. The total which aH claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tart limits apply would also be limited to $1,Ot70,000., regardless of the number of claimants. o !f the olfy waives the statutory tart lrrnits and purchases excess iia6ility coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased, The total which ail claimants would be able tp recover for a single occurrence to which the .statutory tart limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants, Claims to which the statutory municipal tart limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. This decision must be made by the city council Cities purchasing coverage must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further information, contact LMCIT. You may also wish to discuss these Issues with your city attorney. accepts liability coverage limits of League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust tLMGIT). from the Check one: © The city DDES N(~T WANE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 4~F.04. [~ The city VllAl'VE5 the monetary limits an tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes A66.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of city council meeting Signature/Date Position Retum this cDlrr~leted farm to LM~1; 145Univ~rsityAve. W., .5t: PauJ, MN, SSi~3~-204 ., . .r. TOTAL P.O~ FED-22-i996 1~~44 CITY ~1-~ ~H~R,.EW~C~Ta IN'~URANC~ PItt~CiRAPYI 1"iTQVElVI~1JR 2007 The City of Shorevvaad has been insured with the League of Minnesota ~'ities 1 nsurance Trust since 1986. This program was established in the ~:rrl~f 1980's with the intent of insuring cities without producing pratit t'ar the insurance carrier. NinEty percent of'the cities that a~'e eligible ~sre enrolled in the program. The program has been very successful in maintaining competitive rates in addition to paying dividends based nn the progz-am's lass ratio, not the loss ratio of the individual city. Loss r~ttias are based on the annum renewal premiums excluding arty dividends paid. The city of Sltarewood has qualified far a dividend most Years and the following is a list of the most recent dividends paid: 1995 - $18,763.00 199E - $25,519.00 1997 T $22,722.00 1998 -'18,306,00 1999 - ~ 13,179.00 2000 - ~9,~ I.3.00 2001 - ~12,38$.p0 2002 - $14,121 A0 2003 - $13,598.00 2004 -$'11,682,00 2005 - X15,036.00 2046 - $ 5,078.00 1'aur Experience Lass Nlod went front 1.1 S91ast year to 1.074 currently which resulted inn a decrease in premium. Yo~tt• overall insurance rates wee-~ also reduced by 3°ro. I am enclosing curt. ent dated loss runs for yoYYr review. t}~YZ- agency Itas written coverage for Shorewood since 1984. Uriginally vr~ith IVlarznca Insurance Company out of• Texas and then through the 1/cague program. P.~2~~5 FES-22-196 1~J ~ ~~ ~~~g~-~- Arrnu.al premiums are based on the total program's experience and Sho~rewaacl's experience within the program. The total package ~-er~ewal prernitxm for 2007-2008 with the ~.eague is $71.,4'9.00 cornpareci to ~84,249.OQ last year. 'The annual ~Tmbrella premium for X0()7-2008 is X8,197.00 compared to $11,19~i.00 last year. The Open [Vleetirtg Law premium for 07-OS is $92.00 compared to $4$.00 last vear. The Viewer Sack Up premium for 07-i18 is $2,404.!U0 compared to :~~i,53~_(lQ last year. Tire t;Sty of Shorewood has always elected to rene'th~ "without the waiver c-fi' monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statue ~Ci(x.04". ptrr underwriter at the league has inf'drruetl us that a large zna,jo~'ity of cities she works with chose this option, ~'ovcrages for the 2007-2008 policy period are being renewed per the :~ttaclaed schedule of limits anti coverages. P. G3.`k3~ The liquor stores are covered undex a specialty program with Travelers I rrsurance Company for off sale ~,iquar establishments. Per our conversation, coverages will be cancelled effective 1.2141(17 clue to the sale rrl' the establishments. if you have any questions or need any changes made, please give us a call. We appreciate your business. '~ irrcerely, ~.~. ~~~~ l~ertrreth J. Jarcho FEB-21-19g~ ~5~~'7 CITY pF SH011~rEWOOD 5775 COL7I`J'I`RY CLUB ROAD SHORE~'Vt~OD, MN 55331 SUMMAH'Y OF COVP.RAGES DF,CEMBER 21107 AlY1l7UNT COV~I~AGES PREIVIIUM League of Minnesota Cities Package Policy #CN1C2tC32 11/1/07 to 11/1105 :f, ~i,67~-,ft80.00 131anket ou Building Si Personal Property Per Attached Schedule - $500.00 Deductible (-,t7~~,~80.00 Boiler Coverage 680,029.00 Mobile Equipment -Scheduled -~ Over 525,000. ?135,089.00 1Vlobile Equipment -Unscheduled - XJnder 525,000, 5500.00 Deductible 1,000,000.00 Commercial G~er~eral Liability - $500.00 Deductible 1,000,000.00 I'ublrc Officials Liability - $2,500.00 Deductible 1,000,000.00 Business Auto Liability Basic PIP 1,{1Uti,000.00 ~Jninsured ~ Underinsured IVlotarists 5500.0() rl+eductibte - Comprehensive - Yelr Schedule !~500A0 Deductible -Collision -Per Schedule 15,000.00 Caragekeepers Coverage - $500.00 Deductible Sewer Back Up Coverage I.,eague of 1Vlinnesota Cities M..EL5353 11/1 /07 to 11/1/0$ l,(i00,000.00 i.lmbrella Liability I.,eague of Minnesota Cities OML3$10 11/1/07 to 11/1/08 Open IVieeting Law Defense Cast 50,000,00 Defense Cost Per I.~awsuit Per Official 50,000.00 Agreement Terrn Aggregate Per Offici:~l ~G0,4~6.00 $ 2,404.00 $ 8,197.00 $ 392.00 P.~2~14 rcr~-~l-L~~G e~~= li 1~age -~- Travelers Insurance Company Policy #I~8065561-1118II'tiDU7 11/1/07 to 11/1/08 Liquor Mares ~ :3770.10.UU Special Form, I7,+eplacemeut ~:ost on Cogtents lncluding Improvements ~ Bettermcnts At Z~67U HighrTvay 7, Shorewood, IYIN 55331 '~6~),~03.OU Speeial k'arm, Replacement Cast an ~:ontents at 19~U5 ~Iighway 7, Shorer~vuad, N 553:11 ~50p.00 Deductib}e Commercial General Liability 5; 1,4)Ci0,000.0U General Aggregate I,ODO,UO(~.00 Yr~oducts & Completed Gper~tians Aggregate 500,OOU.00 I+.,ach Occurz•ence SOU,UO~i.t10 I}ersonai & Advertising Injury 30U,U00.00 Fire Damage S,ODU.00 Metlieal Expense SOU,UUU,00 liquor Liability 1 f1,00U.U0 Money & Securities -Inside I O,OOU.()4 Money ~. Securities - tJutside ~ 9,184.00 Unitcd Fire & Casualty Bond 51U5$9$2 1.X./1/07 to 11!1/08 1.00,000.00 Pnblic >/mployees Band 1.00,0QU.UU Depositors Forgery S 969.OU ileague of IVIi~-nesota Cities l~'olicy #UZU0027~25 11./1/0? to 11/1108 `4Vt~rkmen's Compenss~tion & Employer's Liability 1,000,U00.0U Bodily Injury -Each Qccurrence 1,Ut.1t1,000.Ct0 Bodily 1tl,jury by Disease- Agreement Limit Based on Payrolls Fer Attached $34,I;I2.00 r. ~~: l~+ FEB-21-1996 ~8~11 k'#l~e J3- ~6,1~~.~a ~,000.(l0 Auto l7wt~~rs Insurance Cotnp~ny ~'olicy #906006-08 +06295-Ot'y t.t/.1107 to 11/1/08 EDP Poticy ~o~nputer Equipment Per 5clzedul~ Tastiiba Laptop Dell Laptop $500.00 Tledu~tible ~ 531,00 P . X1411 ~1 rtr~-~l-ly~b ~aa~ 1~ r.~t~~l~ / ~~~, - ~._ ~= .--- ~~~ ~ ~gNI~E~TIIM•IG & II~NOVA"t'ING ~E~~iU~, OF 5[N~:E 1913 ~l l~l I~l ~.S(JTA ~ITIE~ T:~eGeml~cr 4, ZQt}7 1Cen Jarcha Agency l;tc: City C}f 5harewoad 9452 L.yndnle ~lvGnue South 131opmins~tan, Mn 554~D effective Date: 11/01/07 ItI+,NL~VAL 1~REMIIIIVI SLIMIVIAFtY ANb >3TNA~ER (~{J •.• property $16,6f I. •.* Mabile Property 4,503. Municipal Liability 30,373, •~• Na ;"cult Sewer Backup 2,404. `• Automobile Liability 3'~~~' :* 000,OtIQ -1;xeludln~ unregistered vehicles Ulvl/UINI i 420' d* , Basic IwGOndrnIC Lass llenefits (PIp} - Excluding unregistered vehicles Not Caveredr •.* Autam~abile Physical Damage 3,124. •.~ Criaric Included, •a* F3andS Nat C'QVered. Lcluipmcnt L'reakdawiy 1'3$x' 197 8 L.xcess Liability Limit; $1,000,000, . , Open Meeting Law Limit: 1Q0°~~ 3~~' 136. GIC1: 1 dTAL $71,439. TC3RT LIIYliZ3' $300/x,,000,000. -» L7eduotible: X500. [~i.EiV)<AI~I[S: Db NC'I` lyAY IJNTII, Y"~Y~ 1EIE~1JIV1; l1V`VOICESI ',~"nbject to a Sigued and dated 'VVaivCr Election Fvrm. Reduction In Municig~tl Liability premium due to Reduc#ivrl Tn Experience lYlvdit"tcutian end Reduction In l± xpeuditures. I'. enewal coverage is vound ug to 6a dais pending i~~uance oi'renewal btt~ed ran LMCIT l=orrns and ~+ractices in effect on rerlewal date. f~«in~rci y = .-~'' U11G(erwrltel' _ ^,..~ KS LMGI"rzz (I lIOS) (PCCY; 11197; 4142; 1104, 9144;) l_.l;/-t~TLJE t'~F MINNCSt~'TA ~l`I'lES tn5ut~3vErrSiCrnvE.WEST rrtpN6:(fi51)2$]-1204 Fix:{GSt}~$1-1298 1 N S U I~..t~ [~I ~ c TRUST sr. 1>auL. n~N ,ssloa.aoaa TOLL FREE, 1800? 92~~t l22 wea: www.LMC,aAC1 na Frurnr nngn4i+lurrr rq cF~oMnnvw nrnnN Fen~r rr~-> c~rr of SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: December 6, 2007 RE: Authorize the Expenditure of Funds for Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Modifications Within the utility departments, there are fewer "mission critical" items that are present than the operation of the sanitary sewer lift stations. When pumps or equipment fail for these systems "the timer starts ticking!" Over the past eight months, Public Works Staff has been having significant issues with the lift station 9, located at 20995 Minnetonka Boulevard. Attachment 1 is a site location map. Pumps for these types of stations are very durable, and are designed to pump wastewater, and even rocks up to two inches in diameter. They are obviously designed to handle a variety of conditions to avoid failure. Having stated that, over the past eight months, there has been an issue (at this lift station only) where materials such as clothing, bath towels, and cleaning products have been introduced into the system. The end result is that pumps foul and jain, as they are not meant to handle these types of fabrics. Over the past few months, the frequency of pumps being jammed up and completely stopped has routinely been four to five times per week. Again, when pumps fail, homes may be at risk if not resolved in a very timely manner. Staff is in the process of public. education within this service area: A notice has been drafted up to residents for this service district and will be distributed shortly. This notice will ask residents to refrain from disposing of any cloth fabrics, Swiffer cleaning materials or other textiles that are not meant to be disposed of via the wastewater collection system. Staff also researched alternative means to prevent pump failure. There is in fact a model of pump that is designed to handle such products. However, preliminary pricing indicates that costs range anywhere from $20,000-$30,000 for such equipment. ~a ~®«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r t Mayor and City Council Authorization for Lift Station Modifications December 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Staff discussed this issue with Braun Pump and Control. Representatives from Braun Pump have indicated that they have installed a basket type protective system for pumps in other communities having the same issues. While routine maintenance is needed to insure that it is operating properly, it is effective in resolving the issue by an alternative means. This solution avoids having to perform a costly pump change out. A proposal for installation of the protection system and support hardware has been provided by Braun Pump in the amount of $2,950.00. Staff has reviewed the proposal and feels that it is a very cost effective alternative. As a side note, many other communities are having similar issues. The new advent of Swiffer products and other cleaning devices have certainly become a hot issue in the world of utilities. Staff will continue the route of public education, in areas where this is an issue. hl addition, staff has also contacted various manufacturers of these types of products asking if they would modify labeling that discourages improper disposal into the waste water collection. systems. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the authorization from the sanitary sewer fund for modifications to Lift Station 9, located at 20995 Minnetonka Boulevard, as shown in Attachment 2 of this memorandum. t _U ... =4 ._{I I _. 2C~ '~ .1.1 ~ 2Q1 ~ ___ USUS _ k'~_il :~IJ L~'~ i 'k', 411 ~• ~ f , I . ~ .. -~ I i 1 ~ li I 2Ur+30 ~. ~~ ___. , _ ~ 211 }II ~ y Nil ~' _ y'1 I 1 U ...U I~I~11 ~ ~ i ~ f i '1 t~-1 _: ti ~ ~ - I j ' LI I _ III ~~` . }~,-_~~ Lift Station 9 _ wuGC~Itgv~N ~~ _ 1„~ni~ I __ ,~, - __. I _ _ui_,u }f .i0 ~ ,~L~ ~ _.- - __ . -. ... - ~ ~ I ...... :1 i, ll ~~ 1 ` Z{I_~II i ~ ~ L' I iUSb t ~ O _ ~ h _... n :. _.___- _- it-!u _ f Z ki. lC~ F _ ~ _ 0 ~ `l~ x1- ~ ~ - t~ = f ~' d01 1 'T Al ~ 'A ~~ __ li . ~ 'f ) _ ~~ i . . _ i I~ ik~. 11 '~ _ .. k. 1 ~ _ - .-~~ f _ 2-_u3; _ _ aoi'p '-- _S~ - I - :k ~~L'0 LU,~',~ 4~ ,: U. ~ ~ 3 - - 9ftIU V~.U ~ 2L ~ ~k ~~ b~ I 1 i ,41'1(1 t` 't !.i ll X712.. -.., I it i r.i _~ _~ .}120 I kr ifi d14 4! ~ G_a { _ - #2i U 4~~1 Y' ~:lIS 9 k 1'~ 7I3'U ~k ~_ ATTACHMENT 1 SITE LOCATION CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR DANIEL NELSON WHEREAS, Daniel Nelson (Applicant) has an interest in certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described as: "Block 6, Mann's Addition to Birch Bluff, Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota."; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibit A and illustrated in Exhibit B, both attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits C and D, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City conservation easements legally described in Exhibits E and F, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the subject property is accessed by Second Street, a public right- of-way that has not been developed as a street, and the Applicant proposes to provide a common shared driveway to serve the two lots; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement for incidental use of the public right-of--way agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit G: WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in memoranda, dated 29 August 2007 and 15 November 2007, copies of which are on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Plam7ing Commission at a regular meeting held on 4 September 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 26 November 2007, at which time the Planner's memoranda and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City staff; and ~- ~'. WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicants complies with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property legally described herein is approved for division into two parcels, legally described in Exhibit A. 2. The subdivision approval is subject to the following: a. Grading on Parcel B and the construction of necessary retaining walls shall be designed by a registered professional engineer. No site alteration shall result in a disturbed slope in excess of 3:1. b. Fill in excess of 100 cubic yards on the site shall require a conditional use permit pursuant to Shorewood Zoning Code requirements. The conunon portion of the driveway serving the two lots shall be paved as part of construction of the new home on Parcel B. d. The Applicant must enter into the public right-of--way encroachment agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit G, and record the agreement against both of the two lots. e. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on the new lot, attached hereto as Exhibit H, advising future owners of Parcel. B of the conditions set forth herein. The deed restriction shall include the City as a signatory thereto. f. The plan shown on Exhibit B shall be used as a guide for the firture development of Parcel B. 3. The Applicant shall record this resohition, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C and D, the conservation easements legally described in Exhibits E and F, the right-of--way encroaclunent agreement contained in Exhibit G, and the deed restriction contained in Exhibit H with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. 4. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. -2- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of December, 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk -3- Exhibit A Proposed Leal Description -4- Exhibit B Proposed Subdivision/Grading Plan -5- Exhibit C Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement -Parcel A -6- Exhibit D Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement -Parcel B -7- Exhibit E Proposed Conservation Easement -Parcel A -8- Exhibit F Proposed Conservation Easement -Parcel B -9- Exhibit G Public Right-of-Way Encroachment Agreement -10- Exhibit H Deed Restriction -11- CITY F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Public Works Director FROM: James Landini, City Engineer ~- ~, DATE: December 6, 2007 RE: Acceptance of hnprovements and Authorize Final Payment for the Southeast Area Well / Amesbury Well hlterconnection Project, City Project #OS-O5. On May 23, 2006 the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with Minger Construction, Inc. to interconnect the Southeast area well with the Amesbury system. The project was completed during the 2007 construction season. WSB has verified the construction records and all the costs have been tallied. The original contract was for $669,956.20. The project had one change order, listed below, which totaled $13,132.20. This amended the contract to $683,088.40. - Change Order No. 1 was to change the water service sizes and install an extra hydrant at Manor Park. A resolution was approved on October 09, 2006. .:Additional sod, silt fence, hydrants, culvert removals, and outfalls with riprap are some of the examples of field quantity changes that increased project costs by $17,596.98. An invoice will be sent to the Amesbury Homeowners Association for reimbursement of $3,624.60 to cover their portion of the project. Acceptance of the Construction Project and Authorize Final Payment. This portion accepts the final project and authorizes final payment to Minger Construction, Inc. The final project cost is $700,685.38. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the resolution that accepts the final project and authorizes final payment for the Southeast Area Well / Amesbury Well Interconnection Project. A resolution is attached for your consideration. .s ~r«' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER € ~% CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FINAL IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE SOUTHEAST AREA WELL / AMESBURY WELL INTERCONNECTION PROJECT; CITY PROJECT #OS-OS WHEREAS, on. May 23, 2006 the City of Shorewood entered into a contract for construction with Minger Construction, Inc. for the Southeast Area Well / Amesbury Well Interconnection Project, City Project #OS-O5; and, WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project and final payment based on work performed to date; and, WHEREAS, the Project Manager has made a final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The City hereby does accept the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and the two-year guarantee shall commence as of November 28, 2007: ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 10th day of December, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITE' F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236. FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM:. Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: December 6, 2007 RE: Authorize the Expenditure of Funds for Purchase of a Tire Machine, Public Works As the 2007 year wraps up, staff is finally able to take the time to seek out quotes for the purchase of a tire machine for the Department of Public Works. Currently, tires are manually pulled of rims by "brut force and determination." This has become a challenge, as there have been more instances where tires have needed patching or repair. This goes towards everything from Groundsmasters, trucks, and Bobcat tires. Therefore, Staff has budgeted, as part of the 2007 operating budget, for the purchase of a fire machine. Quotes obtained fall well under the amount budgeted. Vendor Amount Delegard Tooi $1,910.15 Ammco $2,873.51 Table 1 Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the expenditure of funds from the Public Works Operating Budget for the machine provided by Delegard Tool. r®«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .m ~i~.,:. _ ~ ~ l ~,, ' ~ ~ rr.e ~ ~ n ~~ ~; ,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~l Y.I a C` „~ ';'.t ', ~1`r''~ ~:,r t ` 6 ~_ ~ ~f.,`P y~, ~,o, ~ ~i~i'II., r a,`, l,', I ~p~~ t5 I~~d"~YL l.. ~r. - fY s n~ i~ ' "~• ATTACHMENT 1 TIRE CHANGER CI'T'Y ®F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator James Landini, City Engineer FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: December 6, 2007 RE: Accept Proposal for Professional Services for the Rehabilitation of the SE Area Water Tower -KLM Engineering, Inc. The 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) calls for the rehabilitation of the SE Area Water Tower located at 5500 Old Market Road. A site location map has been provided as Attachment 1. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is the leading authority on water storage, treatment, and distribution systems. AWWA recommends that a detailed inspection of storage facilities be conducted every five years, with an anticipated rehabilitation of coatings every fifteen years. The Southeast Area water tower was constructed in 1988. On November 11, 2004, the SE Area water tower was partially drained, and a KLM Inspection team entered the interior of the storage tank to document the necessary inspections. Attachment 2 is an excerpt from the report, in addition to various photos taken of the structure. It is noted in the report that the tank is due for the rehabilitation. Due to the water demands of the summer season, this project has to be completed during the spring or fall months, to be able to take the water tower off line and meet demands. Staff has also been working on the automated control system for the Amesbury water system that can assist in meeting the overall demands, once the control system is completed." On November 26`h, 2007, a contract was authorized with Instrument Control Systems (ICS) to complete control systems for the interconnection. Staff is also working on contingency plans with the Cities of Minnetonka and Chanhassen to meet any demands outside of the normal consumption demands. The City Council may recall that KLM Engineering had initiated the process of preparing plans, specifications and estimates previously. However, this was put on hold while the City Council and Staff considered various Capital Improvement project timing and alternatives. Attachment 3 is the proposal provided by KLM Engineering for the services requested. ®~ ~. j®r~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ - 7 } Mayor and City Council Accept Proposal KLM Engineering December 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 KLM will prepare the plans, specifications, and estimates, and provide the inspection services during the process to meet all of the State Health Department, AWWA, coatings and welding certifications and inspections. Table 1 below is a brief summary of the costs. Proposal Cost Summary 1. Design Services Fixed Fee $2,000.00 2. Construction Management Fixed $5,110.00 3. Construction Observation Fixed $30,905.00 Total Estimated KL.M Cost $38,015.00 TABLE 1 KLM Engineering is considered the authority on both elevated and ground storage facilities. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in order. It is noted that since the proposal has been awaiting authorization from staff and the noted timefraines or dates of completion listed in the proposal will adjust accordingly to the current dates. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the proposal for Professional Services, outlined in the proposal by KLM Engineering as outlined above be accepted by motion. - - ~ . ~__ ~... ~ ~, r ATTACHMENT 1 SITE LOCATION MAP i 'f i i t' 1 1 ELEVATED WATER TANK INSPECTION REPORT 400,000-GALLON CAPACITY OLD MARKET ROAD TOWER CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA KLM PROJECT NO. MN 2194 sy KLMENGINEERING, INCORPORATED P. O. Box 897 3394 Lake Elmo Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 651-773-511.1 651-773-5222 [fax] Attachment #2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Project Information ............................................................................ 3 ~ 2.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................... 4 2.1 Structural Examination Summary ..................................................4 2.2 Coating Evaluation Summary .......................................................5 2.3 Repair and Reconditioning Cost Estimate ...................... ............... ..5 2.4 Remaining Tank Life ..................., ........................................... .. 5 3.0 Recommendations ............................................................................ ..6 3.1 Interior Structural .................................................................... .6 3.2 Interior Wet Coating ................................................................ ..7 3.3 Cathodic Protection System ........................................................ ..7 3.4 Interior Dry Coating ................................................................. .. 8 3.5 Exterior Structural ................................................................... ..8 3.6 Exterior Coating ..................................................................... ..9 3.7 Site and Environmental Considerations .......................................... .10 3.8 Antenna Considerations ............................................................. 10 4.0 Inspection and Evaluation Methods ......................................................... l l 4.1 Methods ............................................................................... 11 4.2 Examination and Evaluation Techniques ......................................... .11 5.0 Engineer's Cost Estimates ...................................................................14 Appendix A: Photographs Appendix B: Drawings Appendix C: Surface Preparation Requirements Appendix D: Paint Chip Lead and Chromium Test Results 1.0 Project Information KLM Project No.: MN 2194 Customer P. O. Number: Customer: WSB & Associates Phone: Street/City/State/Zip: 4150 Olson Memorial Hiahway, Ste. 300, Mpls., MN. 55422 Customer Contact: Dave Hutton P. E. Tank Owner: City Of Shorewood, MN Phone: 952-401-1637 Tank Owner Contact: Mr. Larry Brown Owner's Tank Designation: Old Market Road Tower Tank Description: 400,000-Gallon Single Pedestal ,S~heroid Tank Location (Street/City/State/Zip}: 5500 Old Market Road Purpose of Inspection: Tank examination and interior & exterior coating evaluation Date of Inspection: November 11 2004 Inspected By: Rod Ellis NACE # 1686 & Scott Kriese NACE IIT Type of Inspection: KLM Standard Manufacturer: CB&I NACON Construction Date: 1988 Serial No.: Design Code: AWWA D-100-84 Capacity: 400 000-Gallons Type of Construction: Welded Riveted Number and Size of Pilasters/Support Columns: Single Pedestal Tank Diameter: Height: Approximately 40-feet Overall 140" ShelUBalcony Height to: HWL 130" LWL 95" Type of Access to Tank Interior: Manway on roof Tank Construction Drawings: None Previous Inspection Records: None EXISTING COATING INFORMATION INTERIOR WET INTERIOR DRY EXTERIOR Date Last Coated 1988 1988 1988 Full or Spot Repair new tank new tank new tank Coating Contractor Unknown Unknown Unknown Surface Preparation shop shod shop Paint System Epoxy epoxy Epoxy/urethane Paint Manufacturer Unknown Unknown Unknown Lab Lead Test Paint Chips yes yes yes 4 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUI~IMARI~S 2.1 Structural Examination Summary Based on the inspection data, it appears that some miscellaneous structural modifications and repairs are required. These modifications and repairs serve to bring the tank into. compliance with OSHA regulations, AWWA standards, as well as allow for better coating bonding, allow for safer access in and on the tank and, in some cases, removing unnecessary items. 2.2 Coating Evaluation Summary 2.2.1 bead and Chromium Content Anal~si_s The total lead and chromium content of the interior and exterior coatings was analyzed. The results in Appendix D show a 0.0069 percent lead content for the interior wet coating, a 0.0094 to ND percent lead content for the exterior dry coating, and a ND percent content for the interior dry coating. Current State regulations classify neither the interior nor the exterior coatings aslead-based paint: Removal of non-lead based paint must be performed in accordance with applicable local, state and Federal regulations. Reconditioning for Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter specifications must include provisions for full containment. Chromium levels in the test samples indicate levels from 0.0029 to ND percent chromium. These chromium levels are not high enough to be a concern in the waste streams generated during reconditioning. 2.2.2 Interior Wet Coating The tank was built and coated in 1988 by CB&I NACON. The coating is now 17 years old and near the end of its service life. The tank will require a complete new interior coating within 1 to 3 years. A properly applied and maintained immersion service epoxy coating should provide 15 to 20 years of service. The coating is failing, apparently due to age and deterioration. The lower 1/3 of the tank coating has random blistering started on the drywell tube. These blisters are filled with water and indicate that major coating failure is imminent. See photos in Appendix A. Overall, the interior coating appears in good condition with 5 to 20 percent failure below the high water level (HWL) and 10 to 50 percent failure above the HWL. The coating is not repairable and should be replaced within 1 t0 3 years. See photos in Appendix A. S 2,2.3 Interior Dry Coating The tank was built and coated in 1988 by CB&I NACON. The coating is in fair to good condition except on the sweating areas of the interior dry and will require random coating repairs to the non-sweating areas and coating replacement to the sweating areas of the interior dry within 1 t0 3 years. 2.2.4 Exterior Coating The tank was built and coated in 1988 by CB&I NACON. It appears that the tank was last coated in 1988 and the coating at 17 years old is near the end of its service life. Due to age, chalking, and deterioration, the exterior coating can not be repaired. It should be removed and replaced with anepoxy/urethane coating system, similaz to those manufactured by the Tnemec Company. See photos in Appendix A. This should be done within 1 to 3 years. It is more cost effective to remove the exterior and the interior coating at the same time. 2.3 Repair and Reconditioning Cost Estimate The costs for structural repairs, replacing the interior and exterior coatings (including the containment and removal of the non-lead base paint) are estimated at $268, 150.00. This estimate is based on current pricing. For up-to-date competitive bids the project should be bid 9 to 12 months before the scheduled starting date. An experienced tank-coating contractor with the proper crew and equipment should be able to complete the project in 7 to 8 weeks. At the time of reconditioning, the tower will need to be drained and remain oil line during interior structural modifications, abrasive blasting and painting. However, most of the exterior structural modifications can be .performed prior to draining, with the tank in-service. 2.4 Remaining Tank Life Based on the inspection data, if the recommended structural repairs and coating replacement are completed within the next 1 to 3yeazs, the tank will be satisfactory for continued service provided that it is inspected and maintained regularly. The tank and coating should first be inspected within the warranty period and every three to five years thereafter. New interior and exterior coatings, if applied and maintained properly, should last 15 to 20 years. 6 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on an evaluation of the inspection data, the recommendations are: 3.1 Interior Structural 3.1.1 Seal weld the inside of the joint between the roof plate and the access manway, vent, ventilation manway and the drywell tube curb. Seal weld approximately 6 lineal feet of the inside of the dollar plate butt joint. These welds will prevent rust streaking and corrosion in areas inaccessible to paint and maintain tower roof structural integrity. See photos 2 through 5. 3.1.2 Remove the two (2) painters rigging pipe couplings from the roof and seal weld patch plates over the resultant holes. Currently the couplings are not welded on the interior and they pose a safety hazard. See photos 2 and 3. Install a minimum of two (2) painters rigging clips similar to the erection clips as shown in photo 6. 3.1.3 Seal weld the intermittently welded stiffener rings on the drywell tube. This will comply with AWWA D100-96. There are two (2) stiffeners below the High Water Line (HWL). Refer to KLM Drawing No. 9 and photos 7 and 8. 3.1.4 To prevent rust streaks and corrosion, caulk the lapped plate joints between the roof plates and the upper shell torus section with epoxy or urethane caulk. See photos 9 and 10. 3.1.5 The tower has two (2) erection angles located under the roof acting as roof rafters. See photos 9 and 10. While these angles are for erection only and are only stitch welded (2 in 12) to the roof plates they should not be removed as they will ensure roof structural integrity during the loads placed upon the roof by exterior rehabilitation containment. At the Owners option either seal weld or caulk these angles to prevent rust streaks and corrosion. The cost of this item is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 3.1.6 Install afrost-free valve and bowl drain with a connecting line to the overflow pipe. This facilitates cleaning and draining the bowl below the inlet pipe level. See KLM Drawing No. 37 and photo 11. 3.1.7 Replace the one (1), oval manhole gasket located in the bottom of the drywell tube. See Photo No. 12. 3.1.8 Cathodic Protection (see 3.3). 3.1.9 Remove all erection bracket scab marks and weld spatter below the HWL by air arc gouging, cutting torch, or grinding. There are approximately 25 erection bracket scab marks that require repair. Repair the tank surface by welding and grinding in conformance with the requirements of Appendix C. This will comply with AWWA D 100-96. This work will require approximately 50 man-hours. 3.1.10 Install one (1) 24-inch diameter shell, pressure style manway in the bottom section of the bowl, approximately 180 degrees from the existing manway in the drywell tube. The existing oval manway located in the bottom of the drywell tube is too small to comply with OSHA regulations for Confined Spaces Entry. This will improve the ventilation during reconditioning. For a typical pressure style manway, see KLM Drawing No. 26. See photo 19. 3.2 Interior Wet Coating 3.2.1 The tower was built and painted in 1988 and the coating is now 17 years old and because of age and deterioration is not considered repairable. It should be replaced within 1 to 3 years. See photos 2 through 18. 3.2.2 After structural repairs are completed, all the reservoir surfaces should be abrasive blasted to an SSPC-SP-10 Near White Metal Blast and coated with alight-colored polyamide epoxy system similar to the Tnemec Series 20 Pota-Pox Epoxy. 3.3 Cathodic Protection System (C. P.) 3.3.1 The reservoir does not have a Cathodic Protection system. Although it is considered an inexpensive form of interior coating protection, it may not be required if the coating is applied properly. The cost of a Cathodic Protection System is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 8 3.4 Interior Dry Coating 3.4.1 It appears that this area of the tank was last coated in 1988 when the tower was built. The coating appears in fair to good condition except at random locations. At a minimum the coating in the interior of the dry well tube, on the bowl exterior and on the bowl exterior and on the platform floors should be abrasive blast to an SSPC-SP-6 Commercial Blast Clean and replaced with an epoxy coating system similar to the Tnemec Series 66 Epoxoline concurrently with the interior wet and exterior dry coatings. See photos 19 through 26. 3.4.2 Included in the coating repairs should be the blasting and coating of the valve pit piping. See photo 40. 3.5 Exterior Structural 3.5.1 Replace or modify the tank vent/finial with a 24-inch diameter removable top mushroom vent, similar to the one shown on KLM Drawing No. 16. See photos 28 and 29. The existing vent cover does not cover the screen therefore the roof is not watertight as required by Health Department Regulations. The new vent and vent screen design should meet AWWA D100-96 and local Health Department Regulations. The removable top will improve ventilation and provide access to the tank interior during reconditioning. 3.5.2 Install two (2), 24-inch diameter round, hinged cover, roof ventilation manways, approximately 180 degrees apart and within 3- feet from the roof edge. See photo 30. This will provide additional ventilation during the interior surface preparation and coating and should bring the tank into compliance with OSHA Confined Space Entry requirements. See KLM Drawing No. 25. 3.5.3 To prevent trespassing, sabotage and vandalism install locking padlocks on the roof access manway and the bolted ventilation manway. See photo 31. The cost of a new lock is not included in the Engineering Cost Estimate. 3.5.4 To prevent trespassing, install a locking hasp and padlock on the roof manway at the top of the drywell tube. See photo 35. 3.5.5 Remove the screen and screen retainer and install a bolted sleeve around the dry well tube to waterproof the roof. This should bring the roof into compliance with State Health Department Standards. See photo 29 and KLM Drawing No. 8. 9 3.5.6 Install an overflow pipe screen retainer and screen meeting Health Department regulations. Use a corrosion resistant, heavy-gauge, No. 4 mesh screen. See photo 36, and KLM Drawing No. 13. 3.5.7 To prevent corrosion of the anchor bolts, caulk the bolt-holes around the wet riser anchor bolt base plates and the support column using epoxy caulk. See photos 36 and 37. 3.5.8 'There are approximately 15 stud welded antenna supports on the roof that should be seal welded to the roof plate, by the antenna owner(s) and at his cost prior to exterior tank rehabilitation. It is not possible to blast and paint under the antenna supports and if they are not seal welded in place they will rust bleed and stain the exterior. See photos 31 through 34. The cost of this item is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 3.5.9 The antenna owner(s) should install at their expense properly designed and seal welded coaxial cable support brackets in the drywell tube and pedestal to replace the supports improperly installed on the tower overflow pipe. T'he overflow pipe was not designed to support this load nor can you blast and coat properly under these clamped fittings. See photos 20 through 27. The cost of this item is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 3.6 Exterior Dry Coating 3.6.1 It appears that the tank was last coated in 1988 when the tower was built. Due to age, chalking, and deterioration, the exterior coating can not be repaired. It should be removed by abrasive blasting to an SSPC-SP-6 Commercial Blast Clean and replaced within 1 to 3 years with an epoxylurethane coating system, similar to those manufactured by the Tnemec Company. See photos 27 through 39. 3.6.2 The exterior coating is not classified as lead based paint However, due to the tank location, using conventional open air dry abrasive blasting methods to remove the coating will cause visible air emissions and fugitive particulate matter problems. Reconditioning specifications must be designed in conformance with local, state and Federal requirements. 10 3.7 Site and Environmental Considerations 3.7.1 The site includes the tank, pumphouse, antenna buildings and equipment, etc, in a 100-foot by 150-foot open/fence-enclosed area. The site is bordered by trees, power lines, houses and commercial property. 3.7.2 In conformance with Minnesota State Rules for air quality and control of dust and fugitive emissions a "Risk Factor (RF)" analysis has been performed to determine the class of pollution control required for this storage structure during reconditioning. RF is the calculation of potential risk for the structure and the values in the table of subpart 3 (of the standard) are the standards of risk factor for the (surrounding) designated properties. The class of pollution control required for compliance with the rules is Class II; this includes full containment, impervious ground cover, a top cover or bonnet and negative air dust collection. 3.8 Antenna Considerations 3.8.1 The tower has numerous antennas, coaxial cables, support brackets, and other miscellaneous equipment and equipment houses. Working around and protecting these items during reconditioning will incur additional expenses by the contractor. The antenna owner(s) should be responsible for these expenses under clause(s) in the antenna lease agreement. These costs are not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate, as they vary considerably from tower to tower and on this tower these costs could be substantial. 3.8.2 Currently some of the antenna coaxial cables are attached to the exterior of the overflow pipe in the drywell tube and the pedestal. These coaxial cables should be relocated to properly design and seal welded support brackets inside the drywell tube and pedestal as the overflow pipe was not designed to support this load. See Photos 21 through 23. 3.8.3 There are approximately 15 stud welded antenna supports on the roof that should be seal welded to the roof plate, by the antenna owner(s) and at his cost prior to exterior tank rehabilitation. It is not possible to blast and paint under the antenna supports and if they are not seal welded in place they will rust bleed and stain the exterior. The cost of this item is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 11 4.0 INSPECTION AND EVALUATION METHODS Some or all of the following procedures were performed as applicable. 4.1 Methods 4.1.1 The tank was evaluated on the interior and exterior in conformance with the following: a. KLM Engineering, Inc. Proposal dated June 22, 2004. b. General guidelines of AWWA Manual M42 Appendix C "Inspecting and Repairing Steel Water Tanks, and Elevated Tanks for Water Storage." c. KLM "Procedures and Guidelines for Inspecting Existing Steel and Concrete Water Storage Tanks". 4.1.2 The inspection of the base metal and coatings on interior and exterior surfaces included only areas accessible without scaffolding or special rigging. Where possible, the base metal and coating on the interior wet surfaces were examined from a rubber raft while the tank was being drained. 4.1.3 Tank plate thickness was measured at random locations on the liquid holding shell. The overall structural condition of the tank was visually examined. 4.1.4 No structural analysis was done to determine if the tank design complies with the AWWA D100-96 Standard for "Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage." However, any observed non-conformance to the AWWA D100-96 standard is noted in this report. 4.1.5 Although compliance with OSHA regulations was not a part of this inspection, any unsafe conditions or violations of current OSHA regulations that were observed are noted in this report. 4.2 Examination and Evaluation Techniques Some or all of the fallowing procedures were performed as applicable. 4.2.1 Site The tank site was evaluated for proper drainage, conditions affecting access and lead paint abatement during reconditioning. Also, the following site dimensions were obtained: distance to fences}, power lines, owner buildings, public properly, private property/buildings, school/playgrounds, public parks and other property. 12 4.2.2 Foundations The tank concrete foundation was visually examined for cracks, spalling, condition of grout, indications of distress/settlement, and elevation above grade. 4.2.3 Tank Plate Thickness Plate thickness measurements were taken using ultrasonic methods (UTM). The readings were taken using a digital readout Nova D- 100 Ultrasonic Thickness Gage that has a dual element probe (transducer). The probe's transmitter element sends a short ultrasonic pulse to the material. The pulse, reflected as an echo from the opposite side of the plate, returns to the probe's receiver element. The round trip time is directly related to the material's thickness. 4.2.4 Coating Thickness Interior and exterior coatings, where accessible, were tested in accordance with Steel Structures Painting Council SSPC-PA2-82 "Measurement of Dry Film 'Thickness with Magnetic Gages," using PosiTector-6000-F1 Type 2 magnet flux gages with a fixed probe. 4.2.5 Coating Adhesion Adhesion testing of the coating to the steel was performed by ASTM D3359: Shear Adhesion Test, Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test. In addition, a subjective coating adhesion evaluation was performed using a penknife. 4.2.6 Coating Cure The cure of the interior wet coating was evaluated by ASTM D 5402-93 Standard Practice for Assessing the Solvent Resistance of Organic Coatings Using Solvent Rubs and/or with the manufacturer's recommended field method /industry standard procedures. 13 4.2.'7 Coating Serviceability The estimated remaining coating life or serviceability evaluation was performed using a wide variety of inspection instruments such as dry film thickness gauge, pen knife, Tooke gauge, adhesion tester(s), 30x microscope and serviceability evaluation experience (minimum experience 10 years). The instrument inspection was combined with a close visual inspection of all the interior coating's accessible areas. This was done to detect any holidays (misses}, skips, runs, sags, surface contaminants, overspray, dry spray, poor coating cohesion,. inter-coat delamination, loss of adhesion to the substrate, adverse conditions of the steel underneath the coating, or any other defects affecting the intended service. 4.2.8 Coating Lead and Chromium Content Analysis Samples were taken of the various types of coatings present on the interior and exterior surfaces. Corrosion Control Consultants and Labs of Kentwood, Michigan tested these coatings in conformance with ASTM D-3335 Standard Test Methods for Concentrations of Lead and Chromium in Paint. Copies of the Laboratory Analysis are included in Appendix D. 14 5.0 EnEineer's Cost Estimates The following cost estimate is based on a construction schedule of 7-8 weeks. This cost estimate does not include the costs for installing lettering and/or a logo. 5.1 Interior Structural Repairs 23 600.00 5.2 Interior Wet Coating Complete Replacement $60,000.00 Type of Coating -Epoxy System 5.3 Interior Dry Coating Complete Repair $22,500.00 Type of Coating -Epoxy System 5.4 Exterior Structural Repairs $9,250.00 5.5 Exterior Coating Complete Replacement * $102,000.00 Type of Coating - Epoxy/Llrethane System S.b Mobilization $10,000.00 5.7 Engineering Specifications and Inspection Fee $40,800.00 5.8 Estimated Total Cost $268.150.00 * Includes cost for containment. KLM ENGINEERING, INC. R preparepd and certified by: !C. . ack R. Kollmer Principal AssociatelPresident NACE Certified Coatings Inspector No. 691 Report certified by: p-'~-. att Erickson, PE roject Engineer License No. 42727 February 22, 2005 Date c:\jk~ny docutttents~reports~MN2194shorewood.doc ... I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo No. 1 Overall view of tank. Photo NO.2 View of tank roof, vent, drywell tube curb and manways. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo NO.9 Overlapped roof plates not welded on the interior. Photo No.1 0 Overlapped roof plates not welded on the interior. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo No. 13 Interior coating failures from welding of antenna apparatus on exterior. "'~ 1/ ----I I Photo No. 14 Interior coating failures from welding of antenna apparatus on exterior. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo No. 15 Interior wet coating failures. Photo No. 16 Interior wet coating failures. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo No. 17 Interior wet coating failures. Photo No. 18 Interior wet coating conditions. August 30, 2007 U. S. Mail Mr. Larry Brown P.E. City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8926 RE: Proposal to Prepare Specifications and Provide Inspection Services During the Reconditioning of a 400,000-Gallon Single Pedestal Spheroid in Shorewood, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal for specification preparation and inspection services during structural repairs, surface preparation and coatings application for the interior and exterior on the above referenced tank. Potential Benefits to the City of Shorewood • We propose to prepare a specification package specifically designed for water storage tank reconditioning. Our experience has shown that the more comprehensive the specification is, the more likely it is that the project is completed on time, on budget, and with quality workmanship. The KLM specifications will reduce the occurrence of contractor requests for change orders during reconditioning. Without complete infonllation, contractors can claim that unknown conditions are present that were not illciuded in the bidding specifications. • Today's protective coating systems are designed to last 15-20 years with only minor maintenance. Tight project specifications and frill-time inspections give the coating systems the opportunity to realize their intended service life. • Part time inspection by KL,M Certified Welding Inspectors during structural repairs and NACE Coating Inspectors during coating reconditioning assures that the work performed by the contractor is in conformance with the specifications, so that it can maximize its life expectancy. KLM's inspectors monitor workmanship during all phases of work and approve the contractor's work. Utilizing this process, maintenance costs will be reduced by reducing the number of reconditioning cycles over the life of the tank. Attachment #3 City of Shorewood, MN 2 • Our project administration and inspection services provide a buffer between the project specifications and the real world challenges that can negatively impact project performance. To initiate the project correctly, KLM project management assures that bids are advertised correctly, bidders are qualified, proposals are evaluated for conformance to contract documents, and that the low qualified bidder(s) is recommended. • Prior to and during the project, we will work with you to tailor a customized approach to project management that fits your requirements. For some clients, a "turnkey" approach is appropriate and we provide complete project management from start to finish. Other clients prefer to perform one or more of the project administration duties as this fits their system. We can derive a balanced approach to project management that suits you. City of Shorewood, MN Proposal Cost Summary 1. Design Services 2. Construction Management 3. Construction Observation Fixed Fee $2,000.00 Fixed $5,110.00 Fixed $30,905.00 Total Estimated KLM Cost $38,015.00 City of Shorewood Project Work Plan Upon execution of a contract for Engineering and Inspection Services, KLM Engineering, Inc. proposes the following schedule to perform the proposed work utilizing the listed project team. City of Shorewood order to proceed: 1. Preliminary Specifications Completed by October 13, 2007 2. Design Services Completed by October 20, 2007 3. Constniction Management Spring 2008 Constniction: Completed by June 20, 2008 Fa112008 Construction: Completed by October 20, 2008. 4. Inspection Services Spring 2008 Construction: Completed by June 20, 2008 Fall 2008 Construction: Completed by October 20, 2008. 3 City of Shorewood, MN Scope of Work: Project Specifications The project specifications will include: Section A Advertisements for Bids This section provides a detailed description of the project and meets the requirements for legal advertisements. Section B Instruction to Bidders This section provides precise instructions to bidders including the scope of work, insurance, payments, time of completion, bidder qualifications, taxes and permits, legal requirements, performance and payment bonds and other important project information. Section C Proposal This section contains the bid proposals; construction time frame alternate bid proposals, legal requirements, and the bidder and subcontractor qualification forms. Section D Project Requirements This section includes a complete description of the project, project schedule(s), execution of contract documents, notice to proceed, project meetings, quality assurance, liquidated damages, and legal and technical requirements for executing the scope of work. Section E Technical Specifications This section details the technical specifications for structural modifications, surface repairs, interior and exterior surface preparation, exterior abrasive blast containment, disposal of spent abrasives, dehumidification, lettering and logo, submittals, workmanship, unfavorable weather conditions, surface coating and material, repair work, health and sanitary facilities, clean up, ventilation and safety requirements, superintendent, inspection of work, sterilization of tank interiors, and containment plan. Section F Supplemental Conditions This section supplements or amends the General Conditions and/or other provisions of the Contract Documents. Section G General Conditions This section includes all the General Conditions designed for water tank reconditioning, such as authority of the Engineer, engineering inspection, modifications, additions and subtractions of scope of work, extensions of time, insurance and other appropriate items. City of Shorewood, MN Section H Contract Documents This section provides the form of agreement to be used between the Owner and Contractor. Section I Payment and Performance Bond As of July 31, 1994, Minnesota State Law requires separate bonds for payment and performance. Section J Inspection Report This section includes enclosure of past inspection reports with copies of color photographs. This provides the bidders with a clear perspective of the interior conditions of the tank(s) and the scope of work involved. Section K Drawings This section includes drawings, which define structural repairs or modifications and welding definitions. Section L Surface Preparation Requirements This section references excerpts from NACE Standard RP0178-91 Recommended Practice Fabrication Details, Surface Finish Requirements, and Proper Design Considerations for Tanks and Vessels to be Lined for Immersion Service for defining welding and grinding requirements of the structural repair or modifications. Section M Existing Paint Test Results This section contains paint chip test results for lead and chromium used to calculate the risk factor and classification of containment required for conformance with Federal and State Enviromnental Regulations. Section N Lettering and Logo (optional) If required, this section includes drawings of any required lettering and logo. Section O Additional Owner Specification Requirements (optional) This section is available for additional Owner Specification requirements. City of Shorewood, MN Design KLM will also perform at a minimum, the following related specification services: 1. Meet with the city to review plans and specifications. 2. Produce seven (7) copies of the specifications for the city and bidders. 3. Advertise the project in appropriate Construction Bulletin. 4. Issue the specifications to prospective bidders. 5. Respond in writing to bidder questions, which require fornlal clarifications. 6. Issue addenda to the specifications as required to the Owner and plan holders. 7. Attendance at bid opening and tabulate results at the Owners facility. 8. Evaluate the contractors bid proposals for conformance to specifications. 9. Recommend in writing to the Owner the low, qualified bidder(s). 10. Prepare Notice of Award and contract Agreement and forward to Contractor. Specification and Related Services KLM proposes to provide the project specifications and to perfornl related services listed above, in conformance with the enclosed Tenns and Conditions for a Fixed Fee of $2,000.00. This fee includes two (2) copies of the specifications for the Owner; all listed related services, and the attendance of a qualified project manager at the bid opening in the City of Shorewood, MN. This phase of the project will be billed upon subnuttal of the preliminary specifications. Additional meetings at the request of the owner or antenna lease are not part of this agreement. KI,M reserves the right to submit for additional fees for any antenna administration. These fees are back chargeable to the antenna leasee. KLM reserves the right to negotiate this contract depending on the low bid accepted by the owner. City of Shorewood, MN Construction Services Construction Observation The inspector assigned to this project will be a NACE Trained Coating hlspector and/or AWS Certified Welding Inspector. All of our inspectors have extensive practical experience and knowledge of water storage tank reconditioning. They are experienced sandblasters, painters, climbers, riggers, coating inspectors, welders and welding inspectors which allows the inspector to perform inspections alongside the contractor to ensure conformance to the project specification. At a minimum, the field inspections will include the following: • A preconstntction meeting with the client and contractor to clearly define the role of the Engineer and Inspector and to discuss the intent of the specifications. • Monitoring and approval of the structural repairs and modifications for conformance to the specifications. • Inspection of the abrasive blasting media and equipment for conformance to the specifications and to prevent contamination of surfaces during surface preparation with moisture and oil or other contaminants. • Monitoring the paint removal and abatement process for conforn~ance to the specifications and envirommental regulations. • Monitoring the contractors mixing and application of the coatings for conformance to the specifications and the coating manufacturer's recommendations. • Approving surface preparation samples. • Recording the contractor's progress for adherence to the construction schedule. • Submittal of daily and weekly inspection reports. Prepare and file copies of the reports on construction activities. • Review progress payments. • Coordil~ate and review testing of materials for confornance to the specification and environmental regulations. • Worked directly with residents and property owners to answer questions and respond to Construction related issues. • Monitor punch list items and subsequent corrective action by the contractor. • Final inspection, substantial completion, and project acceptance. The duration of the field inspection depends upon the construction schedule alternate selected during the bid evaluation process and on the time it takes the contractor to perform the structural repairs and coating work. City of Shorewood, MN 8 Construction Administration The project manager and project supervisor work together on managing the project. The project supervisor does the review of the submittals from the contractor. The supervisor communicates with the inspector on a daily basis. The supervisor will enforce the project specifications as necessary. The supervisor is the main contact between the contractor representative and the owner. The manager does the final review of the submittals and pay requests. Construction management will include: • Send notices for, attend and facilitate preconstruction conference • Periodically perform on-site review of project's work status and report to the city • Coordinate progress meetings as necessary • Review meeting minutes • Scheduling of inspections • Prepare monthly payment request forms • Processing change orders • Project close out administration • Establishes wan-anty date • Review of inspectors daily documentation on a weekly basis • Review of the contractors submittals: 1. Drawing reviews 2. Welder Certifications 3. Welder Qualifications 4. Welding Procedures 5. Coating Materials Submittal 6. Containment Plan 7. TLCP Sampling Plan 8. Spent material collection and disposal 9. Lettering and logo City of Shorewood, MN 9 Construction Service Administration and Inspection Fees Based on the project duration of seven (7) weeks, a 2008 construction and coating schedule, KLM's current Fee Schedule and Terms and Conditions, and an anticipated - hour work week, our field inspection services will be charged on a time and material basis with an estimated average of $5,0'70.00 per week. Total construction management and inspection fees for the project are estimated at $35,495.00. Fees are subject to change if proposed work exceeds 12 months from this bid proposal. This cost estimate includes the attendance of a qualified and assigned Inspector at the preconstruction conference in Shorewood, MN. Additional meetings at the request of the owner or antenna lease are not part of this agreement. KLM reserves the right to submit for additional fees for any antenna administration. These fees are back chargeable to the antenna leasee. City of Shorewood, MN Proiect Team • KLM Engineering, Inc. Team Members • Engineer/Specification Writer: Matt Erickson P.E. • Inspection Report and Specification Writer: Jack R. Kollmer • Marketing Manager: Shawn A. Mulhern • Project Field Supervisor: Kelly C. Mulhern • Field Inspectors: Rodney J. Ellis Matt Boettcher Scott Kriese Cal Lopez David Montgomery Lee Clark Brian Hare Terms and Conditions 10 The attached Terms and Conditions are part of the agreement between KLM and the City of Shorewood, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties. The Fee Schedule used by KLM while our personnel are working on the project is the current Fee Schedule and will not be changed during the project duration. Services performed by KLM Engineering, 111c. for this project will be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. References KLM would encourage the City of Shorewood of to call any or all of the references provided. City of Shorewood, MN 11 Time Frame This proposal is valid for sixty (60) days from this date of August 30, 2007. If the City of Shorewood finds this proposal acceptable, please sign and return. We can begin work immediately once a contract has been executed. Preliminary specification should be ready for submittal to the Owner in two (2) to three (3) weeks after the receipt of a signed contract. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please call me at 651-773-5111 or fax this proposal back at 651-773-5222. This agreement, between the City of Shorewood and KLM Engineering, Inc. of Lake Ehno, Minnesota is accepted by: (Name) (Title) (Date) City of Shorewood, Minnesota. KLM Engineering, Inc. (Name) (Title) Lake Elmo, Minnesota (Date) We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, KLM Engineering, Inc. Shawn A. Mulhern Marketing Manager Enclosure: KLM Statement of Qualifications SAM C: Win My Doc. Proposa12007 City of Shorewood, MN CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2007 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M, ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Meyer, and Ruoff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Councilmember Wellens Absent: Commissioner Hutchins APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20 November 2007 Gagne moved, Gniftke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 20 November 2007 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION) Applicant: Linda Beutel-Ilstrup Location: 5865/5875 Division Street Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a December 10, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that Linda Beutel-Ilstl-up was the owner of two properties which were located at 5865 and 5875 Division Street. She and her husband Tom proposed to rearrange the lot line between the two lots; the intent was to enlarge the lot that their house was located on sits on and establish the applicants' ownership of the driveway that served the two lots. The driveway also served the home to the north at 5845 Division Street. The properties were zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contained a total of 99,394 square feet of area (2.28 acres). Nielsen explained the properties in question were located at the end of Division Street, a substandard (33 feet wide) public street with no turn-around. The existing westerly lot had only 33 feet of frontage on the street, while the easterly lot was landlocked. According to Hennepin County tax records, the westerly parcel currently contained 58,792 square feet of area and the easterly parcel contained 40,602 square feet of area. Both parcels had existing houses on them. Although not shown on the survey, the applicants indicated that the rearranged westerly parcel would have 33,641 square feet of area, leaving the easterly parcel with 65,753 square feet of area. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the R-1C zoning district required lots to be at least 20,000 square feet in area and 100 feet wide at the building line. Although both lots exceed the area requirement, neither of them complied with the width requirement. This was due in part to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 2 of 6 gerrymandered configuration of the proposed lot line, but more because of the lack of frontage that already existed, The easterly parcel (A) had been extended over to front on the dead-end of Division Street. The proposed westerly lot (B) would have its northwesterly corner touch the southwesterly corner of the street. Nielsen then explained that one of the problems with strange lot configurations was how to establish building setbacks. If the lot width variance and minor subdivision were approved it should include a drawing illustrating what building setbacks would be imposed on the lots. For example the front yard setback for Parcel B should be a line parallel with its northerly border, 35 feet back, The southerly lot line was the rear of the lot, and the east and west lot lines were sides. Staff strongly recommended that the northerly lot line of this lot be straightened to form a simple trapezoid. The front setback for Parcel A should be measured from a line drawn parallel with the rear lot line, where the lot achieves 100 feet in width. Its southeasterly lot line was the rear, with the remaining lot lines being sides. Nielsen reviewed a drawing illustrating these recommendations. Nielsen noted that the applicants' surveyor mentioned existing driveway easements, but had chosen not to show them on the survey. The survey should be revised to show these easements, as well as a new driveway easement over Parcel A in favor of Parcel B (the reverse of what existed today). The applicants' surveyor should provide legal descriptions for the new easement; the legal description should be incorporated into a driveway easement and maintenance agreement that would be recorded with the subdivision combination. That type of agreement was required by City policy for the very reasons the applicants wished to control the driveway area. Nielsen stated that ordinarily the strange configurations proposed in the application would not be recommended. In this case, the applicants' motives were understandable and the result was no worse than what existed there today, with one of the lots being landlocked. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision and lot width variance subject to the following: The survey should be revised to show all existing easements and proposed lot areas. 2. The northerly lot line of Parcel B should be straightened. The applicants' surveyor should prepare a legal description for a new driveway easement on Parcel A, in favor of Parcel B. 4. The applicants' attorney should prepare a driveway easement and maintenance agreement suitable for recording. The applicants' surveyor should provide legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements (10 feet around each of the lots). From these descriptions the applicants' attorney should prepare easement deeds to the City. The drawing illustrating setbacks for the lots should be incorporated into the resolution approving the subdivision/combination. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion or title commitment for review by the City Attorney. Since there is no new buildable lot being created, park dedication and local sanitary sewer access fees are not required. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 3 of 6 9. The applicants must submit the above-referenced items within 30 days, after which they will have 30 days to record the resolution with Hennepin County or the approval is void. Director Nielsen stated Linda Beutel-Ilstrup and her husband were present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have, Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Geng, Director Nielsen stated there were no hardcover issues as the lots were very large in area and the R-1/A/S zoning district had a 33 percent hardcover requirement. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained there was a common driveway that served two lots and the City required the applicant to submit a driveway easement and maintenance agreement. The City's rationale for that was there often was disagreement among the owners about the maintenance of the driveway if it maintenance responsibilities were not clarified in advance. In response to another question, Nielsen explained that the new lot was similar to a modified "flag" lot and the City didn't generally approve flag lots; therefore, this was a unique situation. Meyer moved, Geng seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision and lot width variance for Linda Beutel-Ilstrup, 5865 and 5875 Division Street, subject to Staff recommendations. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT Applicant: Boulder Bridge Homeowner's Association Location: Outlot C -Boulder Bridge Trail Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Director Nielsen explained Boulder Bridge Fann was a residential development of 46 homes which was located on the west end of Shorewood (north of Smithtown Road and west of Howard's Point Road). It was platted and developed in the late 1970's and early 1980's as a residential planned unit development (P.U.D.). The zoning parameters established for this P.U.D. were the same as the current R-lA/S, Single- Family Residential zoning district. Lots were required to be 40,000 square feet in area, with setbacks of 50 feet front, 10 feet side, 50 feet rear and 50 feet on side yards abutting streets. Boulder Bridge Farm included common areas including a multiple dock arrangement, beach area, tennis courts and a stable for the use of residents within the P.U.D. It also included a perimeter trail system around the easterly half of the development. Nielsen stated Pat Egan, a resident of Boulder Bridge, encountered problems with a proposed back yard pool and patio project, when he discovered that the rear yard setback for his lot had to be 50 feet. Nielsen noted that Mr. Egan's house, similar to others in Boulder Bridge Farm, was set back further from the street than required to create a more spacious front yard. Mr. Egan discussed his options with Staff, including the possibility of variance or amendment to the Zoning Code. Staff ruled out a variance for lack of any hardship. Consequently, Mr. Egan convinced the Boulder Bridge Homeowner's Association to apply for a text amendment reducing the rear yard setback requirement for certain lots within the P.U.D. Nielsen reviewed a site location map showing the affected lots. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 4 of 6 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the lots affected by the proposed amendment were located at the perimeter of the easterly half of the subdivision and they abutted the common trail system. The trail system was a minimum of 30 feet wide on its south and east legs and 40 feet wide on the north leg. The proposed amendment would reduce the required setback for the affected lots from 50 feet to 30 feet. He noted that the Zoning Code required that setbacks at the perimeter of P.U.D. must be the same as the underlying zoning district - in this case, the R-lA/S district required 50 feet. The proposed amendment, if approved, would still provide rear yard setbacks from the boundaries of the project of 60 feet on the south and east sides of the project and 70 feet along the north boundary; that would amount to setbacks 10-20 feet greater than lots surrounding Boulder Bridge Farm. Staff recommended the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare a resolution amending the rear yard setback requirement for the subject lots in Boulder Bridge Farm, as requested by the Boulder Bridge Homeowner's Association. Director Nielsen stated Pat Egan (a Boulder Bridge Farm home owner) and Tom Wartman (representing the Boulder Bridge Fann Board of Directors) were present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. Steve Johnson 5845 Howards Point Road, stated his house was directly across from Boulder Ridge Farnl. He then stated it was his understanding the request for an amendment to the rear-year setback requirement for Boulder Bridge Farm was to allow for backyard patios and pools for certain lots. He stated one of the homeowners in the P.U.D. had recently installed a pool and he could hear noise from the filtration system and people using the pool all of the time. He expressed concern about the noise level that there would be if all ten subject lots were to install pools or patios. He asked if the pool filtration systems could be placed on the west side of the lots as opposed to the rear of the lots. His concern was about noise pollution. Mr. Wartman explained that the three lots in the P.U.D. abutting Howards Point Road were fully developed. He also explained that a large pond prohibited any further development of another property. He stated the opportunity existed for the subject lots along Smithtown Road to install pools or patios. With regard to Mr. Egan's property where a spa had been installed, the equipment was enclosed. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated the City's ordinance did not allow filtration equipment on the side of lots because it would be too close to houses. He then stated the City had nuisance laws. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated there was no hardcover issue. The larger portion of Boulder Bridge Farm was in the Shoreline District which had a 25 percent hardcover requirement, and the outlots had a 33 percent hardcover requirement. Gnifflce moved, Gagne seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution amending the rear yard setback requirement for the subject lots in Boulder Bridge Farm P.U.D. as requested by the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 5 of 6 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicants: Michael McCarthy Location: 5770 Ridge Road Director Nielsen explained Mike McCarthy proposed to subdivide his property at 5770 Ridge Road into two lots. The subject property was zoned R-lA/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contained 6.94 acres of land. The parcel property was approximately 298 feet wide from its northerly boundary to its southerly lot line. It was occupied by asingle-family dwelling with an attached garage on the west side of Ridge Road, which was a private street. The land was located between Christmas Lake and Silver Lake, it was relatively wooded and it dropped rather dramatically (with slopes as steep as 30-40 percent toward Silver Lake and as much as 50 percent toward Christmas Lake). The proposed westerly lot with the existing house on it would contain 110,768 square feet of area (2.54 acres), while the easterly lot would have 191,855 square feet (4.4 acres). The applicant had not provided hardcover calculations for the lot with the house on it, however, given the size of the lot, hardcover was not considered to be an issue. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained that although both of the proposed lots met or exceeded the R-lA/S size requirements, the applicant was asked to demonstrate how the new lot would be buildable. Two issues were raised in the initial review of the proposed division: 1) the driveway grade; and 2) the bluff impact. The applicant's survey showed slopes as steep as 30-40 percent on the Silver Lake side of the property, but they were near the lake and adjacent to the southerly lot line. Existing grades where the proposed building pad was shown were approximately 23 percent. Due to the width of the property, a driveway could be constructed within the City's eight percent maximum grade requirement. The bluff line for the site appeared to be at the 950 elevation, well east of the proposed building pad. Nielsen then explained that the applicant's survey included a tree inventory for the area that would be disturbed in construction of a new house on the easterly lot. Even though several large deciduous trees would likely be removed for construction, the lot was substantially wooded and site alteration was minimized by the applicant being able to take advantage of the average setback provision in the City Code. Based on the location of the houses to the north and south of the proposed lot, the front setback requirement was 37.5 feet instead of 65 feet (measured 15 feet from edge of private road and 50 feet from there). A detailed tree preservation and reforestation plan would be required as part of any building permit for the new lot. Nielsen stated the applicant's survey showed a sanitary sewer elevation at 999.0 feet. Unless there was access to a sewer line on the downhill side of the lot, the new house would likely require a lift pump to reach the existing sewer on Ridge Road. Nielsen then stated Staff recommended the proposed division be approved, subject to the following; The applicant's surveyor must provide legal descriptions for ten-foot wide drainage and utility easements around each lot. Legal descriptions for the easements must be incorporated into deeds, prepared by the applicant's attorney. 2. Future construction on the new lot should be conditioned upon the grading of the lot not to exceed 3:1 disturbed slopes. Prior to release of the resolution approving the division, the applicant must pay park dedication ($2000) and local sanitary sewer access charges ($1200) for the new lot. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 6 of 6 4. The applicant should provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion on the property for review by the City Attorney. Director Nielsen stated Mr. McCarthy was present this evening to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Meyer moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision for Mike McCarthy, 5770 Ridge Road, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 6.0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the next Planning Commission study session was scheduled for January 15, 2008. 6. REPORTS Councilmember Wellens reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 26, 2007, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other None. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gnifflce moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 4 December 2007 at 7:35 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CI'T'Y OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 November 2007 RE: Beutel-Ilstrup, Linda -Minor Subdivision and Lot Width Variance FILE NO.: 405 (07.19) BACKGROUND Linda Beutel-Ilstrup is the owner of two properties, located at 5865 and 5875 Division Street (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). She and her husband propose to rearrange the lot line between the two lots, as shown on Exhibit B. Their intent is to enlarge the lot that their home sits on and establish ownership of the driveway that selves the two lots. Their request is explained in their request letter, dated 31 October 2007 (Exhibit C). The properties are zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contain a total of 99,394 square feet of area (2.28 ac.). According to Hetmepin County tax records, the westerly parcel currently contains 58,792 square feet of area and the easterly parcel contains 40,602 square feet. Both parcels have existing homes on them. As indicated in their request letter, the applicants wish to control the area on which the driveway serving both lots is located. It should be noted that the driveway also serves the home to the north at 5845 Division Street. Although not shown on the survey, the applicants indicate that the rearranged westerly parcel will have 33,641 square feet, leaving the easterly parcel with 65,753 square feet. The properties in question are located at the end of Division Street, a substandard (33 feet wide) public street with no turn-around. The existing westerly lot has only 33 feet of frontage on the street, while the easterly lot is landlocked. i~«~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _~~ ~% .~ Memorandum Re: Beutel-Ilstrup Minor Subdivision/Variance 29 November 2007 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The R-1C zoning district requires lots to be at least 20,000 square feet in area and 100 feet wide at the building line. Although both lots exceed the area requirement, neither of them comply with the width requirement. This is due in part to the gerrymandered configuration of the proposed lot line, but more because of the lack of frontage that already exists. The easterly parcel (A) has been extended over to front on the dead-end of Division Street. The proposed westerly lot (B) will have its northwesterly corner touch the southwesterly comer of the street. One of the problems with strange lot configurations is how to establish building setbacks. If the lot width variance and minor subdivision is to be approved it should include a drawing illustrating what building setbacks will be imposed on the lots. For example the front yard setback for Parcel B should be a line parallel with its northerly border, 35 feet back. The southerly lot line is the rear of the lot, and the east and west lot lines are sides. It is strongly recommended that the northerly lot line of this lot be straightened to form a simple trapezoid. The front setback for Parcel A should be measured from a line drawn parallel with the rear lot line, where the lot achieves 100 feet in width. Its southeasterly lot line is the rear, with the remaining lot lines being sides. These recommendations will be illustrated in a drawing presented at the public hearing. It should be noted that the applicants surveyor mentions existing driveway easements, but has chosen not to show them on the survey. The survey should be revised to show these easements, as well as a new driveway easement over Parcel A in favor of Parcel B. This is the reverse of what exists today. The applicants' surveyor should provide legal descriptions for the new easement. That legal description should be incorporated into a driveway easement and maintenance agreement that will be recorded with the subdivision/combination. This type of agreement is required by City policy for the very reasons the applicants wish to control the driveway area. Ordinarily, the strange configurations proposed in this application would not be recommended. In this case, the applicants' motives are understandable and the result is no worse than what exists there today, with one of the lots being landlocked. Approval of the minor subdivision and lot width. variance is recommended, subject to the following: The survey should be revised to show all existing easements and proposed lot areas. 2. The northerly lot line of Parcel B should be straightened. 3. The applicants' surveyor should prepare a legal description for a new driveway easement on Parcel A, in favor of Parcel B. 4. The applicants' attorney should prepare a driveway easement and maintenance agreement suitable for recording. -2- Memorandum Re: Beutel-Ilstrup Minor Subdivision/Variance 29 November 2007 5. The applicant's surveyor should provide legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements (10 feet around each of the lots). From these descriptions the applicant's attorney should prepare easement deeds to the City. 6. The drawing illustrating setbacks for the lots should be incorporated into the resolution approving the subdivision/combination. 7. The applicant mustprovide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion or title commitment for review by the City Attorney. Since there is no new buildable lot being created, park dedication and local sanitary sewer access fees are not required. 9. The applicants must submit the above-referenced items within 30 days, after which they will have 30 days to record the resolution with Hennepin County or the approval is void. Cc: Craig Dawson James Landini Larry Brown Tim Keane Linda Beutel-Ilstrltp -3- f!1 oLL o (6 j ~~ C6 J U z o 0 0 N '~ d N Q. J ~ s 5~ ~ ~~y -~ ~ I A \. -~ //~~ i ~ji ~ ~ ~ :,_ w ~ ~ _ Y < f U ~ ~/ ~ ^~ ~i "~ '~ ~xy Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Beutel-Ilstrup Minor Subdivision/Variance j u• s,~ 9 ~ ~ a~ ~Q O ~ ~~~^,^~~ ~Q V ~l ~~ (try-, 0 tie-' a O oa °G V ~.J 'V-' ^ 0 pG' N 90'00'00' W 550.59'M 550.50 rGARAGE/ li~i;,~/ ~ PIE r..oP,PIEP•. LnT I12 ~ OVERHE4~CINE "~ ~-.,, ~ J - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s Y l ~ '00'00" W 250.24M "r ~ ~ ~,~ i 00' `~.90'00'0~," W 300,35'MD ~ L~~ ~a 7TTIr~5 ~ \~~ 250.15Kelly's measure e~; A~ i ~~ ~~ ~~~~ G~f / 1 ~ _~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~// ~ __ .r_- ( ~I °~i ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~~, m ,RA`"SE 0 2 / PREPARED FOR Linda Beutel & Tom ilstrup 5875 & 5865 Division Street Shorewood, MN f \ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ W~ereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or j ( \~ ~~ ~ ~ `--'~ under my 'rect supervison. I am a duly registered land ~ \ i i~~ ~~ ~~ ~\ surveyor u der ih a s of the State of Minnesota. ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~~,,~~ ~ \ ~\~yy6• ~•-'~-October 26, 2007 1 1 ~ Fr k R. Cardarelle, L.S. ,~ ,~ ~ \~ ~~ ~`b Registration No. 6508 f ,,,p i ~,~ ~ m ~ ( 1 ~ ~ V Drawing revised on i ti, , I a PR ~ ~ b ~ v~$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I. I ~~i'~ 1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~s ~\~ A to ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~(. ti~ ~,~ i 1' i ~~.~ f ~ \ { ~ ~ /~.~1I+"/ ~ t~0` ~ t-AND PARCEL A SURVEYED .L ~ ~ i i ~ ~ Q ~ v r 1If ~ a( , That part of LOt 112, AUdilofs SuhdiNSion NO 120, desaihed as'ollows: Beginning at the ~mMeasl comerot saidlot 112; Nence soulhwesteM along Ne ~ i ' P R ~ ~ ~~ ~ /~ ~rr~lsg -~ i ~ sONheastetly line Nereof32fi.157eeL NencedeAeding dgh190 degmes adislanc¢of RO feel; Nence nodhedy toe poirrton Ne nadhline asaid lot 112 p g g g away purposes over He noM20 N `1 I I ~ ~ lp) ~ C\ ~ / ~ i S' distant 900.35 feel west at Ne naMeest Cromer Nereah Nence east to Ne olnf albe innin ;mGudh encasement br tldv N (' i (~ ~ I 4+ / \SHEC~~ /r y„1 ~~ ~ Ieet of allNal pad of LOls 111 antl 112, Audifofs SG?tlivislon NO.120, lying weslerry of Neehove described property ant easterly ofa line tlesrnbed as // ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 W \ / ---'~~~~ ~e+lj 1` ~ 10 follows: eegmningatanlmn monumenton NesOUlheastedy Ole of saldlol112 distant 131.5feelnodheastedy along saitl line ham Ne sOmheasteMc~er !+ O(1( ~ } ~ I ~ V/~ io ~i O ofsaid lot172;Ihence noMwesledy 5221eet to animnmormment on Ne nodhline ofsaidlo1177, tli51ant 550.5 feel west fmm Ne nodheast wmerofsaid \~ (, ( , (1 ~ ~ p J / ~ ~ ~ ~ - lot 112, anA Nere ending. (~l~' i ~~ ` N (I ~ (' K 1 = /~j/ 1 800. Sa,OR ~rv.~ The shove land parcel desuiption is infertetl from Ne platofsurvey for George Hams, September 11, 1959prepretl by G. Coffin, mgelherwiN nrvixw oflhe ~ (I ~\/\`\ / -r, ,,,ppp~ County surveyofsseGien map information. Easements, if arty, aHecdng Ne Und parcel surveyed by usage, of public recoN,oroOterrnseindiceled on any ~1j ~ ~~~ _, ~ ~6 ~~r y~ S~ pletormapwerenolreviewedendareomifted unlessoihervriseindlwied. .../ 0 (- 1` 1 \ ~ / " v,/~JO / 000 ,\ry O `~~, 4 \ ,~~~ $0 / 1~ / ~ ®~ ~ `~ 0~1 PROPOSED LAND PARCEL NEW-A \ I \ ~ \ Those pads olLals 111 and /12,Auddofs "aubdivisian NO.120, tlescdbed knows: Segmmng atthe noMeaslwmerotsaitl lottt$Ihence s0u0w+esfedy \ J ' t ~ PP ~ / / ~ w ~ alonglhe soulheasledyline Hereof, assumedheadngaf N40'10'23'E,adistanceof326.15 feetloanimn rnonumenk Nence delleang dgM90 degrease \ IP to (I , ~gyE1 i/i \~ ' ~ ~% Q tl'rsdanceotBOfeel to an iron monumenk NenceS74'2fiS8'W adislanceofR2.971eet; Hence N10 '1256"W adistanceof159.31teer Nence N41' Ur i ~,R~ % ~ ~ ~. N ° ``~o~E~~1 1 AcE~ ~., ~ A ` , GAR ~ ~ti ~ ' / ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~/~ r ( ~O i `V A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~~~?a J fJ \ \ p'~`'p, ~OKKr~,`~~ \\\ \~/~~~ ~~'.., / ~' WELL ~ \ \ `\!\1 e P" ~ \\ `~ ~ - ,l t. ~ ' i"' r~ ~ j / 6~OTES }:i i f ' / f ~?' ~ ~ ®Surveyor's iron monument found in ground rp i t, i i t, ,_ Surveyor's iron monument PROPOSED to be / ` ~ set in ground and marked LS 6548 m i F1'a11{C Re ~aPdaCel~e ~ ~ j i Bearings are on an assumed basis. Elevations are Land Surveyor®'d1Co ' ~ on assumed6asis. Precordplatmea5ure; fd / surveyed measure direct or indirect; 6440 F-ying Claud ®rive ! D description value; PP utility pole; MFf-SAM / 1 (sanitary manholej; TEL -telephone hox Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 952-941-3031 fax 952-941-3030 ' (~ 3094' W a distance of 30.42 feel; Nence N 71 '3926" W a distance ot54.e9 feel; Nence N 77 '11'15' W a distance of 10t.031eet Vo an Iron monumenton He naNllNe ofsaid lot 111, tlistan15505 feel west fmm Nenatlheasl comerofsaid lot 112; Nencz N90 'OODO"EalOng the aunt fines of said lUS 111 and 112, a distance at 250.24 feet to an hon mooumenp Nence AI4] '00'00' E along the natlh line otsaldlof 112, a tlislanre of 300.35 feel b the polntat heginning. I' ed 0{Ne. TOGETHER Wmladdveway easement werlhe naN 201eelofHat paean ofLOls 111 antl 112, AUdilofs Suhtlivision NO.120 ying east y following descAhed line: Beginning al an iron monument on He norN line ofseitllot 111 distant SSO.Sfeet wesledy hum Ne nodheast comer of sadly 112, aswme saitlnoM line bean PI g0 'OOVO^N; Nence S 12'2Pd1' E adistance of 570.16 feet to a point on Ne saNheasfedy line of said lo! 112, said pant Q Ties N40'1023'E atlistanceof131.50 feetlmm Nesoutheasf rAmera said lot112, and said tlesmbetlline tertninales atsatl paint LAND PARCEL B SURVEYED Thal pad of Lols 111 and 112, Aud@ofs Subtlldsi0n PIO.120, described as [allows: Commencing at the nonheasl comer of said lot 7 t 2; Nence souNwesletly along the southeasfetly lino Nemof 320.15 feel; Ihence defleGing rlgh190 tlegrees a distance of AO fee! lo'he point of 6eg(nning N'he property n be tlescntetl: thence norUedy N a point on Ne nadh line of widla 112 distant 300.35 (eelwestof the nodheast comerlhereof; Nence •wesl along Ne north lines of of saitl lots 112 and 111fo en imn monumenton Ne nadh Ilne of said 101111, asianf 550,5 faetwest ham Ne noMeast comer of said 101112; Urence seufheastedy 265 feet on a line width ite#entledwould intarsect Ne souNeasledy line of saitl lot 112 a! an imn manUment 131.5leel rrortheasledy hum Ne seulheasferTy comer Hereof Ihence eodedy to Nepolnlof beginning, ezcepleasemenlsfordrlveway purposes over Ne aunt 20 feat antl Newestedy 20 feel Hereof. The above land parcel descrip'ion is inferted from Ne plat of <,urve1lm GeOye Hants, 6ep!emtrer 11,1959 pmpretl by G. ColSn, logedserenlh mvirx eflhe Caunly surveyofs section map inf0nnalion. Easements, it arty, affecting Ne land parcel surveyed tr7 usage, otpublic retaN, or otherwise Inacaletl ar any plat or map•were natirviewetl and are amldetl, unless olhervnse indlraled. PROPOSED LAND PARCEL NEW-B Those padsaf LoLS 111 end 112, AudiHr's Suhdivision No.720, desedbod kliows: Commencing al Ne rrorHeasl corner of said lot 112; 0ence soulhwestedy alonglhe seumeasledy line Hereof, assumetlbeadngof 4140 '1023'E,adisfanceof3Z6.l5 fret to an imn monument; ihenre dellerling right 90 degmesa distance of RO feel to an Iron mnnumeM; Hence S74'26'S0'Vl atlislarxeefR2.9T feetrolhe pant oEheginning of the land to he tlesdihed: 'hence P110 ' 12'5fi' W a tlislsnro of 169.31feC1; Nence N 41 '3090.' W a distance 013042 feel; Hence N 71 '3920" W a distance of 50..84 tech Hence 4177 '11'15"N a distance oF101.031cef ban ironmonumm~l On Ne noNtllne olsaitllotiti,tlis'an1550.Sleet west lmmlhe nOrNeast rnmerofsold lol112; lhenceS72 2741'E adlslance of 265.00 foelalong aline down fmm sob imn monumenton said aunt line Nsaid lot 1171oa polnl an Ne soulheaslerly lioe olsald 1o1112,saitlp0ini 9es dl40"i 021'E adlstanreof 131,50 helfmm thesoulhrastcomerofsaitllal7l'L; Hence 574 °265R'Nl adlslanceot147,80 feetlo the pcint of heginning, SU&iECT 70 driveway easements over the wrsledy 20;eel hemof and aver lhr. aunt 26feel of Natpodinn of L0Ls 111 antl Ii2, AUdilofs Subdivision N0.1201ying rashrry al Ne follovmrg deschued7me 9eginninq el an iron monumanton!he naM line of saitl loU i'l dlsknt 550.G frelvrestedy ham the nadheast earner of said la 112, assume said n¢nh h'ne hears f190 '00'OU' W; Ihenre S 12'20'41' E a distanrr, of 530.1 6 het to a paint on the soufhcasleny I rte of said lo! 112, said pent Pas N 40 '102:1' E a dislaoce of 131.50 het fmm the toulheaM etmerof saitl lot 112, and said descAhed fine lerminatas ofsaid pnNi. Exhibit B PROPOSED SUBDIVISI [ON C }CTOBER 31, 2007 TO:CITY OF SHOREWOOD FROM: LINDA Ii. BEUTEL-IT STIiUP TOM ILSTRUP RE: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT/ MINOR SUBDIVISION PROPERTY ID #'B: PIN #35-117-23-31-0014 FOR STREET ADDRESS 5875 DIVISION ST. / PID#H-35-117-23-31-0016 FOR STREET ADDRESS 5855 DIVISION ST. WE, TOM ILS'T RUP AND LINDA-BEUTEL-ILSTRUP, ARE REQUESTING A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: ® THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN THE SURVEY AS PROPOSED LAND PARCEL NEW A, CURRENTLY INCLUDES AN EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 150 + FEET WHICH ALLOWSACCEBS TO DIVISION STREET. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THIS EXISTING EASEMENT. ® THE LAND ADDED TO PROPERTY A INCLUDES AN AREA DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE EASEMENT, WHICH, BECAUSE OF FAULTY GRADING AND THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE EXISTING LOT B SLOPES DOWN TOWARD TI IE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY, I IAS CONTINUOSLY CREATED DRAINAGE ISSUES EVERY SPRING, AS WELL AS AFTER EVERY HARD RAIN. THE RESULT OF THE EXISTING LOT SLOPE IS TI-IE WASHING OUT AND DESTRUCTION OF NOT ONLY OUR DRIVEWAY, BUT HAS'THL POTENTIAL TO WASH INTO THE PROPERTY OWNERS L 5845 AND DO DAMAGE TO ALL THREE PROPERTIES. WE, AS THE LAND OWNERS OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION, WOULD HAVE T'HE POWER, RIGHT, AND REPONSIBILTY TO ADDRESS THIS CONTINUOUS PROBLEM. NOT HAVING OWNERSHIP HAS, IN I'HE P AST MEANT AND UPON THE SALE OF PROPOSED NEW POPERTY B WC)ULD MEAN TIIE LOSS OF CO:[>TTROL OF THIS PROBLEMATIC POIi'I"ION OF 'THESE LOTS. MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE FORMER OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY WAS PURE APATHY AND DISIN`T'EREST 1N ADDI?EBBING THE PROBEEM. THIS ATTITUDE THUS REQUIRED ME, LINDA, TO REPAIR THE PORTION OF MY I'IiOPERTY SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR AFTER T'IIE INEVITABLE DEBTRUC T ION, A 1 MY OWN GREAT EXPENSE AND PHYSICAL HARDSHIP. a THE AREA IN QUESTION REMAINS INTERMITTENTLY WET AND BOG I IKE, AND REQUIRES CONSTANT ATTENTION AND MAINTENANCE. SINCE THIS IS AN AREA OF EXPER`T'ISE OF MY HUSBAND AND I, BEING A SMALL DESIGN AND BUILD FIRM FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SURFACES, WE HAVE THE ABILITY, EXPERTISE, AND MOTIVATION TO ADDRESS THIS CHALLANGING ISSUE. ANEW OvVNER COULD, AS IN THE PAST, CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE PROBLEM SINCE I']:' DOES MINIMAL, DAMAGE ':CO THEIR PROPERTY. A CHANGE IN THE LOT LINE WOULD ELIMINATE ALL OF THESE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY BOTH THE LAND AS WELL AS THE LAND OWNERS. T'I IT3 PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WOULD ALSO GIVE US ACCESS TO A LARGE STORAGE SHED ON WHAT IS NOW PROPERTY B'S LOT. WE NEED THIS SHED FOR OUR LARGER WORK EQUIPMENT WHICH MUST BE STORI:;D ILA;=ID; FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. WE HAVE BIJIL'I', FOIZ'I"ICE POTENTIAL NEW ~;x.; ~~y B ~.. ~ T T ~E L°a OFSOSED LAND PARCEL NEW B AN OVERSIZED 'TWO-CAR _~ G,`~RAGE WTIICH CON'TAII'~]B ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE IN THE INTERIOR. `T'HERE IS ALSO SPACE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING GARAGE FOR A THIRD Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER STALL, IF NEEDED BY THE NEW OWNERS. ALLOWING THE LINE ADjUST1VIENT ALLOWS US THE STORAGE NEEDED FOR OUR BUSINESS EQUIPMENT,ON OUR OWN PROPERTY WHERE WE CAN ASSURE THE MAINTAINANCE AND SAFETY OF THIS EQUIPMENT. ® THE PROPOSED LAND PARCEL NEW B WOULD STILL EXCEED THE CITY'S ZONING REQUIREIvIENT OF AT LEAST .50 ACRES AT A NEW SIZE OF .77 ACRES OR 33,641 SQUARE FEET. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, ,~, `~~ ro '*° ~ r~ TOM AND LII\TDA ILSTRUP 5865 DIVISIONSTREET SHOREWOOD,IVIN 55331 952-401-1142 b12-221-2929 612-723-7230 %4,9 `~~\ . 966.9 x II 9634 ~'l((\ 1 _~ / % 963.1 i V %8.9 % GrP . , „~ +Y i 1. 7 ~. aN • • ~ x 9995 s~ 1 1~. Q~ ® 9~~ x ~ ,\ ,g 0 93~ ~ ', ',_ \ \ / X67.7 L5 ~ ~ ~ Ga, ' a 456.6 o ~ 965.4 ~~ ~ ~ 1~ \~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~° i- Bd ~\ aY'J ~r CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION OF REAL PROPERTY AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR LINDA BEUTEL- ILSTRUP WHEREAS, Linda Beutel-Ilstrup (Applicant) is the owner of certain real properties in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision and combination of said real properties into two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner in a memorandum, dated 29 November 2007, which report is on file at the Shorewood City Offices; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 4 December 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at the Shorewood City Offices; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 10 December 2007, at which time the Planner's recommendations and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicants complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject properties are located in an R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district, which requires lots to be 1.00 feet wide at the building line (35 feet back from the front of the lot). 2. The existing westerly parcel has only 33 feet of frontage on Division Street. The existing easterly parcel is landlocked and has no frontage on a public street. 3. The subject properties are accessed by a common driveway located along the north side of the two lots. 4. The property to the south of the westerly lot has a 20-foot driveway easement across over the westerly side of the property. -1- CONCLUSIONS a. The Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes. b. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council. hereby grants to the Applicant a lot width variance and a minor subdivision and combination to create the two parcels described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, subject to the following conditions: (1) The Applicant must record the drainage and utility easements described in Exhibits C and D contemporaneously with this resolution. (2) The Applicant must record the driveway easement and maintenance agreement described in Exhibit E contemporaneously with this resolution. (3) The required setbacks for the two newly described parcels are illustrated in Exhibit F, attached hereto and made a part hereof. c. The City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. d. The Applicant shall record this resolution, together with the drainage and utility easements described in Exhibits C and D and the Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement described in Exhibit E with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of November 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- Legal Description -Existing Parcel A (insert legal description) Legal Description -Existing Parcel B (insert legal. description) Exhibit A -3- Legal Description -Proposed Parcel A (insert legal desc) Legal Description -Proposed Parcel B (insert legal desc) Exhibit B -4- (Exhibit C -Insert Dr. & Ut. Esmt.) Exhibit C -5- (Exhibit D -Insert Dr. & Ut. Esmt.) Exhibit D -6- (Exhibit E -Insert Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement) Exhibit E -~- (Exhibit F -Insert Setback Illustration) Exhibit F -s- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 November 2007 RE: McCarthy, Mike -Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (07.21) BACKGROUND Mr. Mike McCarthy proposes to subdivide his property at 5770 Ridge Road (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached) into two lots as shown on Exhibit B. The subject site is zoned R-lA/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains 6.94 acres of land. The parcel is approximately 298 feet wide from its northerly boundary to its southerly lot line. It is occupied by asingle-family dwelling with an attached garage on the west side of Ridge Road, which is a private street. The land lies between Christmas Lake and Silver Lake, is relatively wooded and drops rather dramatically, with slopes as steep as 30-40 percent toward Silver Lake and as much as 50 percent toward Christmas Lake. The proposed westerly lot with the existing home on it would contain 110,768 square feet of area (2.54. ac.), while the easterly lot will have 191,855 square feet (4.4 ac). The applicant has not provided hardcover calculations for the lot with the house on it, however, given the size of the lot, hardcover is not considered to be an issue. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Although both of the proposed lots meet or exceed the R-lA/S size requirements, the applicant was asked to demonstrate that the new lot would be buildable. Two issues were raised in the initial review of the proposed division: 1) driveway grade; and 2) bluff impact. The applicant's survey shows slopes as steep as 30-40 percent on the Silver as ~. «O FFi~NTED oN RECYC~E6 PAPER ~4 m ~~` ~..~ Memorandum Re: McCarthy -Minor Subdivision 28 November 2007 side of the property, but these are near the lake and adjacent to the southerly lot line. Existing grades where the proposed building pad is shown are approximately 23 percent. Due to the width of the property, a driveway can be constructed within the City's eight percent ~naximurn grade requirement. The bluff line for this site appears to be at the 950 elevation, well east of the proposed building pad. The applicant's survey includes a tree inventory for the area that would be disturbed in constructing a new home on the easterly lot. Even though several large deciduous trees will likely be removed for construction, the lot is substantially wooded and site alteration is minimized by the applicant being able to take advantage of the average setback provision in the Shorewood Zoning Code. Based on the location of the homes to the north and south of the proposed lot, the front setback requirement is 37.5 feet instead of 65 feet (measured 15 feet from edge of private road and 50 feet from there). A detailed tree preservation and reforestation plan will be required as part of any building pernlit for the new lot. The applicant's survey shows a sanitary sewer elevation at 999.0 feet. Unless there is access to a sewer line on the downhill side of the lot, the new home will likely require a lift pump to reach the existing sewer on Ridge Road. It is recommended that the proposed division be approved, subject to the following: The applicant's surveyor must provide legal descriptions for ten-foot wide drainage and utility easements around each lot. Legal descriptions for the easements must be incorporated into deeds, prepared by the applicant's attorney. 2. Future construction on the new lot should be conditioned upon the grading of the lot not exceeding 3:1 disturbed slopes. 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the division, the applicant must pay park dedication ($2000) and local sanitary sewer access charges ($1200) for the new lot. 4. The applicant should provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion on the property for review by the City Attorney. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane James Landini Larry Brown Mike McCarthy -2- ~ o ~ P ¢ ~~A ~ -~ ~ E IH -~' '~ ~ ~ y0 Q Y O '~ -~J ~ a/1J ~i 3N1~ Q ~ r" '~ a~, e° i 6~ ~~ 02 asi ~ -A s ~o ~ ~ 3 d "J ~q" Ro ~~ ~ ~I O~ d ~K~ '~ tNP ~ ~ OLD '~ O Go~NGSON0. ~ '~ ~ ~ '~ I I V ~ -~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ Q -~ ~ O r ~ ~ ~ Q N .~ -~ o~ e ~ ^~ o li ~ O ~m N '.~ -. O '~ N N ® -~ \ ® ~ .L o ~CJ~ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION c arty inor ubdivision I 1 I m ~` 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J .~~ I 1 ~ r r- ~\ 989,3 1968,5 ~ { f \ ~ ~ r- I .~ I ._% I L_ _ V t.. .._4` I ~ I-~ 1 LJ \ NE ARALLLEL Ni1H THE ~, I 1 ~~ I 1 1' ~S l1NE OF WYT LOT 4 I I 42 000,4 Q I u 771.14 993.1 :..~ r r f I ( ~ry~// ~ry0 ~4~ M1tl' 9427 ^tl' ~ , (1. .~ N89 33 47 W ! 99r.i 1 rQ i r r I , I I . Qf^~- , q~ ~ 9se.," ry•; '' ~~,g."~'•' '' ~ s >,n 932.8 935 ' r I I 1 1 I i I I I 3t~7C~n ! r r r I ~ r r l ~.P ~~, ' ~' Q~'945.1 5 eo ti 8((~il1(l1111 !!I(11112(II (I I ~ Yalu Y' ~ 1 L_ ~, ~ I ~ f f I F 1 ~, \ $6 ,6' 941Z~ QA 437.2: u ~ 18 6. I I .~ ~ 1 ~~ ~'F5 JIAi ur~irrrrlirrrrrurful~lti irl.I I I ~ (~ I ~ ~ ~ ~, - ; 1~s2 : r- ~~~ .~"~ I I ~, .~~', (~°'~s's.~ ~ I I ~ ~~~t/2'~. 1 ,.. tar o : .~ 19~s,7 - $ ~ ~ 363.50 ~ '~ '99 5~r' ~sr .'"~ 4b ~.fi 27 x4`33. 2~ 974.0 li 8 69'7 Irll •..., ~ 9 68 I I ~ f~ / I~ ! r - ~ ~ ~ _ ~,.[ rt ''t3Z. 1'''-~ ~-+-^~ ~. w ` . 934.9 ~~ A-8• v // ~'ll 7 Ill. i~.d ~ ~ ' I ( ~ I I III I 44989 ~ I ~o ,p r d I I l~ 1 0 I t r I I l~ / 1. B . ~ 6ET8 CK IJNE / ~ y93 ~. ~., ~' X33.9 0 932.8 l~~ lY' 1, I ~~~~(~~~~11I r ~ I (I I ~ I ~ { o ~" 102Zyfi _ _ - I r f 1 19r5,~ , /~ Q SMH I/ l I"~'llr h ~?+ ~ 66 1 I ~ I I N - ~~ II'.~ I ~ I+bn ~ ! / ~ ~~r,~ , ~ , I/ r aao.97u ~- _9s2.1 NORTH oe dl l/o. 1, ,Ir ?r I l 1 1 1 I ~ (~ ,a25~ I/ 4 J I f l~ 1 l l yM~t+r 6 I/ ~, / s l' i >~i .~ -- & l/a r, +I ~J/~ Irr J' l!I (m g6 ~ I l I ~ 1 +. t I l °'`! ( I ~ ! i / , ; l , +a l ± ~..-. 932.6 + hl/~./? ~ rl rrl;?~I (~I1~lo°~~ I~~~1,~71~~._._. ,'' ~~~~. I ~ 2 r ~~~ Ir r I, 3 ~ ~/ ~/q~l+~; l/r 'l 1, :9'23,y_ _- __ -~ 50 ~ '~y~~}pp~ p ~ sa zs a ss 1~ 7'~ 1 rrr' r/~~ r' l I 1 ? ° 1 ~ P ~_ ~~515.9.+I,g~/ ~ r' ~ ~ ~~:~ ~ ,,~ ~ /I ~ 9.fi,i / ,'', i;y~ %' /l, / ~ ~ ~ 262 - ~ 1'1((~~~~~T (/ / l I I I I ~ ~~ r0~ '~ -"~. ,'I ,~' .tia5 ~~ ~ ~ + 6,~ ~/ ~ ! ~ I~ ~~s6,Af ,/ ~ //,~'j~`'~+ 9~6.d/' --_,,.-q~a~,:~%~~ ~'~ SCAT.EINFEET !ll ~f ~~~Id~~II69~,.1a~~ l° t6,6 -'~ I~~~~~ ~ 9 9 ! 1 ! lAI?~-~;, /~; " ~,~ ~-; ,,; ! ~i I I n 19d ' ~ ~ ( ~ L~ ~ f / ~.. _ / ;"sS7.s , I / t=l-~l i d9e P`~' / .'`~r`_ i, -.r . '.:F ~ r l ! If I q r' ~ rn--~--r-f~ ~( x ! /t rA '~. r I I ,I~(ti ~ J 18116.1 , r l ~l ~~'~~~ '6927.6'. llra~l~ II III ~~, I , ;V)) ~~ .1 `II 1 v 1 ~_r~w I ' ~''~ i ~ 1 ~ °A~ '~' - . ~Y l ~ ~ i , - /.: so~:~ !~ r9oz3 ~ u ~ rrr of ~ IIII II( B. 11 I i~ ~'~ i , ~.d _w., 8, ~ '//~me/il/r/ /! f~' / ~ - h's 1 1-17 & k~ I ~)Ir• l Ill ~I~' 71 I+ i t 3.a''~L---" .. / / + ! // a re99+s , / ~t~' l~i ~ (1 I ( / ~ ~ U .(' +W , d / / / / . ? ? ~/ , ~ ~~~i ; /~. ~~~~; 91s,2 ~ ~0~ wEr itte ~ ~~, ~ 932.7 I Ifi91~ r ~~ f ! ~ I ~ I f l 1 l? ' f ~,513;a-'' rota I~ ,/ _ ~ l / ' k' ' ~f/ / /~ + l 1. r , 9,~O~i' l ~ ~, l / l ~ q~ o~ , , ~`~' 3 1 ~~6°~ '~ l~l I {III, 91h 1 II / j _ -' i I ""' '".•.••'' / 7°'! %/ ' m'// l~+j 1 r ~ ( V l / ,+' / 94~ p~o-r: /(l ~2 „ II(lll 'I(~~ l ~ I I ~1 ?~ fvos~ / ~ ~"`-• , ~"~ ,i I/ /, ~ /+ / d !, /d '917. / ~~ iir~rais / S e 9 9,7 ~ p 't ~ ,/ , s 4 r,c°1v%/ i , / ~ ! ^, ~ m ~ + ° a9e.t 70 c Ili / m I VIII 1 9 ~ ~ /• !~~` ~ / f l ~ ~ ~,; °. m" k~ ~ I~I ~~~~~.''~~~~ ~~ `~pl ~I (/ llI ~ ' '~ `~v~~ omv~w Eo ~1 -°-r... ~ • ! // i ~ / l /!' '' sw.'S r (i r r .l (. / ~, , I' [~ _~~ 3 ~ ~I~~ j Illilr 6~ I 1 !!(/` r ~~ ~,„~~ %' ••' - 7m~sr ' / /'' /,' I/;~ . ,{// 1 . r r r ! ~,~~! I ~~/' A$ 0 11111111 Ill I I1 1w4.6 ~ q,g, ~ ,556.3 ~~.. / /' // f / i ' / l ~ / ;~,%~' / : ~ 1 ~ a ~ O' l I y~ /~ ~/ e'' .>e '~ Q' I t1 ~ (( IIIIIII~r I ( i I~ ~ a -~/ // / //'~/; /` ./ `;; ~, .Fj699.4 0 ;~,~ ~ ~ M~1((! I ) 1 ? r I (l I 1 J ,-'"'~ ~'r // ' / ~ / ' /' ~,~ / ; ~ !'h~gjr l+~!'i~~P~os ,o`r,N !`9327 rr! a ~ ((If I~ I ~~ CI ~ ~ ~,a13;6 ,1557. 1 _.z'•,+y~/ /, /P' ~ ~/ , , /';/ ,',%:~• ~• ~' -~ e m ~ ~ ~llll Il ~~ ll r l ~ I I ~ e ,. 1 foass /~ =yt ! / t / j~ / ~, , r /,', ; //~,' `i~ / / y~~~" ~. ,~°~ 3 ~ ,r r ~~~~ l~~~~lll~~j~ ~ L' J~ ~)~)L~~1 tmoJ ho6s.al a 6 ,` 9a' l ~ /i~/ ' ; / /s~ I r~/i ~,~ /! a% / /:' i ; / /.': ' ~/9a2.9 ~';%~ ~ oa'`"~' mod ~` o -~1 1 ~; ,( / ~. '659.6 u` r I ' ~ ~~ ®76 ~ 2~ ,111112.5 ~'@6~' t559.i ' ~a l , s I ~ ~` ;~ , ~ ~ a9s /.~;';%~' r.` ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~dm ~ ~l~l/~111/r//I~~lr!!( 1~1~/~ 1~.6~ t5fo.a ~ 4 t ~ 'ia ~ a/ ,r/. l ~ / /~/ /~w/ {/~/+,~' i~/~`!~/.'., , /;;,~yi-t ~QO b' f '~ m l ~ I(I~l Ill ~ IrJ ~~I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~aa7~-( ~6a~~ I / ~~ ;'i-"%/~~=,/'~;'~0~ rr / i + / ~ /./.',~~~6e~z. / X0''1 1~ 9 kin 1~~I I'I11~~~'dl ~ I I ~ __. ~"r ~ r' 1e/.'~~%'% '~; ~ /// ~ / / i l '/'/;~';i:. / 896.1 `etc, o •..111 i I . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I l .mo7s~ e ,~'~ ! ,'/ / / /,` '/ ~ ; d I, i ~ ~I%' ~ ~~ A eN 1 I J I ~ t' If ' Ir m~ i ~ ~ .1856.9 / j' , / f / ; ~' /~ ! !/ r9+tY,9%.':; ':'%.~'r ,.'' qCP ~.e Ah $ ~1 1 ll ~'dlt IIf It . t t ~ ~, I maze, '~',r// ; . /:55 6 / ~4a.~ A° , / rl,r~,;:..,.,;•/.: / / ~/ ~ `~ ya rrl~rlrrrrllmrr~(~lirllll; (t al 11 ~ ~ ~a53.~ ` , 6.1~ ^~r - .;/, / %~~:'/; /: / , (;~;';• /,',rrr/:. ! :'.'6'yy~' / ~ ~h u vze ( ~ ~ Ct~ OF 12 Ff.:~DRF4EWAY"AS PER BK 1043 ok 1 * ~ / / / , ~ ... ~ 'h9ET' 1-it ~»c 9• ~+o 'l ll( ~~~ ~I~ (I 9d4~ ~ I ~ ° I I DEEDS PC~44 gBK. 1281 `DEFD$ PC255k ry l ~, ~ r Ir / ~ .// ~ r :' ~/7 ,~I / i / l~ / ~9roQp°j ~(~`~" t~~l ~1 ~~f~ ~I~ p ~ I eK14sg•D~DS, Pc..~D ~ ~ l dr l `;". ~ ~o' ~ :1: ~ l ;~ ,I~ /• ~ / ~ / `ra96e o`~, ~~ l'1/ i + III ulf ~I 1 ~ I ~ I .' f55e.9 ~i556.5 ~ I6 ,i:'i " '~, ,'o/.,','%~,' ~r i.' ,' + d !l! 11/199.a ~~e~ P' I / 1)d l ydlf I Ilo IIII~~ as., I I I ~ i ht56., I~ / ~. ; qo, ' / ~ . ;'~/1// /!.' I; ~~9..~~1 ~l t_t5 ~ o o .~ I/ftrlrlrNr J/f II~ (IIII ~ I I I I ~ `. r .. / ,. `,./ ' % I I //~ /rl rl ri rrl p ~ 'I ,'r~ rIl'Ir'/l+, I)JI~ II~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~~~7,. 0 942 ~ % ; I / t~ I ~~~~?~~~1/I`~l!l~rl'lI?~I ~~98~.fi1 ~ ~ d~l ~( ~• /~'' / ~e r , / ~l',~~~q~:: ~/~J'/r/BW~JE9i.~_~ r I I i ~ ~ l I I I I,~,,AGi411NE / ~ ,~ l ,' ,~' ~/ ~ /I': ~': ~,U9!5~,655dd I 9x27 ~.~11 snit I ~ '1 11 1 ~ I I I I i ,t55z7. 1 I _.~j ": r ; /' /, : ,// !, ,~~r.i-~ `~~,~-~ .l llr rlIlr;l r 7/flllll 34~39y •,559 _ .r ~~I ~~-- ~a r ~ . % /~ +/ /4J~1, /,111'fli; l I I '!1 l I ~ I i j 1 ,565.1 9' f ,'` _ atV m 113b9 ~ , i. + ' 32? -~ /. ,, ,~. 4as.Aet _ 2~ / ' ~, fm/y ~ I ~ EDt/71P /, %Fp / P/:~, /,699.3 890,1 828.E ,nueor6~x.)Y,l.+lillll;l/71!;111111! 1~II~I11111I ~ I l I ;1i/r' '~~IIIIII'I1j1r'•. l /~'l;~~i pert i, I !'' li I !(; i'; /!,' 1 I ~ I I I I I ! f I IIII 1 I / r' , ! r+ / /ri; /~l/;`~~~%Fr95q~1 ,{~ A .%SE CORNER OF ? /Ir/)Y-l-1/?!fillllllf!I!li I 1 I ~ V I ~. (~ I /5~9~3'4'7°~ 12J~:41 /;'ll/;, i m" ~Sl1NE0FGGVTLOT4,SEC36 GOVERNF3ENTL0 ' ~, /~*, WEl',1'-6 898.2 • 012.W i .1~186.fi /'// / ! i ~ 1812.2 ~ ~, eo. ~91f/666.? ~ 898.0 NQTFS DESCRIPTION OF SUB7ECT PROPERTY Exhibit B PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR MIKE McCARTHY WHEREAS, Mike McCarthy (Applicant) is the owner of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Plamler in a memorandum, dated 28 November 2007, which report is on file at the Shorewood City Offices; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the P1amling Commission at its regular meeting on 4 December 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at the Shorewood City Offices; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 10 December 2007, at which time the Planner's recommendations and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicants complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property, legally described in Exhibit A, be divided into two parcels, legally described in Exhibit B, subject to the following conditions: a. The Applicant must record the drainage and utility easements described in Exhibits C and D contemporaneously with this resolution. b. Any construction on Parcel A shall not result in disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1. 2. The City Clerk shall fiirnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. -1- 3. The Applicant shall record this resohtion, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits C and D with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of December, 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- Leal Description - Existing Parcel That part of Government Lot 4, Section 36, Township 117, Range 23 West of the Sti' Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Government Lot 4 distant 828.8 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot; thence angle right 38 degrees 45 minutes a distance of 475.8 feet more or less, to a line parallel with and 297.85 feet North of the South line of said Lot; thence West and parallel with said South line to the shore of Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly on said shore line the intersection with the South line of said Lot 4; thence East along said South line to the point of beginning. Exhibit A -3- Leal Description -Proposed Parcel A (iilsez-t legal desc) Le~ai Description -Proposed Parcel B (insert legal desc) Exhibit B -4- (Exhibit C -Insert Dr. & Ut. Esmt.) Exhibit C -s- (Exhibit D -Insert Dr. & Ut. Esmt.) Exhibit D -6- CITE' ®F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 November 2007 RE: Boulder Bridge Farm P.U.D. -Amendment to Reduce Rear Yard. Setback for Certain Lots FILE NO. 405(07.20) BACKGROUND Boulder Bridge Fann, a residential development of 46 homes is located on the west end of Shorewood, north of Smithtown Road and west of Howard's Point Road (see Site Location mape - Exhibit A, attached). It was platted and developed in the late 1970's and early 80's as a residential planned unit development (P.U.D.). The zoning parameters established for this P.U.D. were the same as the current R-lA/S, Single-Family Residential zoning district. Lots were required to be 40,000 square feet in area, with setbacks of 50 feet front, 10 feet side, 50 feet rear and 50 feet on side yards abutting streets. Boulder Bridge inchided common areas including a multiple dock arrangement, beach area, tennis courts and a stable for the use of residents within the project. Also included was a perimeter trail system around the easterly half of the development (shown on Exhibit A), Pat Egan, a resident of Boulder Bridge, encountered problems with a proposed back yard pool and patio project, when he discovered that the rear yard setback for his lot had to be 50 feet. It is worth noting that his home, similar to others in Boulder Bridge, was set back further from the street than required to create more spacious front yards. He discussed his options with staff, including the possibility of variance or amendment to the Zoning Code. A variance was ruled out for lack of any hardship. Consequently, Mr. Egan convinced the Boulder Bridge Homeowner's Association to apply for a text amendment reducing the rear yard setback requirement for certain lots within the project. The affected lots are shown on Exhibit B, attached. vs Se ~' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~°°° ~ ~. Memorandum Re: Boulder Bridge Setback Amendment 29 November 2007 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The lots affected by the proposed amendment are all located at the perimeter of the easterly half of the subdivision .and abut the common trail system (Outlot C). This trail system is a minimum of 30 feet wide on its south and east legs and 40 feet wide on the north leg. The proposed amendment would reduce the required setback for the affected lots from 50 feet to 30 feet. It is worth noting that the Zoning Code requires that setbacks at the perimeter of planned unit developments must be the same as the underlying zoning district - in this case, the R-lA/S district requires 50 feet. The proposed amendment, if approved would still provide rear yard setbacks from the boundaries of the project of 60 feet on the south and east sides of the project and 70 feet along the north bouizdary. This amounts to setbacks 10-20 feet greater than lots surrounding Boulder Bridge. It is recommended that staff be directed to prepare a resolution amending the rear yard setback requirement for the subject lots in Boulder Bridge, as requested by the Homeowner's Association. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Pat Egan Ross Simpson -2- -~ aoiavoeivo -~ ` o -~ -A ~ ~ oy ~ ~ ,~ ohs A ~ ~ ~I ~ /~j1 ~ ~ .~ ~I ~ ~ 1 / ~ -3f -A lam/ ~ ~ ~6 ~t ~ ~ .p -~ -~ ~ '~ s~"' atoaE ox '. A V ~ OFA, A, pE W ^W ~ BaENtN~ ~~ Q. O y13001a ~~.~ ~O~~Q~.g PON~~~ d7~~ w ~n a ~ ~ -~ ~' 2~ ~~ Z t ~' I SOP W m / ~ ~ EV`0.0\H 2 Z y` a SOaVMOH a ~/ ~ ~ III Y `I ~ J ~ V ~ rc ~ d a ~ ~ ~ ~ o LL 8oUt0ER 0pa° 5° "~ ^~ m ~ .y F S W ~ ~a -=-----~ o ~ ~ i od '~ ~; e'$ ~ ~W ~ ~ ~ ,~ o N •i h av ~ ~i O H U Z W S H oa aolsooo ~ M ~ rc v X31 ~ rc ~ .j~ o O m Exhibit A G SITE LOCATION ropose et ac ~ eduction J 206 \OA' ~ 9. 10'91Z \`L~~Oa ~ c~~'t` .,.' _133. I S a. ~, U, 33 O OF/ L£'811 b9'L6 M I \0\ Ag ~O ~' ~ 291.24 I £b'bOZ ~. c n; LI'Z01 9Z'Z01 61'66 ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ N m ~ N ., ~ "-' I`'~ ~ ~ y ,^. v ~,~. pO q. ,~ ~ - N ~,1N - N vi ~M ~ v v M °~' 'y9,es~' v ~ 6t ~ 5I'S9Z ~,J> ~". ~ "~co ~ r m `~ 'S i1iM 4 .Din - t o~ o ° N ~~ . } try O - "~. ~o~ ~y~ J N v ~ e~ S.t' ~ , ,,.~ ,_ N q a_ ~a ~,t, N '' 6 4~y N o t0 ~ ti ,'3 N `~ a N ~Q o "' ~ ~, N tin--, 't'7 0` s b9 L£ 001 Sb'!.6 9 g `n ~ - ~ to N " m M N ... \0 ca 297.26 ~ rn ~.~, to " ~ N '= I ~ `= ~ 96 b,6b £S . S6£=2! ,4,9 85 F~ M 3821 L£I N; SZ'Z I SAD/9` `Lh 51'S9Z 5b'll' S2'S!. \00 ••', 1,435 I9 ~ L£f 86'6ZIt 58.638 .... __`? m°' ~. 8£'OZZ ` ~ 3 58 vb '`~, t 10.0 5 3 \`...°~ °? ; 1 ' ' \2 33'\5 E~'. \6 " N ~ ~ t \ 3 m ~'-t'? ~ I g5 N• ,• phc o? ~~ ~ g ~ •, 15 • N `~ v~ ,p 100 x R:1 A5 sN 9A'Og' m. ti v ~" ~0 4AA 0 4 to d;Q ~ ~ ' p t c ~~ I s 62 Q^ ,ns. t"~" N \91 to to ~ -~ M N ~ '~ ~ ~ 300 M a ~, m r (~jJ m vi N s \55 1 z ~~a ~ \91 "(, °, O ~~ O P~ N, 's, 5 \9 ,-~" ~ ... \'.f°; _ ` \6e 35'E 58 6 B o 6'061 Q '~^ !'. 1 ~ F ~ N -I_ d \91 v: o N ~ \9 ~ ~a \O9\ A5 370 02 ~FN o c~ M M ~ .-~ \91 ~n .i ~ \0 g9 ~ a - v N N tv Z ",'°$~ I o •"'" ~ N262A0 d6~ \~ ,. ~~ 182•y4 0 4 0 ~ t~ ~ g \A ,~ ~ `~, w c 358.81 `'S S orn ~~^ A/,OF m .,2' r~t9 ;~`, o '`' ~ I h~ tiP /JIB 2955 ~t'' m _ o o° s ~ 3\3\6ti1 w `^ 132.25 ~ lC"Jl ~~ M 6' ~ ~c '~ • t ~ Oh ~ p ~ mN ~ O ~ ~ _ti• N 148.74 ~ ti N M ~ tp O_. ~~ 4 v O (p ~.~ / ~ ~ ~~~~j ~ ~ v N I e5 ~S~ ~`® N ".~ ~ `°`° 62, `y`'^ to ~? .si - Ol I ~' C o ~ SZ£ ~ 00 :~ S~ g~ o w ~ . ~ -- r~ln °+,,,e...,,, v ~ r 8F9o~ 't^'~~g9 S t~g ~ v~, ~ rn ~ Q ~ 68'ILZ ~h\y 85Z -- ~ ~ r m m0 -- -- -- - i~~, ~N 'a, t` 1 6 SZ£ 3 6~ ~3 mac-'' ~ M O O` ~1~' M ~ N t" '~3 r / P cv ~ ~ ~ ~o0 2 ~ti 4' ~ :,,~. 3b ~ v N N ri `` N 625 6'S'. ^ \'•'+ P Zb •SF£~~ kL r ~ r 6'6 ~ M ~ (70 ° ^ P`S+ IIJLII P _ _ _- 5Z£ "! ZA6 OA ~ / ~, ``25, ~~ bF ~-• t/an-, ~o M ~ `n M uNi cn N ~ N C' ~. d' B Q ~~\0 A SOb j 3 M N~o, I 5Z£ ~ rn N \+f't Q s~ Sb F`!/ E ,~.`"d. ~ r- t~l p`b L,E'e P ~~ 1'• t Q r ~ ~ cam. `~' r 'ti,.. 2 ~ N a r= ~ to ,~h ~.S`, ~ r`~ ~~ 200 m l9t.fl 2"~ 4• !'~ `S' c~•'~, ~ N N h~ _ N ,9~ v~ to ~~ "- ,~ tdti IZ'91£ ~ ~ ~~ O N g~ 866' d ~ ~ m M 'c~ e ; ,\~;\'~\'~A ~°> p 0' s ~ N M ~ =N ssy S' £OZ LbZ o amp ~O 78.9 6'85 ~ 56.t'~ \A\~A956 ` ~" .~ '-- ; o o M,Sb eZN ~ ~ \ 4.9 P A gO'~~~ ~ ~"~ ` Q 59'10£ SIZ N 59£ s 2 h~ <l'1' ' 6 58 A5 ~ a ~P ~' OO;L 05 6'85 .: 47.37 ~~\ m~ O 1/ ~ m ~ ~_ m N ~ 'lP.. ~; \21 \ f ~ `~ ~`\'' ~~ ~ O F' Apr I ~~ o ~s 1ry h ~\6 ~~ ~~ e a ~ \` 1 ` --~ r.~ m '966' rLO 'y~h~ v~'~ ~ tN- v 6i s ~~ Q/ 8b'SO£ ~y " ., FF ~' „~ ~~N ~•l. N rV °cn ~ m~, ' ~J ~' a _~ ~ •~_ N ~t~ 1 5 I S o ~ ~ 6~! S2N 'J°a V ~ r,. ~.~ r` 139 42 g/. ~ N F2 ~`S j~+ '~ po-~ ~'• [n .nn G,fl {60 b6F N r ® .~ ~6 2 ~ \^~ N N Q ~: ~ ~° M 0 ~' ~,~. Pry - Exhibit B N Lj 0 ,r aa~ e`'s~:; ,~P~ "" EXISTING/PROPOSED SETBACKS bb'£6Z (~~ Q /6~9!/V ..•a5$ \O~,~h\~y ,`p, `~ v i0 _ m ^ ~ y~r. . om... 3 ., , d a ~ ~ •4 t m3 ~` 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ®Sf-9OREWOOD, (MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ®www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ®cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMflRANDIJM Date: December 5, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members `d`t ~ ~r From: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer °''` Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Re: 2008 Budget and Finance Resolutions -Items #9A, #9B, #9C Several budget and finance resoh~tions are attached for your review and approval. They represent the culmination of many months of finance and budget work by the staff and council. On September 10, 2007, the City Council approved the Proposed 2008 Budget, which was subsequently certified to Hennepin County. In accordance with statutory Tnith-In- Taxation requirements, the City Council held the Tn~th-In-Taxation budget public hearing meeting on December 3, 2007. The Council determined that no continuation meeting was necessary and directed staff to prepare resolutions to adopt the fina12008 budget and levy. #9A. Resolution Adopting the 2008 Budget and Tax Levy The City Council is now asked to adopt the attached proposed resolution, which approves a final 2008 Budget and 2007/2008 Tax Levy. December 10 is the last regular meeting of the City Council, therefore action on the 2008 Budget and Tax Levy Payable in 2008 should be made at this meeting. The levy must be certified to the County Auditor by December 28, 2007. ~ _ ~®~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ ~ ~ 2008 Budget Memo to Council Page 2 of 2 #9B. Resolution Adjusting the 2008 Pay Ranges and Setting the Monthly Employer Insurance Contributions for City Employees The 2007 budget process included adjustments to City employee salary ranges and the City's contribution toward the employee insurance plan. The City Council directed staff to prepare the salary schedule to provide fora 3.0% economic adjustment in January only. Ill addition, Council determined that the City's 2008 monthly insurance contribution per employee is to be set at $756 per month for 2008. The attached proposed resolution provides for these pay plan adjustments and the City's insurance contribution, as directed. The changes will be effective January 1, 2008. #9C. Resolution Authorizing hterfund Transfers The 2007 Budget adopted by the City Council provides for the transfer of monies to and from various funds for capital improvements and other purposes in the 2007 Budgets. In addition, there was discussion at several work-sessions this year relating to transfers. Specifically, the council directed that the Public Facilities/Office Equipment Fund be split into a Public Facilities Fund and a Technology/Office Equipment Fund. $100,000 would be placed in the Technology Fund, with the balance transferred to the Public Facilities Fund. Council also directed the final lease payment for Shorewood's share of the Southshore Commlulity Center to be paid from the 1993 debt service fund, with the balance of that fund transferred to another debt service fund, (specifically, the Water Debt Service Fund). Finally, the Land & Open Space Fund is to be discontinued, with the amount of $5,000 previously authorized for this fiord, to be transferred in 2007 and 2008 to the Park Capital Improvement Fund. The attached resolution authorizes the transfer of funds as previously approved by the budget and discussed at work-sessions. RECOMMENDATION: The Shorewood City Council is requested to adopt the three proposed resolutions as described: #9A. Resolution Adopting the 2008 Budgets and Approving the 2007 Property Tcrx Levy Collectible in 2008. #9B. Resolution Revising the City's Wage and Salary Range Chart for 2008 and Setting the Monthly Employer Contribsctioss Toward the City's Insurance Premiums For City Employees. #9C. Resolution Authorizing Transfers of Funds. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2008 BUDGETS AND APPROVING THE 2007 PROPERTY TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2008 WHEREAS, the 2008 Budget and 2007 property tax levies collectible in 2008 for the City of Shorewood have been prepared and reviewed by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a Ti1rth-In-Taxation meeting on December 3, 2007, to receive public comment regarding the adoption of such budgets and property tax levies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That the following budgets are adopted for the year 2008: General Fund $5,319,145 Water Fund -Operating and Debt Service 1,113,709 Sewer Fund 1,247,618 Recycling Fund Stortnwater Management F~md 99,675 233,680 That the following sums be levied for 2007, collectible in 2008, upon taxable property in the City of Shorewood for the following purposes: General Fund Operations Levy $4,056,917 Special Levy 555,078 Total General Fund Levy $4,611,995 That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby instnzcted to transmit a certified copy of this resohition to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of December, 2007. ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk Christine Lizee, Mayor ~ ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION REVISING THE CITY'S WAGE AND SALARY RANGE CHART FOR 2008 AND SETTING THE MONTHLY EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE MONTHLY INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR CITY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City Council has established the current salary and wage range chart and the current monthly contribution toward the monthly insurance premium for City employees by prior years' resolutions; WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to, from time to time, revise such salary and wage range chart and monthly contibution towards monthly insurance premiums for City employees within the parameters of State Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The City of Shorewood's Salary and Wage Range Chart is hereby revised for the year 2008 as listed on Exhibit A, attached to and hereby made a part of this resolution. 2. The City's contribution toward the monthly insurance premiums for City employees is hereby set at $756 per month for medical and other insurance coverages for the year 2008. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be effective January 1, 2008. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 10th day of December, 2007. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk -- ~ _ ~ a e M N O O ~ W CO O r O O m O O O d1 d) O M O O O ~~ O N O CO W r M M M r O N~~ CO ~ ~ ~ O r O r c0 7 CO M of r O r r V V N N M e- } O O~ w r r r c0 c0 Ln Ln tf) Ln V 7 V d' 'd' M M N e M N N O N M .- M~ M O O V O CO CO O O O m 0 CO O O W O o M M O o0 N tS7 V O M N M CO O 01 M CO o0 M M d- - O M O N N M O O M~ M M r C E < CO M M CO CO ~t r- '} O> N O~ r r r (O (O ~ ~ ~ d' V' V' y' V V M M N e <t M S O N t!7 O O N O O M M O O N CO O O O c0 ~ o ~ ~ M ~- ~ o~ o~ to OJ r m u) ~ O N ~ O O N d G e- Cp + M~ m M~ N <h N r CO O O CO (O M M O N N M O~ W r r r r CO CO ~ t2) ~ d' 'cY V' V' V' V M M N e N d' ~- O N CO ~- N r o0 O tS~ M O O 01 O O r W O M O O In O e r r (O M o~ .- N O N ~- d r O O u7 0~ r r O CO Ln O o~ O M r ' r M ' G ~.. (O CO CO N V d N d e- "~ a0 O r r r r (O c0 Ln t0 Ln 7 ~ a' V' V V' M M N a O V o~ m N ~ ~ 7 V c0 O o~ N O (O c0 0 0 CO CO O CO M ~ e O) O W CO f N O M r c0 m N M O ~' r V V M z C ~ t0 'F t0 M r 7 V M c0 to m O In In M N O N ~ O r r r r CO CO t0 In V 7 V 7 V V M M M N a ~~ 7~ N M CO O M O N O M M O O (O o~ O CO N e O 0 7 M O r N ~ O N N r 0 M (O LO M r M M O M O O L(~ O r In to N N O N ~ tf1 C r 'f' M~ r r r r (O (O ~ N V 7 V 7 V V M M M N J e O M r N N (O O~ r 0 7 x 0 0 0 0 0 to N O N N O J O 7 e N M ~ N r V c0 c0 O M of M M (O O W o0 <Y I L m - 01 O O N C 1 ~} n ~ n N c0 M N O N O r 7 V N ~ .. ~ '~ O O r r r r CO c0 N~ V V V V V 7 M M M N e M V r r r N O O M M O r O r r O O 7 W O M N N M o V Ln CO ~ O V O M O Ln m M M O N M t!7 tt~ Y Z O J ~- M 'F' B ~ N N m O~ V N (O d' V a0 0 0 N 07 00 r r r CO CO t.() to ~ V V d' V V' d' M M M N a Z e e _ _ N W <t r N N O (O O O~ O V V O O V' OJ O CO N N r ~ O ~ CO r O W M M N O CO t!7 O V ~ O u) M N N N m M O <t CO O V M o0 c0 M M O W O O F N f' W M~ r r (O (O tt~ u7 tt~ V V V V V V M M M N Q N Z ° O M O O N M to (O M O N O O O O M o0 O N M M~ ~ W e W m N M O V O O c0 O to In ~' N O m r N m V S O of O~~ M r (O M M .- O r rn rn ~ ~ O~ ~- r 'F' CO r r r r (O CO to In Ln d' V d' d' V V' M N N N Uj ~ O . Q W U~ Y° ~ W 61 r CO N CO r M d' tf~ d' o~ OJ O N N of O M M ~ ' N O 2 ~ 0 d' O ~ •- R O V O N t.C) ~~ tt) (O O O V r r 0 N c0 c0 to O V V ~ O M O~ r O r M N (D r tt) N M M M ~ 0 0 r rn rn r- D_ p F ~ m=~ N ~ ~ of r r r Gfl CO (O tf7 tt~ u7 V V V V V V' V V V V M N N N a O ~ a W LL ~ O N M~ M c0 In m ~ M M N r c0 c0 c0 m m N 0 V' V' CO r 0~ t0 r t0 to M 7 7 N r M M M N V O V O V' d' CO w U' ^ O Q~ t0 ~ ~ CO O r r V r ~/7 ~ O Ln N M .- .- .- N O 01 a0 CO W of O ~ ~ ~ } r r r (O (O t0 ~ N~ Ln d' V V V d' V' V V' M M M N N N F W o U d f+') O O O N M Q) .- M M .-- V G O O N GO r O M CO c0 O ~ o r i ~ O O W O M O CO r r O ~' N N O N O rt' a) O M <i- N O V M ~ V' N M r v N ~ O m Q7 O m r CO V c0 [O m O ~ ~ W ~ r r CO c0 CO CO em u) V V V 7 V 7 M M V M M M M N N ~- O O O Z e N L O ~ W O M r M c0 In r c0 In to 7 N N r 0 c0 N o~ N N ~ O O r O r N N O O r m O V N V V ~ ~ W ~ ~p ~ O O M O O M ~ d) O to N O O M r r O) r ~n v N~~ a0 O W r r c0 CO c0 c0 t!7 In d- V 7 V d' M M M M M M M M M N N .-- Q O d { O~ r V V ~- r (O M O m 0 .- m O m N ~O (O O CO O O t1~ M ~ o z V .- ~ O CO (O c0 O M to M W M~ W 7 r O d' M O O V ' ' - ' ' ~ ~- J ~ ~ ~ O r CO d o~ CO M N ~ M M r 7 V CO (O N N O V ~t r CO d M O N Ln Ln N d- V d' 7 V M M M M M M M M M M N N ~ a ~ r .~ O m~ Ln V' r N M r M O V' 7 aO t!7 (O O O N N r ~- ~- e ~ _ _ M W Ln N CO O CO m a' M M O r r O N O~ d' ~~~ M of O a fp ,~ „ N O N M M ~- t.() M O O o~ ~ V~ N N~ V O O o.J N N CO O ti y M M Ln Ln ~ Ln V d' a' M M M M M M M M M M M N N N ~ O N N p a d O N r N r~ N M O ' ~ of M N N M M r r C m ~~ V ~Y V V ~ M r d' ~ M r CO N V M M O m m 0 CO o0 r r V V V N N ° r CO t!7 t1) V M M M M N N N N .-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U O O U ~ _ .-. ~ ~ ~ C o f0 ~ to (0 O U ~. N U ~ i W .-• ~ ~ O c .-. ~ ~ ~- a `o ~ ~ ^ ~ O G ~ ' ' ~ U C O Y N ~ G N ~ N N ~ U O U U ( O o m Y m rn~ Q N °' ~> ? m E ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ c .~ c I- m ~ m Q _ p ~ r U N s ~ U U U p~ Y N Y ~ O O y O U .O E C C O i i O ~ O~ O ~ N N a (n (- ~ Q U _ ~ O d i ~_ N~ O. U U (0 > Y N U U i W Y c6 ~ N U N~ N Q. 'O N O O_ v) n C Q U ~ ' ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~, o a _~ o O ~ o. D O L m ~ o O O ~ ~ U Q o (n . ll C ~ ` U ' ' U O N O N ~ J U J L O U O_ Q ~C ~ O ~ ~ ~ U J J O ~ ~~ " U U O C E ~ ~ ~ ~ .. Q Iq O N O _ - L ~_ N O _T Q co O N '= N a O O O' N N '- O> O U O ~~~ a O c N '- O a s X >> W Q ~ W d U J W CD W Q~ Cn Q J Q' 0' ~ J U Q> O W LL J c0 o~ O> O ~ N M V ~ c0 r o~ O O .- N M ~ ~ c0 r o] O) O .- N cn d' to O r of 6) O ~-- N M ~ ~ (O r r m m o~ w ro ro ro m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N .- N N N N N N N o r ~ o °o 3 N ~ N ~p M `Q O OJ U CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TAE TRANSFER OF FUNDS WHEREAS, the City Council has levied for, and budgeted the transfer of monies for capital improvements and purchases in its 2007 General and Capital Budgets. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shorewood that the following amounts are hereby authorized to be transferred between the following funds: TRANSFER FROM General Fund General Fluid General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund Liquor Fund Stormwater Mgmt Fund 1993 Debt Service Fund (302) Technology Fund Land & Open Space TRANSFER TO AMOUNT Equipment Replacement Fund 175,000 Sheet Reconstruction Fund 345,000 Sewer Fund (debt service) 60,000 Public Facilities Fiord 50,000 Park Cap Imprvnuit Fnd 15,000 Stormwtr Mgmt ($25K-2007; $0 - 2008) 25,000 General Fund 40,000 Sewer Fund (fmal payment debt svc) 52,500 Water Debt Service Fund Remaining amt. after Sr. Ctr fmal debt pmt Public Facilities Fund Remaining amt: Tech fiord bal to be $100K Stormwater Mgmt Fund Full amt to close Land/Open Space Fund ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAOREWOOD this 10th day of December, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk ~° ; ~ ~~ r~ December 5, 2007 Bonnie Burton VIA EMAIL City of Shorewood, MN EMAIL: bburton@ci.shorewood.mn.us Phone: 952-474-3236 Dear Bonnie Below you will find the Payoff Amount for City of Shorewood's Lease and Purchase Option Agreement no. 0745-001; dated May 30, 1996. Original par amomlt $311,000.00 This figure assumes a payoff date of February 1, 2008. This date is a regular payment date and the regular payment should still be made. The ~ayme~zt needs to be in our office on this date for the amount to be valid. Regular Payment Due Febrnary 1, 2008: $18,771.97 Pre-Payment fee: $0.00 Principal balance after above semi-annual payment: $18,205.77 Payoff Amount Due February 1, 2008: $36,977.74 Wire Instructions Wells Fargo Bank Mimlesota, N.A. ABA #121000248 Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC Public Finance Division Account #841096 Attn: Lease Accounting Reference: Lease 0745-001 payoff Mailing Instructions Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC Public Finance Division MAC: N9303-105 608 Second Avenue Soutli, 10`x' Floor NorthStar East Building Minneapolis, Mimiesota 55479 Attn: Emily Wilkie Make Check Payable to: Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC As was mentioned in our phone conversation, per the agreement, optional prepayment may be made in whole but not in part, on any payment date set forth on the attached Exhibit A (payment schedule) with at least 30 days notice. Please notify our office of your intent to prepay on or before January 2, 2008. -' ---~- Please call me with any questions or conceals at 612-667-5141 `~' Thank you, Emily Wilkie Originators Assistant Public Finance Division Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC ~, ,: _. j'~ ~ ~ ... ';t :fit -~ ~ .. . z ' ~ .. hi. ~ , ~. .. i ~. W . ~ i. ~ ~ ~a ~' _ i i z3,i I ~ § ~i,. ~s, °,1 ___ l I - ', , ., ~ ~ ~ rr~i .~1 i ,I i s~. (' 1. ~.:5 ~ ... '. ' ? T z ~'t,~qr."~ ~ ~ I'. .. i t~'t ~, . G . zt„ ~:;~~~ +,,r€ ~ : s ti ~,. E - r r.r~ ~ ^~ y (~ ~~ _....i { ,'ltt.''7 ~~;?,..,ri.:,°3~ ~%~f,rt.~i~,,r ~.4, ~,.~ ._ ,..,~ 4'~1~ G C~ ~. ~ s ~,~rtiE~il ~ ,J 7 F '~, ;sss r a, ,l, ,...~ `f,°tr.",,.~3 'i.,a~~,°;~.~Y i _~,~~ ~, y~~l~T`;1 f E ~1 tt e r ,. ~ ~ i. ) ~ T ~ ry ~ qty ~} i. i 'k 1 ~ 1 { { 1 ~ . ~ ,x, L~ ~-."~,~'l ~.°1l .~s._ ~. ~ (.~. 3 _n?~~ ~ ~!ti~i. a` ~ { ~ ~i ~' ~ i~s~ 1 .~4r~;'I i ~ ~ E t z. 7 ii t_ k t I i f ~~ ~ r - ~ ,~~ :~,., Er 3 ~ a , ;r i 7 ~~ ~ , t ,_ a'i -~, ~ ; . ~', a. i ~ , `s~, , ~, q a' ~ 1`i ~ ~.s.r l.'~i .. _ l~r ~~`,~1'1.~s4r ~ _~~":b.;di', 51~~,$~J,7'~ ~', .!.I~Yt' ., - ~) ~ 9~l>~i,~r ~~~? ~ ., L`kf~ ~ '.j~ 4'~~V~ ~, i..l ~ el 1.~~ ~a ,,,t c E 7 ?.? 1 ' ' . ,`~ ~~ (t 1 ) , Pct It f .,s:; + ~.F, r tj~3 7 "'f ~ - , ~ , . .., , h .. , .. „ .. y i r i v /~ 9 ..)~ 3/ ) ~ i)~7 7i'k ~ ~9. 4, vF~ iD ~~ } .... Pw.'4A _~'._~S ?~D7z~'T 1 ,.,~r .,~~i,1"l~ `>7 j ;Y,I k_. ... ;t." ~~.~ ~ ? ~.I`.r. 1 t„.7 ~ l~ 4, ~{~a~~~; qq 3 I >~~t l'r~ <~ ) I ~.• F ~a f~l . i ~ 4'' t y.y ~ .d 1~ (:~ ~.I 7 ~' ~4f r f ~r.. s ~ . , )+ l t3 .~, CITY ®F SHOREW®OI) WORK SESSION MEETING Augusf 20, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Councilmember Woodruff stated a lot of good analysis had been done regarding staffing allocation. He suggested that be reviewed again after the new payroll system and utility billing software had been implemented; the upcoming automation of tasks should result in a reduction in some amount of staff time or a redeployment of some time. Councilmember Callies stated there may be an improvement in what was done rather than a reduction in staff. Woodruff stated the justification for the radio read meter project included savings in staff time and an increase in water revenues; some of the cost for the project needed to be recovered. Callies stated there were times when things had to be replaced for a cost without there being any savings. Woodruff stated every time the City considered making a significant investment in the purchase of something new the return on investment should be considered. Director Brown stated he could calculate the ROI for the radio read meter project. There was ensuing discussion with regard to asking for proposals for contract services if there was not a serious intent to change from the current provided. The topic would be discussed at a future Council meeting. There was ensuing discussion regarding how major road reconstruction projects should be funded (e.g., bonds, tax levy). With regard to snow and ice removal, Director Brown distributed a memorandum explaining what the cost-per-ton for sand and deicing chemical was in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 projected, and 2008 budgeted. The increase in costs was largely the result of the rising cost of fuel. Also, contract law stated suppliers were allowed to apply a fuel surcharge when there were significant changes in the cost of fuel not anticipated in the contract pricing. He stated the Chanhassen weather site or the Climatological Office had information on snow falls that would be more closely related to the City's snowfall events. He explained insurance companies required the City to have policies which stated the order in which streets were plowed and the frequency. Public Works could have to plow or deice a street even though the snow fall was not significant; an increase in the number of traffic accidents related to the roadway conditions would dictate that. He stated in the last few years the number of snow fall events had decreased; therefore, the supplies and materials budget for 2008 could remain at the 2007 budget level. The amount of sand/salt mixture that could be held in the City's storage bin was approximately 400 tons, and that amount would handle 2 - 2.5 full events; the City fills that bin at the send of a snow season. The following noteworthy clarifications were made in addition to those made in the budget revisions document. - The property tax revenue figure was a forced number -the figure. was what was required to balance the budget. - The rental income from the City-owned house was reflected in the budget summary under Revenues/Charges for Service ($16,000) and the associated expenses were reflected under General Government/Municipal Building ($5,000). In the detail budget, the expenses were included in Municipal Building/Support Services. - It was customary to take the remaining fiords in a debt service account (the funds remaining after the debt had been paid in full) to pay another debt service obligation. - Under fiords transferred out of the General Fund, the $5,000 that had been transferred to ..~ the Land & Open Space Fund in previous years would be transferred to the Park Capital ~- -- ~ - ~ ..~ ~ _ _ .~~ - _~~ ~. ~ ~. w-~ ~~ _ r ..~ ~ Improvement Fund instead starting in 2008 per previous Council direction. - - The $100,000 expense under Expenditures and Other Uses in the budget summary was a transfer to the Street Reconstruction Fund per previous Council direction. Government mandates were projected to require the Public Works Director to spend more of his time on water, sewer, and stormwater related activities. CITE' OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION lYIEETING August 20, 2007 Page 4 of 7 - General Government/Staffing was adjusted to reflect 55 percent of the Deputy Clerk's time. - Professional Services/Support Services increased $7,000 from the August 20"' draft budget to reflect an increase for audit services if the City were to engage a different firm, and the likelihood that the cost audit services from a new firm would be more due to its unfamiliarity with the City's finances (Councilmember Woodruff had recommended the City request proposals for audit services). - Various parts of a major road reconstruction projects were funded out of the appropriate fiend (i.e., water main installation, storm water improvements, roadway improvements, and sanitary sewer improvements would all be funded out of a different fund). The Streets and Roadways budget was for maintenance. - For bonds issued in 2008, the first debt service payment would occur in 2009. - The Polymerized Emulsion Asphalt Pavement Coating (slurry) technology should help extend the life of some of the City's streets. If the "slurry" technology proved to be as effective as the information on it said it was, firture sealcoating and overlay efforts would be replaced with "slurry" coating. - The cost for sealcoating was $1.75 per square yard, and the cost for "slurry" was $4.00 per square yard for roadway. The following noteworthy changes or clarifications to the 2008 operating budget were recommended by Council. - There was a Bement to_pay off the remaining debt service obligation due in 2008 for the _.__~ `-, Southshore Center with funds remaming~f om the 1993 Improvement and. Refunding ~,~~..w.u.~. -,~ - ~_.__ a~ ,~,_ ~. ___ .... Bons which had been paid in full). That would occur when the 2008 General Fund Operating Budget was approved in December 2007. Staff would prepare a recommendation for Council regarding the use of the remaining fiends. - The $37,500 in the draft budget for the above debt service payment would be retained in the Municipal Facilities Department budget for possible City Hall maintenance. - The Trail Capital Improvement Fund and the Land & Open Space Fund would be collapsed under the Park Capital Improvement Fund. The Trail Fund could be re- established if there was a major need. Future trail improvements would be funded out of the Park Capital Improvement Fund. - $20,000 would be added to Administration/Staffing for potential pay-for-performance adjustments. Staff would provide Council with an explanation of the process for allocating those funds in November or December. - General Government/Supplies would be reduced by $5,004. - Approximately ten percent of the Senior Accountant's time would be allocated to liquor Operations for 2008. None of the Finance Director's time would be allocated to Liquor Operations. - The transfer to Street and Roadways would be increased from $445,000 to $645,,000 to be used for "slurry" coating or sealcoating and overlays. - Snow and Ice Removal/Supplies for 2008 would be reduced to be the same as the 2007 budget ($44,500). Staff will provide Council with the 2007/2008 event statistics for the 2009 budget process. - The funds for contract services for tree and brush disposal under Tree Maintenance will be moved from Staffing to Support Services. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 5 of 11 the combined salary increases; and b) a method must be determined for allocating that pool of money at a later time. Woodruff suggested staff ask other communities what types of salary increases they were considering in 2008. Burton stated the amount. of money budgeted for salary increases was adequate to cover any approach that was used to allocate the raises. Turgeon stated it must be made clear to employees that a specific raise amount was not guaranteed. Woodruff stated if the combined raises did not exceed 3% of the 2007 salaries he was okay with that pooled amount for allocating raises. Councilmember Wellens stated the City had a trend for growing the General Fund reserves and there had been some discussion to reduce the reserves. He suggested maybe a permanent change should be made to stop the growth trend. Administrator Dawson highlighted his draft policy memo regarding the General Fund balance. He stated the latest position of the State Auditor regarding fund balances was the General Fund balance should be between 35% - 50% of operating .revenues or not less than five months of operating expenditures. He explained bond-rating agencies prefer to see very strong and healthy balances because they indicate fiscal prudence and an ability to weather revenue volatility (including tax levy limits); healthy balances also confer higher credit ratings which result in lower interest costs. He went on to explain the City's undesignated fund balance had steadily increased over the past several years as a result of careful spending within the amounts authorized and unanticipated fee revenue. If the City were to maintain a balance of 55% - 60%, the reserves would be able to handle unexpected expenditures or emergencies, particularly if the practice was continued to use the balance rather than the budget for contingencies. It was important to view surpluses (i.e. funds above the 55% - 60% level) as one-time revenues. Relying on surpluses to subsidize on-going revenues would develop a dependence on a variable source of revenue. In the proposed policy, the fund balance in excess of 60% could be used immediately for capital projects or transfers. If the fund balance fell to 55% - 60% then none of the fund should be use for purposes other than .cash flow and contingencies. If the undesignated fund balance fell below 55%, then that balance should be restored by budgeting no more than two percentage points annually until the 55% level is attained. In 2007, $330,000 of the reserves would be designated for specific purposes ($100,000 would be transferred to the Roadway Fund, and $230,000 would be designated to the Public Works addition); that would result in a reserve level of 56%. Councilmember Wellens suggested that the rate of increase to the fund balance be reduced by adding w.. -~.~. more to the Park Improvement Fund. Director Burton commented $15 000 would be transferred to the ~/ Park Improvement Fund; $5,000 would come from the existing Land Use Fund. A summary of Councilmember Woodruff's noteworthy comments, concerns and questions, as well as associated comments from others were as follows. v Woodruff suggested Council discuss the pros and cons of employer paid long-term and short-term disability versus reimbursing the employees for it at a future work session. ~ Woodruff questioned the $38,819 in year-to-date revenue in General Government Charges for Service. Director Burton explained revenues include special assessment searches, copies, zoning fees, subdivision fees, and pass-through account activities; the pass-through account funds were distributed to the appropriate account at year-end. Burton suggested the 2008 budgeted amount be adjusted to $8,000 - $10,000. Woodruff suggested that Mayor and Council Support Services be reduced by $10,000; 2005 and 2006 actual expenses were approximately $10,000 less than the 2008 budget. Director Burton explained that approximately $43,000 was for various memberships; and $7,000 was for travel, conferences, and the year-end volunteer appreciation function. Woodruff suggested the budgeted amount be reviewed for appropriateness. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING May 29, 2007 Page 4 of 7 - No further transfers would be made to the Land & Open Space Acquisition Fund, and its existing fiords would be transferred to the Stonn Water Management Fund. If funds were needed for land acquisitions it would be funded out of the General Fund. The Municipal Water System projects would remain a presented. The Parks projects would remain as presented. The Public Facilities fund would be expanded to include one-half of the cost to refurbish City Hall in 2008 and the second half in 2009, based on the most .recent cost of $2 million to do that project. There would also be a transfer in from the Technology/Equipment Fund (see below). The Sanitary Sewer projects would remain as presented. The cuiYent Technology/Office Equipment Fund balance would be reduced to $100,000, and the remainder would be transferred to the Public Facilities Fund. There would not be a $50,000 transfer into the Teclu~ology/Office Equipment Fund in 2008. The Equipment Replacement Fund should be modified to minimize the peaks and valleys in funding, understanding that delaying the projected date for equipment replacement could result in the need to purchase a replacement which was not budgeted in a particular year. The following clarifications were made. ~~ ~~ - The Land and Open Space Acquisition fund had been established to offset the possible cost to process land that a property owner wanted to donate to the City or for conservation easements. - The list of roadway overlay projects would be submitted to Council in the near future. - The scheduling of some of the projects or groups of projects was related to having accumulated enough funds to pay for the cost of the project(s). - There was no MSA funded project scheduled unti12011. - The lift station rehabilitation projects for the lifts on Enchanted Island and Shady Island were scheduled in order to level out spending. - The $50,000 per year Infiltration & Inflow (I&I) reduction project was to conduct the investigation and to reduce the City's I&I. - Council should identify what CIP projects would be done in 2008 so that information could be used in preparing the 2008 budgets. The General Fund budget would be prepared in the summer, and it included transfers into some of the funds for the projects being considered in the CIP. The Enterprise Funds budgets would be prepared in October and November. - The Parks capital projects identified for 2008 were projects the Park Commission thought were the highest priority. Parks projects identified further out in the five-year span had not been given as in-depth consideration. The Commission had been quite selective in identifying projects that would consume the $320,000 in the Parlc Fund. Park dedication fees had also been used to fund Parks projects in the past; but park dedication fees were diminishing. - For roadway projects which also included a water project component, the water project costs were funded from assessments. - The $53;000 shown in Public Facilities in 2007 was for window replacements and HVAC changes. The $140,000 in 2008 was for drainage and siding. - The funds for the Public Works addition project for a cost of $400,000 were budgeted as follows: $60,000 was budgeted in 2006 for an architectural study (which was not done); $170,000 was budgeted in 2007; and it was assumed the remaining $170,000 would be budgeted in 2008. The 2006 and 2007 funds were accumulating in the General Fund. The e., - __ I ~.~.. ~ 5755 GOUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ~ (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 Q www.Ci.sharewood.mn.us ®Cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members --- From: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer ~ ~~ Larry Brown, Public Works Director Craig Dawson, City Administrator ~`,' James Landini, City Engineer ~ !~` s Re: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Years 2007 - 2011 INTRODUCTION Enclosed for your review is the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Years 2007 - 2011. The CIP has been reviewed and revised by staff and Cormcil over the course of the past several months during budget work-sessions. As Council will recall, the approach taken in developing the CIP is that it is intended to be a flexible document, and an important physical as well as financial planning tool. The early years of the CIP is most definite in terms of planning and implementation. The latter years of the CIP are most subject to change. A recommended fiscal policy section is located at the beginning of the document to assist in setting priorities for projects. CIP HIGHLIGHTS Council will recall the following highlights: • The Equipment Fund was modified to replace the water truck in 2007 rather than 2009, and the dump truck in 2009 rather than 2007. • The Land & Open Space Acquisition Fund is discontinued and the balance is to be transferred. to the Stormwater Management Fund. ~~$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memo -CIP 2007-2011 Page 2 • The Public Facilities/Office Equipment Fund was split into a Public Facilities Fund and a Technology/Office Equipment Fund. $100,000 is to be placed in the Technology/Office Equipment Fund with the balance transferred to the Public Facilities Fund. • The Minnewashta Water Tower will be washed in 2007 and the SE Area Water Tower will be refurbished in 2008. • Increased funding for sealcoating, "slurry", and overlay projects through transfers from the General Fund. For 2008, this amount has been programmed at $300,000. • The large capital improvement of the Amlee, Manitou, Glenn Road Stormwater project, estimated at $540,500, was removed from the Local Street Reconstruction Fund and the 2008 Stormwater Management budget. $100,000 has been budgeted in the Stormwater Management budget for projects that are to be determined. • $1.2 million for City Hall in 2008 is planned based on the Cotmcil's action to pursue a specific design concept. The CIP does not automatically commit the Council to implement any of the projects listed in it; it is a planning document to focus resources and a document for financial planning. Individual projects are to be approved in the annual budget process and later authorized for purchase or award of contracts according to standard operating procedures. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution accepting the 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program. CITY of sxoREwooD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2007-2011 WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Cotulcil wishes to carefully plan and coordinate City public capital purchases and projects over afive-year period matching physical needs with financial resources; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and presented a proposal for afive- year Capital Improvement Program to facilitate the planning and coordination of projects for the years 2007-2011. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Capital Improvement Program for the period of 2007-2011. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 10th day of December, 2007. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY S E E A - ~ ~ ~~I 'N . .- . ~ n~ r _ } C. ~~ ? . , r - ~~ ,-'~~r - _ ~,r itt 's. i ~. V l ~ ` ~_y • r "4 .. .. ,. -a +~ .4.11 "~ , ~ i ,. ~-~~ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRA Calendar Years 2007 - 2011 I. INTRODUCTION 4 CITY OF S H®RE~~~T®®D 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us December 5, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, INTRODUCTION We present to you the 2007 - 2011 Capital Improvement Program for the City of Shorewood, MN. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a coordinated schedule of municipal capital projects, improvements, and purchases for the years 2007 through 201:1. It consists of project proposals that include the project title, scheduled year, and the funding sources for each project. It identifies sources of revenue to pay for the planned capital project improvements and purchases. THE BASICS At its essence, a CIP is a planning tool for some specified period of time. The CIP lists significant (hence the term "capital") improvements in infrastructure and equipment that the City should plan for. It becomes a financial planning tool that identifies funding sources and funding availability, and helps decision-makers to determine affordability. With the approval or amendment by the Council, the CIP provides an implementation program for staff to work on. The League of Minnesota Cities' Handbook for Minnesota Cities contains the following. discussion of Capital Improvement Budgeting. "Capital budgeting is a list of needed capital improvements, their order of priority, and the means of financing them. Besides being one of the major tools of planning, a capital budget can provide some or all of the following advantages: • Keep the public informed of future needs and protect councilmembers from pressure groups seeking projects rated low on the priority list • Often reduce or stabilize the tax rate ~:~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 5 CIP Transmittal Letter December 2007 -Page 2 • Establish an orderly capital improvement program, preventing the peaks and valleys in a community's debt retirement program • Frequently allow a community to move gradually to apay-as-you-go program of capital expenditure financing for a considerable portion of its improvements • Capital improvements take place in a logical and orderly manner, rather than haphazardly. • Integrate the plans and projects of all city departments and agencies, eliminating conflicting and overlapping projects • By insuring prior consideration for all capital improvements, it helps guarantee ample time for detailed and careful planning of the actual program. "The City puts improvement projects into a multiple-year capital improvement program on the basis of the established priority. When the council reviews it in light of the community's financial situation, it may find the city should defer some of the projects beyond the improvement period and other projects indefinitely. "Following this, the budget officer recommends projects for the coming budget year. The recommendations, in effect, become the recommended program. Priorities in the capital budget program for the following years remain tentative, and the council should review them annually. At that time, the council should consider the addition of new projects and the deletion of others." A CIP is not a document set in stone. It is a snapshot of needs, schedule of improvements, and schedule of financing, typically five years into the future. It is intended that the CIP be reviewed and changed as physical conditions, financial conditions, and changes in priorities occur. THE CIP AND THE COMP PLAN The City's CIP is an implementation program of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, Minnesota law provides that a City's planning commission is to review the CIP prior to its adoption by the city council, although in practice this is seldom done unless a particular project within the CIP appears to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. WHAT TO INCLUDE IN THE CIP? Cities differ on the extent of projects they list in a CIP. Some almost become wish-lists, containing a lot of ill-defined projects in the outer years of the program. Some have a more limited scope, and include only projects on which commitments have been made, or exclude projects that other units of government may have planned within the city's boundaries. 6 CIP Transmittal Letter December 2007 -Page 3 A CIP should be developed to combine realistic needs with realistic expectations about expenditures. They should reflect the projects of other units of government (e.g., MnDOT, Hennepin County, watershed districts), when lalown, so that opportunities to coordinate City projects can be identified. The CIP can contain, as appendices, other schedules or lists of projects beyond the five- year time horizon. For example, an equipment replacement program often extends out 20 years, so that the acquisition of equipment can be timed to assure that the annual balance in the equipment replacement fond doesn't go in the red. Or, it may show that short-term debt, such as equipment certificates, may need to be issued for critical pieces of equipment. There may be an incentive to list many projects, or have a general plan for roadways with an annual outlay for them, within the CIP. The law is not clear that a road project needs to be constructed in the year of financing; rather, the project(s) or outlays simply need to be listed in the CIP. If projects or outlays are not listed, the CIP could be amended as necessary to qualify them roadway bonds. APPROACHES IN DEVELOPING THE CIP Council has developed a philosophy about what is to be included when a CIP is presented. The following points, subject to Council modification, are part of that understanding. • Projects in Shorewood's CIP are listed with particular care in terms of the likelihood that they will be implemented in the first or second year of the program. • Projects listed in years three through five of the program identify projects and opportunities that merit further evaluation. • There are programs for on-going outlays for which individual projects are not well-defined at this time. For instance, the City has a pavement management program to assess the condition of local streets, and it is updated every year. It is acceptable to budget funds for bituminous overlays each year without listing specific streets after the first year. • Placing a project or outlay in the CIP does not commit the City Council to accomplish it. The Council's normal processes of authorizing studies to be prepared and gaining public comment need to be followed. A CIP listing does not in any way imply a done deal. CIP Transmittal Letter December.2007 -Page 4 2007-2011 CIP HIGHLIGHTS • The Equipment Fund was modified to replace the water truck in 2007 rather than 2009, and the dump truck in 2009 rather than 2007. • The Land & Open Space Acquisition Fund is discontinued and the balance is to be transferred to the Stormwater Management Fund. • The Public Facilities/Office Equipment Fund was split into a Public Facilities Fund and aTechnology/Office Equipment Fund. $100,000 is to be placed in the Technology/Office Equipment Fund with the balance transferred to the Public Facilities Fund. • The Minnewashta Water Tower will be washed in 2007 and the SE Area Water Tower will be refurbished in 2008. • Increased funding for seal coating, "slurry', and overlay projects through transfers from the General Fund. For 2008, this amount has been programmed at $300,000. • The large capital improvement of the Amlee, Manitou, Glenn Road Stormwater project, estimated at $540,500, was removed from the Local Street Reconstruction Fund and the 2008 Stormwater Management budget. $100,000 has been budgeted in the Stormwater Management budget for projects that are to be determined. • $1.2 million for City Hall in 2008 is planned based on the Council's action to pursue a specific design concept. CONCLUSION The 2007 - 2011 Capital Improvement Program was prepared according to the priorities and direction from the City Council and Staff believes it provides a responsible plan to balance the City's infrastructure needs and financial position. Respectfully submitted, A, i ~,, ~ , Lawrence Brown Director of Public Works Bonnie Burton Finance Director/Treasurer J mes Landini City Engineer COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS Policy Plan Planning & Inventory Analysis Goals and Development Objectives Policies PlaI1S, Projects, Programs CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL POLICY GENERAL POLICY Shorewood's Capital Improvements Program reflects an assessment of the community's needs and its ability to pay for major improvements. It is founded on the policy that reinvestment required for replacement, maintenance, or the increased efficiency of existing systems shall have priority over investments for expansion of existing systems or the provision of new services. FUNDING PRIORITIES Capital spending proposals will generally be funded on the following priority basis: 1. Those projects necessary for contributing to the public health and welfare. 2. Those projects which will help to maintain an existing system. 3. Those projects that will make an existing system more efficient. 4. Those projects representing the expansion of an existing system for new service or completely new public facility or service. FUNDING PRINCIPLES As a result, the following principles shall govern the implementation of the recommended Capital Improvements Program: The City will make all capital improvements in accordance with the adopted Capital Improvements Program. 2. The City will develop amulti-year plan for Capital Improvements and update it annually. 3. The City will coordinate development of the Capital Improvements Program with development of the annual operating budget. Future optional costs associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included in operation budget forecasts. 10 11 II. TABLES 12 City of Shorewood, Minnesota C'c~~ituZl~~~~~~verraefit P~ogr-cr~~~ 2007 tiu~u 2011 DEPARTMENT SUMMAI21' 13 Department 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Equipment Replacement 193,241 281,496 178,733 148,785 64,551 866,806 Local Street Reconstruction 161,000 461,000 747,011 869,345 868,272 3,106,628 Municipal State Aid Streets 2,500,000 2,500,000 Municipal Water System 333,700 386,000 99,000 818,700 Parks 95,000 12,500 85,000 26,000 505,000 723,500 Public Facilities 1,250,000 5,000 400,000 1,655,000 Sanitary Sewer 150,000 324,000 183,000 145,000 75,000 877,000 Stormwater Management 78,000 100,000 185,000 116,000 602,000 1,081,000 Technology/Office Equip 72,500 10,000 75,000 10,000 10,000 177,500 GRAND TOT.~L 1,083,441 2,824,996 1,557,744. 1,715,130 4,624,823 11,806,134 Thursday, Decentlier OG, 2(1f)7 14 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 15 Capital Irn~r~ohenre7it ~'t°ogrczm 2007 thn~ 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Equipment Replacement ~~ WaterTruck-Ford7000 E-07-45 n/a 50,000 50,000 F350 & Flatbed E-07-49 n/a 41,031 41,031 F350 4x4 Pickup w/plow E-07-55 n/a 35,349 35,349 Mower -Toro Groundsmaster 325D E-07-70 nla 22,093 22,093 Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 Gallons E-07-71 n/a 7,827 7,827 Attach -Blower for Groundsmaster E-07-75 nla 5,757 5, 757 Attach -1985 Cabs for Groundmaster E-07-82 nla 5,050 5,050 Snow Thrower-John Deere 826 (1970) E-07-91 n/a 947 947 Snow Thrower-John Deere 826 (1972) E-07-92 n/a 947 947 Attach -Flail side mower E-07-93 n/a 16,160 16,160 Attach -Flail rear mower ~ E-07-94 nla 8,080 8,080 Ford 555 Backhoe E-08-22 nla 70,257 70,257 Dump Truck -Ford L8000 (1988) E-08-33 nla 147,205 147,205 Sweeper -Tennant 240 E-08-46 n/a 16,059 16,059 Speed Awareness Display E-08-51 n/a 24,088 24,088 Skid Steer -Bobcat 753 E-08-76 nla 23,887 23,887 Dump Box Rehabilitation and Sander E-09-54 nla 25,533 25,533 Dump Truck -Ford L8000 (1995) E-09-68 n/a 153,200 153,200 Tractor-Ford 3910 E-10-35 nla 39,094 39,094 Air Compressor-Ingersoll Rand 185 E-10-38 nla 16,465 16,465 Trailer 12' Tops E-10-41 n/a 3,458 3,458 Dump 1 ton - 4 x 2 Ford F-350 E-10-52 nla 54,131 54,131 Groundsmaster Mower- Toro 328D E-10-57 nla 26,314 26,314 Mower -Toro Walk Behind 44 E-10-73 nla 3,308 3,308 Attach2 -1985 Cabs for Groundmaster E-10-82 nla 6,015 6,015 Trailer 24'-Trail King E-11-21 nla 23,111 23,111 Mower-Toro Groundmaster328D(84) E-11-74 nla 27,892 27,892 Sand Pro 3000 E-11-77 nla 13,548 13,548 Equipment Replacement Total 193,241 281,496 178,733 148,785 64,551 866,806 Local Street Reconstruction ~~ Slurry Overlay LR-08-02 n/a 300,000 300,000 Harding Lane LR-09-01 1 586,011 586,011 Nelsine Drive LR-10-03 1 357,600 357,600 Meadowview Road LR-10-04 1 350,745 350, 745 Rampart Court LR-11-01 1 171,572 171,572 Star Roads LR-11-02 1 535,700 535,700 Bituminous Overlays LR-11-100 nla 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 475,000 Bituminous Sealcoating LR-11-99 n/a 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 330,000 Local Street Reconstruction Total 161,000 461,000 747,011 869,345 868,272 3,106,628 Thursdq~~, U~ccurbc.r 0G', X007 2010 2011 t l16 T Department Project# Priority 2007 2008 2009 o a - Municipal State Aid Streets ~~ Vine Hill Road -Mill antl Overlay MSA-03-05 1 2,500,000 2,500,000 Municipal State Aid Streets Total 2,500,000 2,500,000 Municipal Water System ~ S.E. Area Lineshaft Well -Pull & Inspect W-07-02 nla 22,000 22,000 Amesbury Well Controls Replacement W-07-03 nla 55,000 55,000 Water Meter Radio Read Project W-07-05 nla 250,000 75,000 75,000 400,000 SE Area Water Tower -Power Wash W-07-25 n/a 6,700 6,700 SE Area Water Tower -painting W-08-01 nla 270,000 270,000 Amesbury Lineshaft Well -Pull & Inspect W-08-02 nla 23,000 23,000 Woodhaven WeII Bldg Demolition W-08-03 n/a 18,000 18,000 Boulder Bridge Well #2 -Pull & Inspect W-09-01 n/a 24,000 24,000 Municipal Water System Total 333,700 386,000 99,000 818,700 Parks ~ Badger Park-Football Field Lighting P-07-02 n/a 95,000 95,000 Silverwood Park Resurface TennislBasketball Court P-08-01 n/a 2,000 2,000 Cathcart Park-Repave Existing Trail P-08-02 nla 3,000 3,000 Cathcart Park-Swing Set Replacement P-08-04 nla 2,500 2,500 Freeman Park-Restoration Dug-outs P-09-01 n/a 2,500 2,500 Cathcart Park-Resurface Magic Square P-09-02 nla 7,500 7,500 Manor Park Tennis Court Reconstruction P-09-03 nla 70,000 70,000 Silvenvood Park-Bituminous Parking Lot P-10-O1 n/a 18,000 18,000 Freeman Park-Picnic Shelter Rehab P-10-02 nla 3,000 3,000 Freeman Park-Wetland Enhancement P-11-02 nla 500,000 500,000 Park Improvements P-11-99 nla 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 Parks Total 95,000 12,500 85,000 26,000 505,000 723,500 ;Public Facilities ~ Civil Defense Sirens PF-07-05 n/a 50,000 50,000 City Hall Project PF-08-02 n/a 1,200,000 1,200,000 5795 Country Club-Residence PF-09-01 n/a 5,000 5,000 Public Works Addition (Bay w/lift) PF-10-01 n/a 400,000 400,000 Public Facilities Total 1,250,000 5,000 400,000 1,655,000 Sanitary Sewer SCADA System 14 Lift Stations SS-07-02 n/a 75,000 75,000 Lift Station 12 Rehab-5705 Christmas Lake Pt. SS-08-01 n/a 110,000 110,000 Lift Station 16 Rehab-4915 Shady Island Rd SS-08-02 n/a 104,000 104,000 Portable Lift Station Control Panel SS-08-03 n/a 7,000 7,000 Lift Station 15 Rehab-4360 Enchanted Dr. SS-08-O6 n/a 28,000 100,000 128,000 Lift Station 17 Rehab-5295 Shady Island Rd SS-09-01 n/a 8,000 70,000 78,000 Annual Lift Station Inspect & Rehab SS-11-03 n/a 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Infiltration and Inflow Reduction SS-11-05 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Sanitary Sewer Total 150,000 324,000 183,000 145,000 75,000 877,000 Stormwater Management ~ T1un-srlgp, Dr:cember 06, 1(10? 2 T l ~ Department Project# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 011 ota Water Management Plan STM-07-O6 2 78,000 78,000 ProjectTo-Be-Determined STM-08-02 n/a 100,000 100,000 Harding Lane Drainage STM-09-01 1 97,000 97,000 Stratford PI Drainage STM-09-02 1 30,000 30,000 Lake South Auto Drainage STM-09-03 1 21,000 21,000 5830 Echo Rd Drainage STM-09-04 1 33,000 33,000 6180 Chaska Rd Drainage STM-09-05 1 4,000 4,000 Meadowview Rd Storm STM-10-01 3 15,000 15,000 Nelsine Dr Drainage STM-10-02 1 16,000 16,000 6180 Murray Drainage STM-10-03 1 36,000 36,000 5925 Grant Drainage STM-10-04 1 49,000 49,000 Lake Mary Outlet STM-11-02 1 505,000 505,000 Star Circle Storm STM-11-03 3 89,000 89,000 RampartCt.Drainage STM-11-04 1 8,000 8,000 Stormwater Management Total 78,000 100,000 185,000 116,000 602,000 1,081,000 Technology/Office Equip Financial Software Package T-07-01 n/a 43,000 43,000 Network Server (Computer) Replacement T-07-02 n/a 19,500 19,500 Phone System (VOIP or other) -City Hall T-09-01 nla 40,000 40,000 City Hall Copier & Maintenance Contract T-09-02 nla 25,000 25,000 Computer Upgrades T-11-O6 nla 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Technology/Office Equip Total 72,500 10,000 75,000 10,000 10,000 177,500 GRAND TOTAL 1,083,441 2,824,996 1,557,744 1,715,130 4,624,823 11,806,134 l hnrsrk'p~, DecentGer Oh, '00? 18 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 19 C'c;r~itc~l Zr;<~~~r ~ve~~i<et~;`t P7•og~c~m 2007 thn~ 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Pro,ject# P~•ior•ity 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total LEquipment Replacement 0 Water Truck-Ford 7000 F350 & Flatbed F350 4x4 Pickup w/plow Mower -Toro Groundsmaster 325D Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 Gallons Attach -Blower for Groundsmaster Attach -1985 Cabs for Groundmaster Snow Thrower-John Deere 826 (1970) Snow Thrower -John Deere 826 (1972) Attach -Flail side mower Attach -Flail rear mower Ford 555 Backhoe Dump Truck -Ford L8000 (1988) Sweeper-Tennant 240 Speed Awareness Display Skid Steer -Bobcat 753 Dump Box Rehabilitation and Sander Dump Truck -Ford L8000 (1995) Tractor -Ford 3910 AirCompressor-Ingersoll Rand 185 Trailer 12' Tops Dump 1 ton - 4 x 2 Ford F-350 Groundsmaster Mower- Toro 328D Mower -Toro Walk Behind 44 Attach2 -1985 Cabs for Groundmaster Trailer 24' -Trail King Mower- Toro Groundmaster 328D (84) Sand Pro 3000 Equipment Replacement Total GRAND TOTAL E-07-45 n/a 50,000 50,000 E-07-49 n/a 41,031 41,031 E-07-55 n/a 35,349 35,349 E-07-70 n/a 22,093 22,093 E-07-71 n/a 7,827 7,827 E-07-75 n/a 5,757 5,757 E-07-82 n/a 5,050 5,050 E-07-91 n/a 947 947 E-07-92 nla 947 947 E-07-93 n/a 16,160 16,160 E-07-94 n/a 8,080 8,080 E-08-22 n/a 70,257 70,257 E-08-33 n/a 147,205 147,205 E-08-46 n/a 16,059 16,059 E-OS-51 n/e 24,088 24,088 E-08-76 n/a 23,887 23,887 E-09-54 n/a 25,533 25,533 E-09-68 n/a 153,200 153,200 E-10-35 n/a 39,094 39,094 E-10-38 nla 16,465 16,465 E-10-41 nla 3,458 3,458 E-10-52 n/a 54,131 54,131 E-10-57 n/a 26,314 26,314 E-10-73 n/a 3,308 3,308 E-10-82 nla 6,015 6,015 E-1i-21 nla 23,111 23,111 E-11-74 nla 27,892 27,892 E-11-77 nla 13,548 13,548 193,241 281,496 178,733 148,785 64,551 866,806 193,241 281,496 178,733 148,785 64,551 866,806 Thursrlny, December 0(, 2007 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2 ~ Cca~i~al Irnh~°aven~ze~~t Pro~>^c~n2 2007 thni 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priorit~~ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total .Local Street Reconstruction 1 Slurry Overlay LR-08-02 nla 300,000 300,000 Harding Lane LR-09-01 1 586,011 586,011 Nelsine Drive LR-10-03 1 357,600 357,600 Meadowview Road LR-10-04 1 350,745 350, 745 Rampart Court LR-11-01 1 171,572 171,572 Star Roads LR-11-02 1 535,700 535,700 Bituminous Overlays LR-11-100 n/a 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 475,000 Bituminous Sealcoating LR-11-99 n/a 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 330,000 Local Street Reconstruction Total 161,000 461,000 747,011 869,345 868,272 3,106,628 GRAND TOTAL 161,000 461,000 747,011 869,345 868,272 3,106,628 Iharrsdtq~, December 06, 200? City of Shorewood, Minnesota ~:`c~~ital Irnl~roven~ent Prog~czm 2007 thni 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT 21 Department Project# Priority- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Municipal State Aid Streets ~ Vine Hill Road -Mill and Overlay MSA-03-05 1 2,500,000 2,500,000 Municipal State Aid Streets Total 2,500,000 2,500,000 GRAND TOTAL 2,500,000 2,500,000 Tlaursdtrp, Uecentber ~C, 1007 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2 2 Ca~itc~l Ir~~z~ro~~~n~tent PT~og~^czm 2007 thn~ 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Municipal Water System S.E. Area Lineshaft Well - PuII & Inspect W-07-02 n/a 22,000 22,000 Amesbury Well Controls Replacement W-07-03 n/a 55,000 55,000 Water Meter Radio Read Project W-07-05 n/a 250,000 75,000 75,000 400,000 SE Area Water Tower- Power Wash W-07-25 nla 6,700 6,700 SE Area Water Tower-painting W-08-01 nla 270,000 270,000 Amesbury Lineshaft Well -Pull & Inspect W-08-02 nla 23,000 23,000 Woodhaven Well Bldg Demolition W-08-03 n/a 18,000 18,000 Boulder Bridge Well #2 -Pull & Inspect W-09-01 nla 24,000 24,000 Municipal Water System Total GRAND TOTAL 333,700 386,000 99,000 818,700 333,700 386,000 99,000 818,700 ~hursdtry, l~ecenrbc:r U6, 'f107 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 23 Cc~~it~zl Irn~~o~~e>3T~rat Pr•o~rc~7n 2007 thn~ 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Praject# Priorit~~ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Parks ~ Badger Park-Football Field Lighting P-07-02 n/a 95,000 95,000 Silverwood Park Resurface TennislBasketball Court P-08-01 nla 2,000 2,000 Cathcart Park-Repave Existing Trail P-08-02 n/a 3,000 3,000 Cathcart Park-Swing Set Replacement P-O8-04 nla 2,500 2,500 Freeman Park-Restoration Dug-outs P-09-01 nla 2,500 2,500 Cathcart Park-Resurface Magic Square P-09-02 nla 7,500 7,500 Manor Park Tennis Court Reconstruction P-09-03 nla 70,000 70,000 Silverwood Park-Bituminous Parking Lot P-10-01 nla 18,000 18,000 Freeman Park-Picnic Shelter Rehab P-10-02 nla 3,000 3,000 Freeman Park-Wetland Enhancement P-11-02 nla 500,000 500,000 Park Improvements P-11-99 nla 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 Parks Total 95,000 12,500 85,000 26,000 505,000 723,500 GRAND TOTAL 95,000 12,500 85,000 26,000 505,000 723,500 Tharrsrftq~, L?ecember U6; Z(107 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 24 Ca~itc~l Irnl~T°Qti~emerat P~~og~c;rm 2007 fhni 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Pro,ject# Prioa•ity 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total (Public Facilities 1 Civil Defense Sirens PF-07-05 nla 50,000 50,000 City Hall Project PF-08-02 nla 1,200,000 1,200,000 5795 Country Club-Residence PF-09-01 nla 5,000 5,000 Public Works Addition (Bay w/lift) PF-10-01 n/a 400,000 400,000 Public Facilities Total GRAND TOTAL 1,250,000 5,000 400,000 1,655,000 1,250,000 5,000 400,000 1,655,000 llttn-sdcp~, December 06, 2007 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2 5 Ccz~it~zl Iin~~°o>~en~e.3~t Phog~czn2 2007 tlrnl 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Pro.ject# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total -~ ',Sanitary Sewer ~ SCADA System 14 Lift Stations SS-07-02 n/a 75,000 75,000 Lift Station 12 Rehab-5705 Christmas Lake Pt. SS-08-01 nla 110,000 110,000 Lift Station 16 Rehab-4915 Shady Island Rd SS-O8-02 n/a 104,000 104,000 Portable Lift Station Control Panel SS-08-03 n/a 7,000 7,000 Lift Station 15 Rehab-4360 Enchanted Dr. SS-08-O6 n/a 28,000 100,000 128,000 Lift Station 17 Rehab-5295 Shady Island Rd SS-09-01 n/a 8,000 70,000 78,000 Annual Lift Station Inspect & Rehab SS-11-03 n/a 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Infiltration and Inflow Reduction SS-11-05 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Sanitary Sewer Total 150,000 324,000 183,000 145,000 75,000 877,000 GRAND TOTAL 150,000 324,000 183,000 145,000 75,000 877,000 7hurs~fgy, December OG, <OrI7 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2 6 Ca~itcrl ~i~1~~i<°oveme.7zt Pr•og7°~trn 2007 thni 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Pi•o.jeet# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total ,Stormwater Management ~~ Water Management Plan STM-07-O6 2 78,000 78,000 ProjectTo-Be-Determined STM-08-02 n/a 100,000 100,000 Harding Lane Drainage STM-09-01 1 97,000 97,000 Stratford PI Drainage STM-09-02 1 30,000 30,000 Lake South Auto Drainage STM-09-03 1 21,000 21,000 5830 Echo Rd Drainage STM-09-04 1 33,000 33,000 6180 Chaska Rd Drainage STM-09-05 1 4,000 4,000 Meadowview Rd Storm STM-10-01 3 15,000 15,000 Nelsine Dr Drainage STM-10-02 1 16,000 16,000 6180 Murray Drainage STM-10-03 1 36,000 36,000 5925 Grant Drainage STM-10-04 1 49,000 49,000 Lake Mary Outlet STM-11-02 1 505,000 505,000 Star Circle Storm STM-11-03 3 89,000 89,000 RampartCt.Drainage STM-11-04 1 8,000 8,000 Stormwater Management Total 78,000 100,000 185,000 116,000 602,000 1,081,000 GRAND TOTAL 78,000 100,000 185,000 116,000 602,000 1,081,000 Tlunsday, Dece~liGE=r~ C)~, 2007 City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2 ~ C~~r,•tc~l hn1~1°o~~e~~ret~at P~°og~c~~n 2007 thni 2011 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Technology/Office Equip ~ Financial Software Package T-07-01 nla 43,000 43,000 Network Server (Computer) Replacement T-07-02 n/a 19,500 19,500 Phone System (VOIP or other) -City Hall T-09-O1 n/a 40,000 40,000 City Hall Copier & Maintenance Contract T-09-02 n/a 25,000 25,000 Computer Upgrades T-11-O6 n/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Technology/Office Equip Total GRAND TOTAL 72,500 10,000 75,000 10,000 10,000 177,500 72,500 10,000 75,000 10,000 10,000 177,500 Thzrrsday, Dr:ceruher I)l; 21107 c[rt oe SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Public Works Director FROM: James Landini, City Engineer - DATE: December 6, 2007 RE: Right-of--Way Ordinance and Permit Fees. As part of the 2007 Goals and Priorities for the Cityof Shorewood the Right-of--Way Ordinance was listed for updates. It was placed as a goal to attain better records of infrastructure in the right-of--way and to provide better management of the right-of--way resource. A draft ordinance was discussed at the October 22, 2007 work session. The draft ordinance was revised, and a copy to display changes from the draft is included as attachment 1. The revisions include additions from the League of MN Cities Model Ordinance and deletions to remove duplication. The Public Right-of--Way and Property regulations are currently organized in one chapter, Title 900 of the Code. The proposed Ordinance amends that chapter to meet the goals listed above. The proposed Ordinance is attachment 2. In addition an Ordinance is needed updating the Building, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees located in Title 1300 of the Code. The fees are consistent with fees charged by the City of Edina. The proposed Ordinance Amendment is attachment 3. A Resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the above two Ordinances is provided as Attachment 4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends: Approval of an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 901 of Shorewood City Code Relating to Right-of--Way; ~®p` PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~n ~ ~~ Mayor and City Council Right-of--Way Ordinance and Pernlit Fees November 21, 2007 Page 2 of 2 and Approval of an Ordinance Amending Title 1300, Chapter 1301 Titled "License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees" amending permit fees. and Approval of a Resolution authorizing publication of a summary of each Ordinance. TITLE 900 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY Subject Chapter Streets and Public Right-of--Way 901 Public Parks and Recreation Areas 902 Water Use and Service 903 Sewer Code 904 Stormwater Utility 905 CHAPTER 901 STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Section o n io-~-~~~~tie~ 901.021 Encroachments 901.022 House numbering 901.03 Underground utilities 901.04 Right of Way Mana e 901.05 Administration 901.06 Registration 901.07 Permit Required; Bond; Exceptions 901.08 Permit Applications 901.09 Diligence in Performin.~ Work 901`.10 Standards During Construction or Installation 901.11 Repair and Restoration 901.12 Permit Limitations 901.13 Denial of Permit 901.14 Emergency Work 90:1.15 Revocation_of Permits 901.16 Appeal 901.17 Mapping 901..18 Location of Facilities and Equipment 901.19 Relocation 901.20 Pre-excavation Facilities Location 901.21 Inspection 901.22 Authority of Director 90..1.23 Right-of-Way Vacation Attachment #1 901.24 Abandoned and Unusable Eclui~ment 901.25 Indemnification and Liability 901.26 Franchise Holders 901.27 Su~lementarv Applications 901.28 Other Obli anions 901.29 Severability 901.86 30 Violation e~~+a~ tl~e-e~y~ > > be€m~l~ ,.,+o ~~,o ~+roo~ o 901.01 ENCROACHMENTS. Subd. 1. Purpose. The public welfare requires that the public rights-of--way within the City, including highways, roads, streets and alleys, be reserved for public purposes. Public use of the full width of the rights-of--way is necessary to public safety and the proper and efficient maintenance of the rights-of--way. However, it is recognized that limited private use or encroachment onto the rights-of--way is not necessarily inconsistent with public use. It is the purpose of this section to provide for lawful incidental private use of publicly-owned rights-of--way not inconsistent with public use. Subd. 2. Permit to encroach. a. Permit required. The right to use publicly-owned rights-of--way within the City for any private use or purpose other than the primary purpose of public travel, whether the use constitutes a substantial or incidental use, may be acquired only through permit granted pursuant to this section. b. Application for permit. Any person may apply to the City Council for a permit to keep or maintain private property within apublicly-owned right- of-way. The application shall be in writing and must describe with specificity the private property and right-of--way involved and the nature and extent of the requested encroachment. Issuance of permit, conditions. The City Council may grant the permit if it is determined that the use applied for is incidental and not inconsistent with safe and efficient public use. However, no permit will be issued until the applicant has agreed in writing to waive any right to recover from the City for damage occurring to the property located within the right-of--way which may result from the performance of the City or its agents of its public duties as required by law. d. Special permit for underground sprinkler systems. The Building Official 3 may approve an application for a special permit for the installation of an underground sprinkler system within the public right-of--way, providing the installation is not inconsistent with the public use of the right-of--way. In the application, in addition to the information required by subsection b above, the applicant shall provide a legal description of the private property served by the sprinkler system and agree in writing to waive all rights to recover from the City for damage occurring to the sprinkler system as a result of the City's performance of its public duties within the right-of--way. The applicant shall further provide a survey or plat drawing showing the location of the sprinkling system within the right-of--way and pay the special permit fee as may be prescribed by ordinance passed by the City Council from time to time. The special permit shall become effective upon its being duly recorded at the offices of the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles and the applicant's providing to the City satisfactory proof thereof. e. Revocation of permit. The City reserves the right to revoke any permit granted under this section as may be required by the public interest. Subd. 3. Unlawful encroachments. Any privately-owned property located within or encroaching upon public-owned rights-of--way which has not been authorized in accordance with this section shall be unlawful and be subject to removal by the City at the owner's expense. Subd. 4. Exemption from provisions. The use of the public right-of--way for the placement of private mailboxes shall be exempt from the permit requirements of this section providing the following conditions are met: a. The mailbox is located on the side of the right-of--way contiguous with the mailbox owner's property or is positioned or clustered according to specific directions of the United States Postal Service; b. Mailboxes servicing a planned unit development (PUD) are positioned or clustered within the platted portion of the PUD or on the side of the right- of-way contiguous with the PUD; c. The location of the mailbox or mailboxes does not interfere with the City's maintenance of the right-of--way. (1987 Code, § 901.02) (Ord. 121, passed 5-28-1980;. Ord. 204, passed 2-8-1988; Ord. 239, passed 6-24-1991) 901.02 HOUSE NUMBERING. Subd. 1.Numbering system. To assist in providing immediate access to all lots, buildings and structures in the City, the same shall be numbered in accordance with the following plan: 4 a. North-south numbers shall commence at the south border of the City and north-south streets shall begin at the number 4600 and run to 6200; b. East-west numbers shall commence at the east border of the City and east- west streets shall begin at the number 19200 and run to 28400; Odd numbers shall be on the south and east sides of the streets; even numbers shall be on the north and west sides of the streets. There shall be 100 numbers to each block, as assigned on a grid of 330 feet for east-west numbers; and 100 numbers to each block as assigned on a grid of 660 feet for north-south numbers. d. On Enchanted and Shady Islands, numbers shall be assigned on a west to east basis only. Commencing at the west border of Enchanted Island and running to the tip of Shady Island, numbers shall begin at the number 4200 and run to 5400. There shall be 100 numbers to each block assigned on a grid of 330 feet for each block west to east. Subd. 2.House numbers assigned, chart kept. The City Administrator/Clerk shall keep a chart showing the proper street number of every lot, parcel and building in the City which shall be open to inspection by any interested person and shall assign a street number to each house and/or structure in the City. Subd. 3.Placement and size of numbers. r+ ~~,°" i.° +~,° a„+., „~+~,° „ ,,,ze~nu N=u.r ~~~ a Y~u~~ th~~er-e~tl~, ~,,,,,~ ~,,,;~a;, +i,°,. +,.,,,,+,,,,° ,a r,~> t,• ~, °, 'gvrvcrr-~crcrcccrrc-occ'api~a-oy-niiiro-rre~ Shall conform to Minnesota Statutes 299F.011. Subd. 4. Violation. Any person violating the terms of this section shall'be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 901.03) (Ord. 76, passed 10-8-1973; Ord. 105, passed 9-11-1978) Penalty, see § 104.01 > > ...,MIS o«fo_o 1. Tt,o ,1,,,.+1, ,.~,,,,,, 1,,,«;o,a o „+:.,1 ~ ~l,~ll l,o ~+ ~ aor+1, .,r 1„~.,+;r.,, +1,~+ ~ . ° o > > T1,~ , ;,1+1, „~ ~,,,, l;,,o.,,. o „+~ ., ..1,+~ ~,~ ,,.~,. X1,.,11 ..+ l,o ~ .,1, +1, .,+ ;+ ~,« +l, = ^~ t o .1o~;,Y,,.,+0.1 „+;1;+., ., ,-,•;f7.,,•~ ., ;.ao„+; F;oa ;,, +l,o .,;+„~~ @3£-i ~ e~i , f A,,, lh.rl 2'74 Boa 1 1 ~ ~nm~ Do„~lt<. Boa ~ 1 (ld !11_ , , r 901.03 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Subd. 1. All utilities installed after the effective date of these regulations, including, but not limited to electrical, telephone and cable television lines, shall be buried unless otherwise approved by the City Council. Subd. 2. Existing overhead utilities within road rights-of--way which are not in conformance with overhead utility corridors as stipulated in this section and of a capacity less than 115 kilovolts are declared to be nonconforming and must be buried at the time they are replaced due to aging or capacity limitations or relocated due to road construction or reconstruction within the rights-of--way in which they share space, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. This provision shall not apply to existing overhead utilities located on rear or side lot line easements which directly serve adjacent properties. Subd. 3. Existing overhead utilities which are to be buried in conformance with Subd. 2 shall be done so under the terms and requirements as provided in the applicable franchise agreement for the affected utility, if so stipulated. In the absence of franchise agreement stipulations for the affected utility, the burial shall occur under the terms, expense and scheduling requirements as required by the City at the time the overhead utility is replaced or relocated. Substitute stipulations may be provided between the affected utility and the City. (Am. Ord. 378, passed 1-14-2002) 6 901.046 Right of Wav Management. Subd. O1. Findings and Purpose. To provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the r~hts-of--way, the City strives to keep its rights-of--way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. According, the City hereby enacts this new chapter of this code relating to ri hg_t-of- way_permits and administration. This chaFter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its ri htg s-of- way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this chapter, persons excavating and obstructin tg he rights-of-way will bear financial responsibility for their work. Finally, this chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights-of-wad This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified'in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the City and users of the right-of--way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050 - 7819.9950 where possible. To the extent any_provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted°consistently with the Minnesota Rules, Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the re u~ry and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Subd. 02 Election to Manage the Public Rights-of--Wav. Pursuant to the authoritygranted to the Citesunder state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the City hereby elects, pursuant Minn. Stat. 237.163 subd. 2(b , to manage rights-of--way within its jurisdiction. Subd. 03. Definitions. The following; words, terms and phrases, as used herein, have the following meanings: The following definitions apply in this chapter of this code. References hereafter to "sections" are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms, whether or not capitalized. "Abandoned Facility" means a facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operatin fg acility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of--way user. "A~plicant" means andperson requesting~ermission to excavate or obstruct aright- of-wav. "Gifu" means the City of Shorewood Minnesota. For purposes of section 901, "City" means its elected officials officers, employees and a eg nts• "Gifu Cost" The actual cost incurred by the City for public rights-of--way management• including but not limited to costs associated with re is~ terin~ applicants• issuing,~processin~ and verif~g right-of-way~aermit abplications• inspectingjob sites and restoration projects• maintaining su~portin~, brotectin~ or moving facilities durin~,~public right-of--way work; determining the adequacy of right-of--wav restoration• restoring work inadequatel~performed• mapping of "as built" locations of facilities located in rights-of--wav; and revoking right-of--wav permits and performing all other tasks rewired by this Section includin og ther costs the Cit~may incur in managing_the provisions of this Section. "Commission" means the State Public Utilities Commission. "Congested Right-of-Way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right-of--way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using_hand diggin tg o expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes section 216D.04. subdivision 3 over a continuous len h in excess of 500 feet. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of securi provided at permittee's option: a. Individual project bond; b. Cash deposit; c. Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.73, subd. 3; d. Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the City; e. Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the City; f. A blanket bond for projects within the City, or other form of construction bond for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the City "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the right-of--wav caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of--way, resultingLn the need to reconstruct such right-of--way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. "Degradation Cost" subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration as determined by the City at the time the permit is issued not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in dates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the City to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the ri hg_t-of- way caused by_the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. "Department" means the City. "Department Inspector" means any_person authorized by the City to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this chapter. "Director" means the City. "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable dela__ sight-of- way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by~ermit. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or 2 requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right-of-wad "Excavate" means to dip into or in any way remove or ph, si~call_y disturb or penetrate any~art of aright-of--way.. "Excavation permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in aright-of--way. An Excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the ri{~ht-of--way described in such hermit. "Excavation permit fee" means money paid to the City by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 901.08. "Facility" or "Facilities" means any tangible asset in the right-of--way required to provide Utility Service. "High Density Corridor" means a designated portion of the public right-of--way within which telecommunications right-of--way users havin~ple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit s, stem or other common structure. "Hole" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized b,~ a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant re ag_rding all matters within the scope of this chapter. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the City incurs in managin ig is rights- of-way including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with re is.~ tering applicants• issuing,. processing and verifying right-of-way permit applications• inspecting~ob sites and restoration projects; maintaining, su~Porting=Protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of--way work; determining the adequacy of right- of-way restoration• restoring work inadequately Performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right-of-way Permits. Mana eg ment costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right-of--way user for the use of the right-of-way the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997 Chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 or 237.163 • or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the City fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 901.16 of this chapter. "Obstruct" means to dace any tan ibg le object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or an~Part of the right-of--way. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a Person may obstruct aright-of--way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of--way, for the duration specified therein. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 901.08 "Patch" or "Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary nature. A patch consists of (1 the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base and (2) the replacement in kind of the existing_pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A hatch is considered full restoration only when the~avement is included in the City's five-year project plan. "Pavement" means an~type of improved surface that is within the public ri hg tof- way and that is Paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. "Permit" has the meaning_given "right-of--way Permit" in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162. "Permittee" means any_person to whom a Permit to excavate or obstruct a ri hg t-of- way has been granted by the City under this chapter. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized whether public or~private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for Profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or Political. "Public Right-o~,y" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane or public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of--way for travel purposes and utility easements of the City. Aright-of--way does not include the airwaves above aright- of-way with regard to cellular or other nonwire telecommunications or broadcast service. (Note: this definition does not include other public grounds that may be the subject of other Ci requirements.) "Public Street" The improved, traveled or surfaced portion of any public ri h way or roadway "Registrant" means any_person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right-of--way, or 2 in any wa~pies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or place its facilities or equipment in the ri hg t-of- way "Restore" or "Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right-of--way and surrounding area, including~avement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. "Restoration Cost" means the amount of moneypaid to the Cit,~~permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. "Right-of-Way Permit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this chapter. "Right_o~ay User" means (~ a telecommunications right-of--way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subd. 4; or (2) a person owning_or controlling a facility in the right-of--way that is used or intended to be used for providin utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the~ublic right-of-wad "Service" or "Utility Service" includes (l~those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2~services of a telecommunications right-of--way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chapter. 238; (4 natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the City_(~ services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat., Chapter 308A; and (6) water, and sewer, including service laterals, steam, cooling or heating services. "Service Lateral" means an underground facility that is used to transmit, distribute, or furnish a common source to an end-use-customer. A service lateral is also an underground facility that is used in the removal ofwastewater from a customer's premises. 11 "Su~plementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of--way than allowed in or to extend, a permit that had already issued. "Temporary Surface" means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement in kind of the existing~avement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of Pavement included in the City's two-mar flan, in which case it is considered full restoration. "Trench" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. "Telecommunication right-o~~user" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of--way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the ri hg t-of- way that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this chapter, a cable communication stem defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utili~ as defined in Minn. Stat. Sec. 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal ag s or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat. Chap. 308A, are not telecommunications right-of--way users for purposes of this chapter. 901.05 Administration. The Cit~Engineer is the principal City official responsible for the administration of the rights-of--way right-of--way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The CitXEngineer maw at.~e any or all of the duties hereunder. 901.06 Registration. Subd. 1. Annual Registration Required. Each person who occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use the right-of--wa~or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of--way, including_persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the City. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Such registration shall be made on an application form provided by the City Engineer and shall be accompanied b t~ he registration fee provided in Section 1301.02 of this Code. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove relocate or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or an~part thereof in an~~ht-of--way without first being registered with the City. 12 Subd. 3 Registration Information. The registrant shall provide the following at the time of registration: a. Registrant's name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, email address and Gopher One-Call registration. certificate number if required by State law. b. Name_~ address, telephone number, email address and facsimile number of the person responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the re istg rant. c. A Certificate of Insurance from a company licensed to-do business in the State of Minnesota providin cg overage in accordance with MN Statute 466.04. Such certificate shall verify that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property dama e._ a~risin_g out of the (I) use and occupancy of the right-of-wady the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii2placement and use of equipment or facilities in the right-of-wad t~gistrant its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground equipment and collapse of property. Such certificate shall also name the City as an additional insured as to whom the. covera e._ enquired herein are in force and applicable and for whom. defense will be provided as to all such coverage's. Such certificate shall require that the City Engineer be notified 30 da~prior to cancellation of the policy, d. 24 hour emergency number. e. An acknowled mg ent b t~gistrant of the indemnification pursuant to Subd. 2 of Subsection 901.25. f. If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate is required to be filed under Minn. Stat. 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. g. A copy of the person's order ,granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency h. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current. at all times by providing to the City information as to changes within fifteen (15ws following the date on which the registrant has knowled e of any change. i. Such other information the City may require. Subd. 4 Exceptions. The following are not subject to the requirements of this Subsection. a. Persons erecting fences, installing driveways, sidewalks, curb and utter, or parkin 13 b. Persons engaged in snow removal activities. c. Persons installing street furnishing, bus stop benches and shelters. . J. d. Federal, State, County, and City a eg ncies. e. Persons installing_pet containments std f. Plumbers licensed in accordance with MN Statute 4715.3140. g. Persons acting as agents contractors or subcontractors for a registrant who has properly registered in accordance with this Subsection 901.06. Subd. 5 Term. Registrations issued pursuant to this Section shall expire on December 31 of each calendar ,~ ear. 901.07 Permit Required; Bond; Exceptions. Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right-of--way without first having obtained the appropriate ri hit-of- wa~permit from the City to do so. a. Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right-of--way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the richt-of--way by placing facilities described therein to the extent and for the duration specified therein. b. Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion ofright-of--way by placing etc uipment described therein on the r~ht-of--way to the extent and for the duration specified therein An obstruction permit is not required if a person already_possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No ,person may excavate or obstruct the right-of-wad the date or dates specified in the permit unless (il such person makes a supplementary ~~lication for another right-of-wadpermit before the expiration of the initial permit and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is ram Subd. 3. Delay Penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subp. 3 and notwithstanding subd. 2 of this Section, the City shall establish and impose a delay_penalty for unreasonable delays in right-of--way excavation obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delaypenalty shall be established from time to time by City council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the City. 14 901.08. Permit Applications Application for a permit is made to the City. An application for a permit shall be made on forms provided by the City Engineer and shall be accompanied by the fees set forth in Section 1'301.02 of this Code which are established to reimburse the City for Cit. c~ osts. Right-of-way_permit applications shall contain, and willbe considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of the following~rovisions: a. Scaled drawings showing the location of all facilities and improvements existing and proposed b. t~pplicant. b. A description of the methods that will be used for installation. c. A proposed schedule for all work. d. The location of any_public streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be temporarily closed to traffic during the work. e. The location of any~ublic streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be disrupted by the work. f. A description of methods for restoring all public improvements disrupted by the work. g. Any other information reasonably required by the City En ig_neer. h. Traffic control flan referencing the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. i. Registration with the City~ursuant to this chapter j. Permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs k. Prior obstructions or excavations 1. Any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the City because of ~plicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights-of--way or anX emergency actions taken by the Cites m. Franchise fees or other char eg s, if applicable. If the work is to be performed by an agent, contractor or subcontractor on behalf of a registrant, such application shall be si ng ed by the re istg_ rant. Subd. 1 Application: Fee. The City shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the followin cg osts: a. the Ci , management costs; b. degradation costs, if applicable c. Payment of disputed amounts due the City by~ostin s.° e~curit_~positin ig n an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110% of the amount owing, d. Posting an additional or lamer construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the City deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. 15 Obstruction Permit Fee. The City shall establish the obstruction Permit fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the City management costs. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation Permit or obstruction Permit shall be issued without Payment of excavation or obstruction Permit fees. The City may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Non Refundable. Permit fees that were Paid for a Permit that the City has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 901.15 are not refundable. to Franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be char eg d separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a ri hg t-of- way user in the franchise. Subd. 2 Security. ~,,,. ,. ,.~ „ .°~;,..^ , „a°„ „ rr,,,,,.~,;~° . ,;,~, ~~,° r;+<, A surety bond,' ^~ °r°~'~* ^r °°~'~ a°r^~~* in the amount determined by the City Engineer but not less than $2,000, shall be required from each applicant. A surety bond shall be from a corporate surety authorized to do business in the State. Security required pursuant to this Subd. 2 shall be conditioned that the holder will perform the work in accordance with this Section and applicable regulations, will pay to the City any costs incurred by the City in performing work pursuant to this Section; and will indemnify and save the City and its officers, agents and employees harmless against any and all claims, judgment or other costs arising from any excavation and other work covered by the permit or for which the City, Council or any City officer may be liable by reason of any accident or injur,~persons or property through the fault of the permit holder, either in improperlyguarding the excavation or for anXother injury resulting from the negligence of the permit holder. The bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be released by the CitX upon completion of the work and compliance with all conditions imposed by the permit. For permits allowing excavations within public streets, such bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be held for a period of 24 months to ug a., ranty the adequacy of all restoration work. Subd 3 Permitissuance• Conditions. The City Engineer shall r.~permit upon findingLthe work will comply with ~plicable sections of this Code. The permit shall be kept on the site of the work while it is in progress, in the custody of the individual in charge of the work. The permit shall be exhibited upon request made by any City official or police officer. The City Engineer ma~pose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant there under to protect the public health; safety and welfare, to ensure the structural integrity of the right-of--way, to protect the property and safety of other users of the right-of--way, and to minimize 16 the disruption and inconvenience to the traveling~ublic. No permit shall be issued to anyone who has failed to register in accordance with Subsection 901.06. Subd. 4. Exceptions. No permit shall be required for the following: a. Snow removal activities b. Activities of the City c. Installation and maintenance of sewer or water services provided that no excavation or other work is done within a street, sidewalk or alley and all work is confined to unimproved portions ofrights-of--way or easements. 901.09 Diligence in Performing Work. Work shall progress in an expeditious manner as reasonably permitted by weather conditions until completion in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to traffic. In the event that the work is not performed in accordance with applicable regulations pertaining to excavations and utility connections, or the work is not done in an expeditious manner or shall cease or be abandoned without due cause, the Cit~may after 72 hour notice to the permit holder, correct the work and fill the excavation or repair the street. The entire cost of such work shall be paid by the permit holder upon demand made by the City. If permit holder fails to pay, the City will exercise a claim on the Buret bond. 90.1.10 Standards During Construction or Installation. The permit holder shall comply with the following standards when engaging in the work: a: Conduct the operations and perform the work in a manner as to ensure the least obstruction and interference to traffic. b. Take adequate precautions to ensure the safety of the eg neral public and those who require access to abutting_propert~ c. If required by the City Engineer, notif~joining_property owners prior to the commencement of work which may disrupt the use of and access to such adjoining_properties. d. In all cases where construction work interferes with the normal use of the construction area provide for closing the construction area to traffic or to afford it restricted use of the area and comply with the Minnesota Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices traffic safet~,gning requirements. e. Exercise precaution at all times for the protection of persons, including employees and property f. Protect and identify excavations and work operations with barricade flags, and if required by flagmen in the daytime, and by warning lights at night. 17 g. Provide proper trench protection as required by O.S.H.A. when necessary and depending upon the type of soil, in order to prevent cave-ins endangering life or tending to enlarge the excavation. h. Protect the root growth of trees and shrubbery. i. Installation of pipe (utility conductors) under Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt concrete, or other high=type bituminous pavements shall be done by iackin~guring or tunneling as directed by the City Engineer unless otherwise authorized. HDPE sleeving shall be an acceptable casing or sleevin~ material for telecommunications installations. j. When removing~avement of Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt concrete or high=type built-up bituminous surfacing the pavement shall be removed on each side of the trench or excavation a distance of nine inches beyond the trench width and length, in order to provide a shoulder and solid foundation for the surface restoration. k. To obtain a strai hg t edge and neat-appearing opening in pavement surfaces, the following~rocedure is required: 1. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement -The surface shall be saw-cut scored two inches deep and the concrete broken out by sledge or pneumatic hammer chisel. 2. Asphalt Concrete -The surface shall be cut full depth by pneumatic hammer chisel. 1. Excavations, trenches and jacking_pits off the roadwa~jacent to the roadway or curbing shall be sheathed and braced depending upon location and soil stability, and as directed by the City. m. Excavations, trenches and jacking_pits shall be protected when unattended to prevent entrance of surface drainage. n. All backfilling must be placed in six inch lavers at optimum moisture and compacted with the objective of attaining 100 percent of AASHTO densit,~paction shall be accomplished with hand, pneumatic or vibrating compactors as appropriate. o. Backfill material shall be Class 5, or better in the judgement of the City Engineer. The City Engineer .mawpermit backfillin~ with the material from the excavation provided such material is granular in nature and acceptable to the City En ig Weer. p. Compacted backfill shall be brought to street grade and crowned at the center not more than one inch. q. Street and pedestrian traffic shall be maintained throughout construction unless provided otherwise b.~permit. r. No lu sg damming to roadway surfaces may be used. s. Dirt or debris must be periodically removed duringLconstruction. t. Other reasonable standards and requirements of the City En ig Weer. 901.11 Repair and Restoration. 18 Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation Permit, and the patching and restoration of the right-of--way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by_as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The Ci , maX choose either to have the Permittee restore the right-of--way or to restore the right-of- wa, i a. City Restoration. If the City restores the right-of--way, Permittee shall Pav the costs thereof within thirt.~(301 days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to Permittee's improper backfilling the Permittee shall Pay to the City, within thirt~(30Lys of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. The permit holder may request that the City restore the right-of--way. The hermit holder shall Pay to the City, in advance, a cash deposit equaling 150% of the estimated restoration cost. The restoration cost shall be estimated by the CitX Engineer and shall include an estimate of the degradation cost. The estimate of the degradation cost shall be based upon criteria adopted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Following completion of the restoration, any. funds in excess of the actual restoration cost and the degradation cost shall be rehirned to the permit holder. b. Permittee Restoration. If the Permittee restores the right-of--way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. c. Degradation Fee in Lieu o~'Restoration. In lieu ofright-of--way restoration, a right-of--way user may elect to Pav a degradation fee. However, the ri hg t-of- way_user shall remain responsible for Patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The Permittee shall perform excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the City and shall compIy with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. The Permit holder shall Perform repairs and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the City. The City shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and extent of the restoration, and ma~do so in written Procedures of general application or on a case-by-case basis. The City in exercising this authority shall be guided by the following standards and consideration: 19 a. The number, size, depth and duration of the excavations, disruptions or damage to the right-of-wad b. The traffic volume carried b t~ he right-of-wav; the character of the neighborhood surroundin tg he right-of-wad c. The pre-excavation condition of the right-of--way; the remainin lg ife_ expectancy of the right-of--way affected by the excavation; d. Whether the relative cost of the method of restoration to the permit holder is in reasonable balance with the prevention of an accelerated depreciation of the right-of--way that would otherwise result from the excavation, disturbance or damage to the right-of-way and e. The likelihood that the particular method of restoration would be effective in slowin tg he depreciation of the right-of-way that would otherwise take lp ace. The excavation, backfilling=patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right-of--way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and 237.163. Installation of service laterals shall be performed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter-7560 and these ordinances. Service lateral installation is further subject to those requirements and conditions set forth by the City in the ~~licable permits and/or agreements referenced in Section 901.18-subd. 2 of this ordinance. Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration performed by~ermittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the City, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required bXthe City. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the City, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of-wa i manner and to the condition required by the City, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the City, the City at its option may do such work, or the City may withhold hermits for future work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restorin tight-of- way. If permittee fails to pa ay s required, the City exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. Subd. 6 Guarantees. The permit holder shall guarantee its work and shall maintain it for twenty four (241 months following its completion. During this twenty-four month period it shall, upon notification from the City En ing_eer, promptly correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the Cit~En ig Weer. 20 901.12 Permit Limitations. Permits issued pursuant to this Section are valid only for the area of the ri hg t-of- way specified in the application and the permit and only for the dates so specified. No work shall be extended beyond the permitted area or dates without a new permit being procured therefore, provided the City Engineer may extend the completion date of the work in accordance with Subd. 1 of Subsection 901.11. 901.13 Denial of Permit. The City may deny a permit due to the following_ a. Failure to re ig ster pursuant to Subsection 901.06. b. A proposed excavation within a street or sidewalk surface that has been constructed or reconstructed within the precedin f.~years unless the City Engineer determines that no other locations are feasible or when necessitated by an emergency c. The applicant is subject to revocation of a prior permit issued pursuant to this Section. d. The proposed schedule for the work would conflict or interfere with an exhibition, celebration, festival or any other similar event. e. The right-of--way would become undul,~gested due to the proposed facilities and equipment when combined with other uses in the ri hg t-of- way as provided in Subd. 3 of Subsection 901.18. f. Businesses or residences in the vicinity will be unreasonabl, dy isrupted by the work. g. The proposed schedule conflicts with scheduled total or partial reconstruction of the right-of-wad h. The applicant fails to comply with the requirements of this Section or other Sections of this Code. i. Failure of applicant to complete or pay restoration costs for previous work. 901.14 Emergency Work. Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately the director of any event re ag rding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may.proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Excavators' notification to Gopher State One Call re ag rding_an emergency situation does not fulfill this requirement. Within two (2) business dam after the occurrence of the emergency, the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated Therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency. If the City Engineer becomes aware of an emergencX, the City Engineer shall attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emer ency. In any event, the City Engineer may take whatever action deemed necessar. t~pond to the 21 emergency, the cost of which shall be bore by the registrant whose facilities or equipment occasioned the emergency Subd. 2. Non-Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, andperson who, without first having obtained the necessarxpermit obstructs or excavates a ri hg t-of- way must subsequently obtain a permit and as a penalty pay double the normal fee for said permit pay double all the other fees required by the City code deposit with the City the fees necessary to correct an damage to the right-of--way, and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. 901.15 Revocation of Permits. Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The Citv reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke an right-of-wadpermit without a fee refund if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of andstatute ordinance rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit A substantial breach b~permittee shall include but shall not be limited to, the following: a. The violation of any material provision of the right-of--way permit; b. An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of- wa~permit or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; c. Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for aright- of-wadpermit; d. The failure to complete the work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons bond the pennittee's control; or e. The failure to correct in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 901.21. 901.16 At~peal. Subd. 1 Filing ofAppeal. Andperson aggrieved b~) the denial of a permit application ii) the denial of a registration iii) the revocation of a permit or, iv) the application of the fee schedule imposed by Section 185 of this Code may appeal to the Council big a written notice of appeal with the Clerk. Said notice must be filed with 20 days of the action causin tg he appeal. Subd. 2 Notice of Hearing, The Council shall hear the appeal not later than 30 days after the date the appeal is filed Notice of the date time place and purpose of the hearing shall be mailed to the appellant not less than 10 daXs before the date of the hearing. 22 Subd. 3 Hearing and Decision. The Council shall, at such hearing, hear and consider any evidence offered b~ the appellant, the Cit~~ineer, and anyone else wishing to be heard. After hearing the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future meeting. 901.17 Mapping. Subd. 1. Information Required. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information required by the City in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Within ninety~90~ys following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the permittee shall provide the director accurate maps and drawin sg certifying the "as-built" location of all equipment installed, owned and maintained b,~the permittee. Such .maps and drawings shall include the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the City's electronic mapping system, Failure to provide maps and drawings pursuant to this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's registration. Subd. 2. Service Laterals. All permits issued for the installation or repair of service laterals, other than minor repairs as defined in Minnesota Rules 7560.0150 subpart 2, shall require the permittee's use of appropriate means of establishing the horizontal locations of installed service laterals „a +''° ^° °'^+°°^' •~°~*~^^"°^^*~^„^ '^ *'~°^° . Permittees or their-subcontractors shall submit to the director evidence satisfactory to the director of the installed service lateral locations. Compliance with this subdivision 2 and with applicable Gopher State One Call law and-Minnesota Rules governing service laterals install after December 31, 2005, shall be a condition of any City approval necessary for 1) payments to contractors working on a public improvement project-includin those under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and 2) Cit,~pproval of performance under development agreements, or other subdivision or site plan approval under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter-462. The director shall reasonably determine the appropriate method of providing such information to the City. Failure to provide prompt and accurate information on the service laterals installed may result-in the revocation of the permit issued for the work or for future permits to the offending_permittee or its subcontractors. 901.18 Location of Facilities and Equipment. Subd. 1 Under~roundinQ by Telecommunications Rieht-of--Way Users. Any new construction and the installation of new equipment and replacement of old equipment of telecommunication right-of--way users shall be underground or contained within buildings or other structures inconformity with applicable codes. Provided, telecommunications right-of--way users may attach equipment 23 and facilities to existi~~poles and structures maintained by a service or utility service. Subd. 2 Corridors. The City Engineer may assign specific corridors within the right-of-wav, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of equipment that is or pursuant to current technology, the Cit~Engineer expects will someday be located within the right-of--wav. All permits issued by the City Engineer involving the installation or replacement of equipment shall designate the proper corridor for the equipment at issue. Subd. 3 Limitation of Space. To protect health and safetti, the CitX Engineer shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional equipment within the right-of-wad there is insufficient space to accommodate all of the requests of registrants or persons to occupy and use the right-of--wav. In making such decisions, the City Engineer shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of--wav, but shall be Guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of--way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing equipment in the right-of--wav, and future City_plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 901.19 Location and Relocation of Facilities. Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authorityotherwise available to cities. A registrant shall promptly but in no event more than 120 days of the City's request permanently remove and relocate at no charge to the City, any facilities or equipment if and when made necessary by a change in the grade, alignment or width of any right-of--way, by the construction, maintenance or operation of any City facilities or to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The re isg trant shall restore any rights-of--way to the condition it was in prior to removal and relocation. Subd. 2 Under rounding of Relocated Telecommunications Facilities. A telecommunications right-of--way user shall relocate all above ground facilities and equipment to underground locations at its own cost and expense at the City's request when, i, the City requires the relocation of all telecommunications facilities and equipment to underground locations or iil structures or poles to 24 which the registrant's facilities or equipment is attached are abandoned or removed by the owner of such structures or poles. Subd 3 Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, anv facilities found in aright-of--way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The City exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to abating_the nuisance or taking_possession of the facilities and restorin.~ the right-of--way to a useable condition. Subd. 4. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the right-of-wav and its current use the City shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right-of--way In making such decisions the City shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and~otential users of the right-of-wav, but shall be ug ided primarily by considerations of the .public interest the public's needs for the articular utility service the condition of the right-of--way the time of year with respect to essential utilities the protection of existing facilities in the right-of--way and future Citesplans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 901.20 Pre-excavation Facilities Location. In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of anv right-of--wav excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said facilities. Andregistrant whose facilities are less than twenty (20~inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its facilities and the best procedure for excavation. 901.21 Inspection. Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under andpermit hereunder is completed the~ermittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd 2 Site Inspection Permittee shall make the work-site available to the Citw and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. 901.22 Authority of Director a. At the time of inspection the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety_or well-being of the public. b. The director may issue an order to the permittee for anv work that does not 25 conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 901.15. 901.23 Right-of--Way Vacation. Subd. 1 Reservation o Ri ht. Reservation of right. If the City vacates aright-of--way that contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right-of--way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. Subd. 2 Relocation of Equipment. If the vacation requires the relocation of registrant facilities and equipment; and ~a) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the registrant, the registrant must pay the relocation costs; or (b) if the vacation proceedings are initiated b. City, the registrant must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to bathe City and the registrant; or (c) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a person or persons other than the registrant or permit holder, such other person or persons must pay the relocation costs. 901.24 Abandoned and Unusable Equipment. Subd. 1 Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue its operations in the City must either: a. Provide information satisfactory to the City Engineer that the registrant's obligations for its equipment in the right-of--way under this Section have been lawfully assumed by another registrant; or b. Submit to the City Engineer an action plan for the removal or abandonment of equipment and facilities. The CitX Engineer shall require removal of such facilities and equipment if the City Engineer determines such removal is necessar.~protect the public health, safety and welfare. The City Engineer may require the registrant to post a bond in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for reasonabl, anticipated costs to be incurred in removing the facilities and equipment. Subd. 2 Abandoned Facilities Equipment. Facilities and equipment of a registrant located on the surface of or above aright-of--way or on City~roperty which, for two years, remains unused 26 shall be deemed to be abandoned. Such abandoned equipment is deemed to be a nuisance. The Cit~may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, i, abating the nuisance, or iii requiring removal of the equipment or facilities by the registrant, or the registrant's successor in interest. Subd. 3 Removal of Underground Equipment. Any registrant who has unusable and abandoned underground facilities or eQUi~ment in any right-of--way shall remove it from that right-of--way during the next scheduled excavation, to the extent such facilities or equipment is uncovered by such excavation unless this requirement is waived by the Cites 901.25 Indemnification and Liability. Bye ig stering with the Ci , , or b~pting a permit under this chapter, a re isg t or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the City in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. Subd: 1 Limitation ofLiability. By reason of the acceptance of a registration or the grant of aright-of--way permit, the City does not assume any liabilit~al for injuries to persons, damage to property, or loss of service claims b~parties other than the registrant or the City or (i~ for claims or penalties of any sort resulting from the installation, presence, maintenance, or operation of equipment by registrants or activities of registrants. Subd: 2 Indemnij~cation. By re isg tering with the City Engineer, a registrant agrees, or b, a~cce_pting_a permit under this Section, apermit-holder is required, to defend, indemnify, and hold the City whole and harmless from all costs, liabilities, and claims for damages of any kind arising out of the construction, presence, installation, maintenance, repair or operation of its equipment, or out of any activity undertaken in ornear aright-of--way ,whether or not any act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed, or prohibited byy a right-ofway_permit. It further agrees that it will not bring, nor cause to be brought, any action, suit or other proceeding claiming damages, or seeking any other relief against the City for any claim nor for any award arising out of the presence, installation, maintenance or operation of its equipment, or any activity undertaken in or near a right-of--way, whether or not the act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or prohibited b~ a right-of-way permit. The foregoing does not indemnify the City for its own negligence except for claims arising out of or alle ing the 27 City's negligence where such negligence arises out of or is primarily related to the presence installation construction operation maintenance or repair of said equipment by the registrant or on the registrant's behalf including but not limited to the issuance of permits and inspection of plans or work This section is not as to third parties a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the registrant or to the City• and the registrant, in defendingany action on behalf of the City shall be entitled to assert in a~ action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf. 901.26 Franchise Holders. If there is a conflict in language between the franchise of a person holding a franchise agreement with the City and this Section, the terms of the franchise shall r~_ ._ . 901.2'7 Supplementary Applications Subd 1 Limitation on Area. Aright-of-wadpermit is valid only for the area of the ri hg t-of way specified in the permit No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit except as provided herein Any~ermittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before workin ig n that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereb and iiigranted a new hermit or permit extension Subd 2 Limitation on Dates. Aright-of--way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit No permittee ma~be~in its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date it must apply for a new~ermit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. 901.28 Other Obligations Subd 1 Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining aright-of-wayzpermit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessarX permits licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the City or other applicable rule law or regulation. A permittee shall compl wit~quirements of local state and federal laws '~~~+ ~^+'~m~+°a +^ r,r;„„°~°*° D•,'°~ r~^r*°r ''«n A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations and is responsible for all work done in the right-of-way_pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd 2 Prohibited Work. Except in an emergency and with the approval of the Cites no right-of--way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. 28 Subd. 3. Interference with Right-of-Way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a ri hg t-of- way that the natural free and clear passage of water throu h.~ the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the ri hg tof- way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with Citesparking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. Subd. 4. Trenchless Excavation. As a condition of all applicable permits, permittees employing trenchless excavation methods, including but not limited to Horizontal Directional Drilling, shall follow all requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560, and-shall require potholin.~pen cutting over existin underground utilities before excavating., °~ a°+°~~r°~"~. ~ +''° d~ 901.29 Severability. If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this chapter precludes the City from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. 901.86 30 VIOLATION. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless otherwise specified. (1987 Code, § 901.04) (Ord. 121, passed 5-28-1980) Penalty, see § 104.01 29 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 900, CHAPTER 901- OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 900, Chapter 901of the Shorewood City Code are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: TITLE 900 CHAPTER 901 STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Section 901.01 Encroachments 901.02 House numbering 901.03 Underground utilities 901.04 Right of Way Management 901.05 Administration 901.06 Registration 901.07 Permit Required; Bond; Exceptions 901.08 Permit Applications 901.09 Diligence in Performing Work 901.10 Standards During Construction or Installation 901.11 Repair and Restoration 901'.12 Permit Limitations 901.13 Denial of Permit 901.14 Emergency Work 901.15 Revocation of Permits 901.16 Appeal 901.17 Mapping 901.18 Location of Facilities and Equipment 901.19 Relocation 901.20 Pre-excavation Facilities Location 901.2T Inspection 901.22 Authority of Director Attachment #2 1 901.23 Right-of--Way Vacation 901.24 Abandoned and Unusable Equipment 901.25 Indemnification and Liability 901.26 Franchise Holders 901.27 Supplementary Applications 901.28 Other Obligations 901.29 Severability 901.30 Violation 901.01 ENCROACHMENTS. Subd. 1. Purpose. The public welfare requires that the public rights-of--way within the City, including highways, roads, streets and alleys, be reserved for public purposes. Public use of the full width of the rights-of--way is necessary to public safety and the proper and efficient maintenance of the rights-of--way. However, it is recognized that limited private use or encroachment onto the rights-of--way is not necessarily inconsistent with public use. It is the purpose of this section to provide for lawful incidental private use of publicly-owned rights-of--way not inconsistent with public use. Subd. 2. Permit to encroach. a. Permit required. The right to use publicly-owned rights-of--way within the City for any private use or purpose other than the primary purpose of public travel, whether the use constitutes a substantial or incidental use, may be acquired only through permit granted pursuant to this section. b. Application for permit. Any person may apply to the City Council for a permit to keep or maintain private property within apublicly-owned right- of-way. The application shall be in writing and must describe with specificity the private property and right-of--way involved and the nature and extent of the requested encroachment. c. Issuance of permit, conditions. The City Council may grant the permit if it is determined that the use applied for is incidental and not inconsistent with safe and efficient public use. However, no permit will be issued until the applicant has agreed in writing to waive any right to recover from the City for damage occurring to the property located within the right-of--way which may result from the performance of the City or its agents of its public duties as required by law. d. Special permit for underground sprinkler systems. The Building Official may approve an application for a special permit for the installation of an underground sprinkler system within the public right-of--way, providing the installation is not inconsistent with the public use of the right-of--way. In the 2 application, in addition to the information required by subsection b above, the applicant shall provide a legal description of the private property served by the sprinkler system and agree in writing to waive allrights to recover from the City for damage occurring to the sprinkler system as a result of the City's performance of its public duties within the right-of--way. The applicant: shall further provide a survey or plat drawing .showing the location of the sprinkling system within the right-of--way and pay the special permit fee as may be prescribed by ordinance passed by the City Council from time to time. The special permit shall become effective upon its being duly recorded at the offices of the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles and the applicant's providing to the City satisfactory proof thereof. Revocation of permit. The City reserves the right to revoke any permit granted under this section as may be required by the public interest. Subd. 3. Unlawful encroachments. Any privately-owned property located within or encroaching upon public-owned rights-of--way which has not been authorized in accordance with this section shall be unlawful and be subject to removal by the City at the owner's expense. Subd. 4. Exemption from provisions. The use of the public right-of--way for the placement of private mailboxes shall be exempt from the permit requirements of this section providing the following conditions are met: a. The mailbox is located on the side of the right-of-way contiguous with the mailbox owner's property or is positioned or clustered according to specific directions of the United States Postal Service; b. Mailboxes servicing a planned unit development (PUD) are positioned or clustered within the platted portion of the PUD or on the side of the right- of-way contiguous with the PUD; The location of the mailbox or mailboxes does not interfere with the City's maintenance of the right-of--way. (1987 Code, § 901.02) (Ord. 121, passed 5-28-1980; Ord. 204, passed 2-8-1988; Ord. 239, passed 6-24-1991) 901.02 HOUSE NUMBERING. Subd. 1. Numbering system. To assist in providing immediate access to all lots, buildings and structures in the City, the same shall be numbered in accordance with the following plan: a. North-south numbers shall commence at the south border of the City and north-south streets shall begin at the number 4600 and run to 6200; 3 b. East-west numbers shall commence at the east border of the City and east- west streets shall begin at the number 19200 and run to 28400; c. Odd numbers shall be on the south and east sides of the streets; even numbers shall be on the north and west sides of the streets. There shall be 100 numbers to each block, as assigned on a grid of 330 feet for east-west numbers; and 100 numbers to each block as assigned on a grid of 660 feet for north-south numbers. d. On Enchanted and Shady Islands, numbers shall be assigned on a west to east basis only. Commencing at the west border of Enchanted Island and running to the tip of Shady Island, numbers shall begin at the number 4200 and run to 5400. There shall be 100 numbers to each block assigned on a grid of 330 feet for each block west to east. Subd. 2. House numbers assigned, chart kept. The City Administrator/Clerk shall keep a chart showing the proper street number of every lot, parcel and building in the City which shall be open to inspection by any interested person and shall assign a street number to each house and/or structure in the City. Subd. 3. Placement and size of numbers. Shall conform to Minnesota Statutes 299F.011. Subd. 4. Violation. Any person violating the terms of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 901.03) (Ord. 76, passed 10-8-1973; Ord. 105; passed 9-11-1978) Penalty, see § 104.01 901.03 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Subd. 1. A11 utilities installed after the effective date of these regulations, including, but not limited to electrical, telephone and cable television lines, shall be buried unless otherwise approved by the City Council. Subd. 2. Existing overhead utilities within road rights-of--way which are not in conformance with overhead utility corridors as stipulated in this section and of a capacity less than 115 kilovolts are declared to be nonconforming and must be buried at the time they are replaced due to aging or capacity limitations or relocated due to road construction or reconstruction within the rights-of--way in which they share space, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. This provision shall not apply to existing overhead utilities located on rear or side lot line easements which directly serve adjacent properties. 4 Subd. 3. Existing overhead utilities which are to be buried in conformance with Subd. 2 shall be done so under the terms and requirements as provided in the applicable franchise agreement for the affected utility, if so stipulated. In the absence of franchise agreement stipulations for the affected utility, the burial shall occur under the terms, expense and scheduling requirements as required by the City at the time the overhead utility is replaced or relocated. Substitute stipulations may be provided between-the affected utility and the City. (Am. Ord. 378, passed 1-14-2002) 901.04 Right of Way Management. Subd. Ol. Findings and Purpose. To provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of--way, the City strives to keep its rights-of--way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Accordingly, the City hereby enacts this new chapter of this code relating to right-of- waypermits and administration. This chapter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its rights-of- way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this chapter, persons excavating and obstructing the rights-of--way will bear financial responsibility for their work. Finally, this chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights-of--way. This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes. Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the City and users of the right-of-way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050 - 7819.9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the regulatory and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Subd. 02 Election to Manage the Public Rights-of--Way. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the City hereby elects, pursuant Minn. Stat. 237.163 Subd. 2(b), to manage rights-of--way within its jurisdiction. 5 Subd. 03. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, as used herein, have the following meanings: The following definitions apply in this chapter of this code. References hereafter to "sections" are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms, whether or not capitalized. "Abandoned Facility" means a facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of--way user. "Applicant" means any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct aright- of-way. "City" means the City of Shorewood, Minnesota. For purposes of section 901, "City" means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. "City Cost" The actual cost incurred by the City for public rights-of--way management; including but not limited to costs associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of--way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving facilities during public right-of--way work; determining the adequacy of right-of--way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed; mapping of "as built" locations of facilities located in rights-of--way; and revoking right-of--way permits and performing all other tasks required by this Section, including other costs the City may incur in managing the provisions of this Section. "Commission" means the State Public Utilities Commission. "Congested Right-of--Way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right-of--way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, section 216D.04. subdivision 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of security provided at permittee's option: a. Individual project bond; b. Cash deposit; c. Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.73, subd.3; d. Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the City; e. Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the City; 6 f. A blanket bond for projects within the City, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the City. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the right-of--way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of--way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of--way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. "Degradation Cost" subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration, as determined by the City at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the City to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right-of- way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. "Department" means the City. "Department Inspector" means any person authorized by the City to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this chapter. "Director" means-the City. "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of- way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by permit. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right-of--way. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of aright-of--way. "Excavation permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in aright-of--way. An Excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right-of--way described in such permit. "Excavation permit fee" means money paid to the City by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 901.08. 7 "Facility" or "Facilities" means any tangible asset in the right-of--way required to provide Utility Service. "High Density Corridor" means a designated portion of the public right-of--way within which telecommunications right-of--way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common structure. "Hole" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the City incurs in managing its rights- of-way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of--way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of--way work; determining the adequacy of right- of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right-of--way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right-of--way user for the use of the right-of--way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 or 237.163; or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the City fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 901.16 of this chapter. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in aright-of--way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right-of--way. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may obstruct aright-of--way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of--way, for the duration specified therein. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 901.08 "Patch" or "Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the City's five-year project plan. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of- 8 way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel "Permit" has the meaning given "right-of--way permit" in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162. "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct aright-of- way has been granted by the City under this chapter. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. "Public Right-of-Way" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane or public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of--way for travelpurposes and utility easements of the City. Aright-of--way does not include the airwaves above aright- of-way with regard to cellular or other nonwire telecommunications or broadcast service. (Note: this definition does not include other public grounds that may be the subject of other. City requirements.) "Public Street" The improved, traveled or surfaced portion of any public right-of- way or roadway. "Registrant" means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right-of--way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks o occupy or use, the right-of--way or place its facilities or equipment in the right-of- way. "Restore" or "Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right-of-way and. surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and`life expectancy that existed before excavation. "Restoration Cost" means the amount of money paid to the City. by a permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. "Right-of--Way Permit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this chapter. "Right-of--Way User" means (1) a telecommunications right-of--way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subd. 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of--way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of--way. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes (1) those services provided by a public utility 9 as defined in Minn. Stat. 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of--way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chapter. 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the City; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat., Chapter 308A; and (6) water, and sewer, including service laterals, steam, cooling or heating services. "Service Lateral" means an underground facility that is used to transmit, distribute, or furnish a common source to an end-use-customer. A service lateral is also an underground facility that is used in the removal of wastewater from a customer's premises. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of--way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. "Temporary Surface" means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the City's two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. "Trench" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. "Telecommunication right-of--way user" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of way. or seeking to own or control a Facility in the right-of-~~ray that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecon~ilunicati«n or other voice or data information. For purposes ofthis chapter, a cable communication system defined. and regulated under Minn. Scat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas ar electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Slat. Sec. 21 ~I3.02, a municipalit~~, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Slat. Chap. 3MA, are not telecann~7unications right-of-way users far purposes of this chapter. 901.05 Administration. The City Engineer is the principal City official responsible for the administration of the rights-of--way, right-of--way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The City Engineer may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. 901.06 Registration. Subd. 1. Annual Registration Required. Each person who occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of--way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of- 10 way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the City. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Such registration shall be made on an application form provided by the City Engineer and shall be accompanied by the registration fee provided in Section 1301.02 of this Code. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof, in any right- of-way without first being registered with the City. Subd. 3 Registration Information. The registrant shall provide the following at the time of registration: a. Registrant's name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, email address and Gopher One-Call registration certificate number if required by State law. b. Name, address, telephone number, email address and facsimile number of the person responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the registrant. c. A Certificate of Insurance from a company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota providing coverage in accordance with MN Statute 466.04. Such certificate shall verify that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (I) use and occupancy of the right-of--way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of equipment or facilities in the right-of--way by the registrant its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground equipment and collapse of property. Such certificate shall also name the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverage's required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverage's. Such certificate shall require that the City Engineer be notified 30 days prior to cancellation of the policy. d. 24 hour emergency number. e. An acknowledgment by the registrant of the indemnification pursuant to Subd. 2 of Subsection 901.25. f. If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate is required to be filed under Minn. Stat. 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. g. A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency. 11 h. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the City information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge of any change: i. Such other information the City may require. Subd. 4 Exceptions. The following are not subject to the requirements of this Subsection. a. Persons erecting fences, installing driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, or parking lots. b. Persons engaged in snow removal activities. c. Persons installing street furnishing, bus stop benches and shelters. d. Federal, State, County, and City agencies. e. Persons installing pet containment systems. f. Plumbers licensed in accordance with MN Statute 4715.3140. g. Persons acting as agents, contractors or subcontractors for a registrant who has properly registered in accordance with this Subsection 901.06. Subd. 5 Term. Registrations issued pursuant to this Section shall expire on December 31 of each calendar year. 901.07 Permit Required; Bond; Exceptions. Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right-of--way without first having obtained the appropriate right-of- way permit from the City to do so. a. Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right-of--way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of--way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. b. Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion ofright-of--way by placing equipment described therein on the right-of--way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right-of--way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right-of--way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. 12 Subd. 3. Delay Penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subp. 3 and notwithstanding Subd. 2 of this Section, the City shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right-of--way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delaypenalty shall be established from time to time by City council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the City. 901.08. Permit Applications Application for a permit is made to the City. An application for a permit shall be made on forms provided by the City Engineer and shall be accompanied by the fees set forth in Section 1301.02 of this Code which are established to reimburse the City for City costs. Right-of--way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of the following provisions: a. Scaled drawings showing the location of all facilities and improvements existing and proposed by the applicant. b. A description of the methods that will be used for installation. c. A proposed schedule for all work. d. The location of any public streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be temporarily closed to traffic during the work. e. The location of any public streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be disrupted by the work. f. A description of methods for restoring any public improvements disrupted by the work. g. Any other information reasonably required by the City Engineer. h. Traffic control plan referencing the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. i. Registration with the City pursuant to this chapter j. Permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs k. Prior obstructions or excavations 1. Any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the City because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights-of--way or any emergency actions taken by the City; m. Franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. If the work is to be performed by an agent, contractor or subcontractor on behalf of a registrant, such application shall be signed by the registrant. Subd. l Application; Fee. The City shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: a. the City management costs; 13 b. degradation costs, if applicable c. Payment of disputed amounts due the City by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110% of the amount owing. d. Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the City deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. Obstruction Permit Fee. The City shall establish the obstruction permit fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the City management costs. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The City may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Non Refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the City has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 901.15 are not refundable. To Franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of- way user in the franchise. Subd. 2 Security. A surety bond, in the amount determined by the City Engineer but not less than $2,000, shall be required from each applicant. A surety bond shall be from a corporate surety authorized to do business in the State. Security required pursuant to this Subd. 2 shall be conditioned that the holder will perform the work in accordance with this Section and applicable regulations, will pay to the City any costs incurred by the City in performing work pursuant to this Section; and will indemnify and save the City and its officers, agents and employees harmless against any and all claims, judgment or other costs arising from any excavation and other work covered by the permit or for which the City, Council or any City officer may be liable by reason of any accident or injury to persons or property through the fault of the permit holder, either in improperly guarding the excavation or for any other injury resulting from the negligence of the permit holder. The bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be released by the City upon completion of the work and compliance with all conditions imposed by the permit. For permits allowing excavations within public streets, such bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be held for a period of 24 months to guaranty the adequacy of all restoration work. Subd. 3 Permit Issuance; Conditions. 14 The City Engineer shall grant a permit upon finding the work will comply with applicable sections of this Code. The permit shall be kept on the site of the work while it is in progress, in the custody of the individual in charge of the work. The permit shall be exhibited upon request made by any City official or police officer. The City Engineer may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant there under to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to ensure the structural integrity of the right-of--way, to protect the property and safety of other users of the right-of--way, and to minimize the disruption and inconvenience to the traveling public. No permit shall be issued to anyone who has failed to register in accordance with Subsection 901.06. Subd. 4. Exceptions. No permit shall be required for the following: a. Snow removal activities b. Activities of the City c. Installation and maintenance of sewer or water services provided that no excavation or other work is done within a street, sidewalk or alley and all work is confined to unimproved portions ofrights-of--way or easements. 901.09 Diligence in Performing Work. Work shall progress in an expeditious manner as reasonably permitted by weather conditions until completion in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to traffic. In the event that the work is not performed in accordance with applicable regulations pertaining to excavations and utility connections, or the work is not done in an expeditious manner, or shall cease or be abandoned without due cause, the City may, after 72 hour notice to the permit holder, correct the work and fill the excavation or repair the street. The entire cost of such work shall be paid`by the permit holder upon demand made by the City. If permit holder fails to pay, the City will exercise a claim on the surety bond. 901.1D Standards During Construction or Installation. The permit holder shall comply with the following standards when engaging in the work: a. Conduct the operations and perform the work in a manner as to ensure the least obstruction and interference to traffic. b. Take adequate precautions to ensure the safety of the general public and those who require access to abutting property. c. If required by the City Engineer, notify adjoining property owners prior to the commencement of work which may disrupt the use of and access to such adjoining properties. 15 d. In all cases where construction work interferes with the normal use of the construction area, provide for closing the construction area to traffic or to afford it restricted use of the area and comply with the Minnesota Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices traffic safety signing requirements. e. Exercise precaution at all times for the protection of persons, including employees and property. f. Protect and identify excavations and work operations with barricade flags, and if required, by flagmen in the daytime, and by warning lights at night. g. Provide proper trench protection as required by O.S.H.A. when necessary and depending upon the type of soil, in order to prevent cave-ins endangering life or tending to enlarge the excavation. h. Protect the root growth of trees and shrubbery. i. Installation of pipe (utility conductors) under Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt concrete, or other high-type bituminous pavements shall be done by jacking, auguring or tunneling as directed by the City Engineer unless otherwise authorized. HDPE sleeving shall be an acceptable casing or sleeving material for telecommunications installations. j. When removing pavement of Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt concrete or high-type built-up bituminous surfacing, the pavement shall be removed on each side of the trench or excavation a distance of nine inches beyond the trench width and length, in order to provide a shoulder and solid foundation for the surface restoration. k. To obtain a straight edge and neat-appearing opening in pavement surfaces, the following procedure is required: 1. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement -The surface shall be saw-cut scored two inches deep and the concrete broken out by sledge or pneumatic hammer chisel. 2. Asphalt Concrete -The surface shall be cut full depth by pneumatic hammer chisel. 1. Excavations, trenches and jacking pits off the roadway or adjacent to the roadway or curbing shall be sheathed and braced depending upon location and soil stability, and as directed by the City. m. Excavations, trenches and jacking pits shall be protected when unattended to prevent entrance of surface drainage. n. All backfilling must be placed in six inch layers at optimum moisture and compacted with the objective of attaining 100 percent of AASHTO density. Compaction shall be accomplished with hand, pneumatic or vibrating compactors as appropriate. o. Backfill material shall be Class 5, or better in the judgement of the City Engineer. The City Engineer may permit backfilling with the material from the excavation provided such material is granular in nature and acceptable to the City Engineer. 16 p. Compacted backfill shall be brought to street grade and crowned at the center not more than one inch. q. Street and pedestrian traffic shall be maintained throughout construction unless provided otherwise by the permit. r. No lugs damaging to roadway surfaces may be used. s. Dirt or debris must be periodically removed during construction. t. Other reasonable standards and requirements of the City Engineer. 901.11 Repair and Restoration. Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right-of--way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The City may choose either to have the permittee restore the right-of--way or to restore the right-of- way itself. a. City Restoration. If the City restores the right-of--way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. The permit holder may request that the City restore the right-of--way. The permit holder shall pay to the City, in advance, a cash deposit equaling 150% of the estimated restoration cost. The restoration cost shall be estimated by the City Engineer and shall include an estimate of the degradation cost. The estimate of the degradation, cost shall be based upon criteria adopted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Following completion of the restoration, any funds in excess of the actual restoration cost and the degradation cost shall be returned to the permit holder. b. Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right-of--way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. c. Degradation Fee in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu ofright-of--way restoration, a right-of--way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right-of- way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the City and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. 17 The permit holder shall perform repairs and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the City. The City shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and extent of the restoration, and may do so in written procedures of general application or on a case-by-case basis. The City in exercising this authority shall be guided by the following standards and consideration: a. The number, size, depth and duration of the excavations, disruptions or damage to the right-of--way. b. The traffic volume carried by the right-of--way; the character of the neighborhood surrounding the right-of--way; c. The pre-excavation condition of the right-of--way; the remaining life- expectancy of the right-of--way affected by the excavation; d. Whether the relative cost of the method of restoration to the permit holder is in reasonable balance with the prevention of an accelerated depreciation of the right-of--way that would otherwise result from the excavation, disturbance or damage to the right-of--way; and e. The likelihood that the particular method of restoration would be effective in slowing the depreciation of the right-of--way that would otherwise take place. The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right-of--way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and 237.1`63. Installation of service laterals shall be performed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter-7560 and these ordinances. Service lateral installation is further subject to those requirements and conditions set forth by the City in the applicable permits and/or agreements referenced in Section 901.18-subd. 2 of this ordinance. Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the City, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the City. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the City, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of--way in the manner and to the condition required by the City, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the City, the City at its option may do such work, or the City may withhold permits for future work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right-of- way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the City may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. 18 Subd. 6 Guarantees. The permit holder shall-.guarantee its work and shall maintain it for twenty-four (24) months following its completion. During this twenty-four month period it shall, upon notification from the City Engineer, promptly correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the City Engineer. 901.12 Permit Limitations. Permits issued pursuant to this Section are valid only for the area of the right-of- way specified in the application and the permit and only for the dates so specified. No work shall be extended beyond the permitted area or dates without a new permit being procured therefore, provided the City Engineer may extend the completion date of the work in accordance with Subd. 1 of Subsection 901.11. 901.13 Denial of Permit. The City may deny a permit due to the following: a. Failure to register pursuant to Subsection 901.06. b. A proposed excavation within a street or sidewalk surface that has been constructed or reconstructed within the preceding five years unless the City Engineer determines that no other locations are feasible or when necessitated by an emergency. c. The applicant is subject to revocation of a prior permit issued pursuant to this Section. d. The proposed schedule for the work would conflict or interfere with an exhibition, celebration, festival or any other similar event. e. The right-of-way would become unduly congested due to the proposed facilities and equipment when combined with other uses in the right-of- way as provided in Subd. 3 of Subsection 901.18. f. Businesses or residences in the vicinity will be unreasonably disrupted by the work. g. The proposed schedule conflicts with scheduled total or partial reconstruction of the right-of--way. h. The applicant fails to comply with the requirements of this Section or other Sections of this Code. i. Failure of applicant to complete or pay restoration costs for previous work. 901.14 Emergency Work. Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Excavators' notification to Gopher State One Call regarding an emergency situation does not fulfill this requirement. Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency, the registrant shall apply for the necessary 19 permits, pay the fees associated Therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency. If the City Engineer becomes aware of an emergency, the City Engineer shall attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the City Engineer may take whatever action deemed necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the registrant whose facilities or equipment occasioned the emergency. Subd. 2. Non-Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates aright-of- way must subsequently obtain a permit and, as a penalty, pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the City code, deposit with the City the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right-of--way, and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. 901.15 Revocation of Permits. Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The City reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right-of--way permit without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: a. The violation of any material provision of the right-of--way permit; b. An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of- way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; c. Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for aright- of-way permit; d. The failure to complete the work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or e. The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 901.21. 901.16 Appeal. Subd. 1 Filing of Appeal. Any person aggrieved by, i) the denial of a permit application, ii) the denial of a registration, iii) the revocation of a permit or, iv) the application of the fee schedule imposed by Section 185 of this Code may appeal to the Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk. Said notice must be filed with 20 days of the action causing the appeal. 20 Subd. 2 Notice of Hearing. The Council shall hear the appeal not later than 30 days after the date the appeal is filed. Notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be mailed to the appellant not less than 10 days before the date of the hearing. Subd. 3 Hearing and Decision. The Council shall, at such hearing, hear and consider any evidence offered by the appellant, the City Engineer, and anyone else wishing to be heard. After hearing the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future meeting. 901.17 Mapping. Subd. 1. Information Required. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information required by the City in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Within ninety (90) days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the permittee shall provide the director accurate maps and drawings certifying the "as-built" location of all equipment installed, owned and maintained by the permittee. Such maps and drawings shall include the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the City's electronic mapping system. Failure to provide maps and drawings pursuant to this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's registration. Subd. 2. Service Laterals. All permits issued for the installation or repair of service laterals, other than minor repairs as defined in Minnesota Rules 7560.0150 subpart 2, shall require the permittee's use of appropriate means of establishing the horizontal locations of installed service laterals. Permittees or their-subcontractors shall submit to the director evidence satisfactory to the director of the installed service lateral locations. Compliance with this subdivision 2 and with applicable Gopher State One Call law and-Minnesota Rules governing service laterals install after December 31, 2005, shall be a condition of any City approval necessary for 1) payments to contractors working on a public improvement project-including those under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and 2) City approvalof performance under development agreements, or other subdivision or site plan approval under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter-462. The director shall reasonably determine the appropriate method of providing such information to the City. Failure to provide prompt and accurate information on the service laterals installed may result-in the revocation of the permit issued for the work or for future permits to the offending permittee or its subcontractors. 901.18 Location of Facilities and Equipment. Subd. 1 Undergrounding by Telecommunications Right-of--Way Users. 21 Any new construction and the installation of new equipment and replacement of old equipment of telecommunication right-of--way users shall be underground or contained within buildings or other structures in conformity with applicable codes. Provided, telecommunications right-of--way users may attach equipment and facilities to existing poles and structures maintained by a service or utility service. Subd. 2 Corridors. The City Engineer may assign specific corridors within the right-of--way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of equipment that is or, pursuant to current technology, the City Engineer expects will someday be located within the right-of--way. All permits issued by the City Engineer involving the installation or replacement of equipment shall designate the proper corridor for the equipment at issue. Subd. 3 Limitation of Space. To protect health and safety, the City Engineer shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional equipment within the right-of--way if there is insufficient space to accommodate all of the requests of registrants or persons to occupy and use the right-of--way. In making such decisions, the City Engineer shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of--way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of--way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing equipment in the right-of--way, and future City plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 901.19 Location and Relocation of Facilities. Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. A registrant shall promptly but in no event more than 120 days of the City's request, permanently remove and relocate at no charge to the City, any facilities or equipment if and when made necessary by a change in the grade, alignment or width of any right-of--way, by the construction, maintenance or operation of any City facilities or to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The registrant shall restore any rights-of--way to the condition it was in prior to removal and relocation. Subd. 2 Undergrounding of Relocated Telecommunications Facilities. 22 A telecommunications right-of--way user shall relocate all above ground facilities and equipment to underground locations at its own cost and expense at the City's request when, i) the City requires the relocation of all'telecommunications facilities and equipment to underground locations or ii) structures or poles to which the registrant's facilities or equipment is attached are abandoned or removed by the owner of such structures or poles. Subd. 3. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, any facilities found in a right-of--way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the facilities and restoring the right-of--way to a useable condition. Subd. 4. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the right-of--way and its current use, the City shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right-of--way. In making such decisions, the City shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of--way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of--way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the right-of--way, and future City plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 901.20 Pre-excavation Facilities Location. In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any right-of--way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said facilities. Any registrant whose facilities are less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its facilities and the best procedure for excavation. 901.21 Inspection. Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work-site available to the City and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. 23 901.22 Authority of Director a. At the time of inspection, the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well-being of the public. b. The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 901.15. 901.23 Right-of--Way Vacation. Subd. 1 Reservation of Right. Reservation of right. If the City vacates aright-of--way that contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right-of--way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. Subd. 2 Relocation of Equipment. If the vacation requires the relocation of registrant facilities and equipment; and (a) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the registrant, the registrant must pay the relocation costs; or (b) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the City, the registrant must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the City and the registrant; or (c) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a person or persons other than the registrant or permit holder, such other person or persons must pay the relocation costs. 901.24 Abandoned and Unusable Equipment. Subd. 1 Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue its operations in the City must either: a. Provide information satisfactory to the City Engineer that the registrant's obligations for its equipment in the right-of--way under this Section have been lawfully assumed by another registrant; or b. Submit to the City Engineer an action plan for the removal or abandonment of equipment and facilities. The City Engineer shall require removal of such facilities and equipment if the City Engineer determines such removal is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The City Engineer may require the registrant to post a bond in an amount 24 sufficient to reimburse the City for reasonably anticipated costs to be incurred in removing the facilities and equipment. Subd. 2 Abandoned Facilities Equipment. Facilities and equipment of a registrant located on the surface of or above a right-of--way or on City property which, for two years, remains unused shall be deemed to be abandoned. Such abandoned equipment is deemed to be a nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, i) abating the nuisance, or ii) requiring removal of the equipment or facilities by the registrant, or the registrant's successor in interest. Subd. 3 Removal of Underground Equipment. Any registrant who has unusable and abandoned underground facilities or equipment in any right-of--way shall remove it from that right-of--way during the next scheduled excavation, to the extent such facilities or equipment is uncovered by such excavation unless this requirement is waived by the City. 901.25 Indemnification and Liability. By registering with the City, or by accepting a permit under this chapter, a registrant orpermittee agrees to defend and indemnify the City in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule '7819.1250. Subd. 1 Limitation of Liability. By reason of the acceptance of a registration or the grant of aright-of--way permit, the City does not assume any liability (a) for injuries to persons, damage to property, or loss of service claims by parties other than the registrant or the City, or (b) for claims or penalties of any sort resulting from the installation, presence, maintenance, or operation of equipment by registrants or activities of registrants. Subd. 2 Indemnification. By registering with the City Engineer, a registrant agrees, or by accepting a permit under this Section, apermit-holder is required, to defend, indemnify, and hold the City whole and harmless from all costs, liabilities, and claims for damages of any kind arising out of the construction, presence, installation, maintenance, repair or operation of its equipment, or out of any activity undertaken in or near aright-of--way ,whether or not any act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed, or prohibited by aright-of--way permit. It 25 further agrees that it will not bring, nor cause to be brought, any action, suit or other proceeding claiming damages, or seeking any other relief against the City for any claim nor for any award arising out of the presence, installation, maintenance or operation of its equipment, or any activity undertaken in or near a right-of--way, whether or not the act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or prohibited by aright-of--way permit. The foregoing does not indemnify the City for its own negligence except for claims arising out of or alleging the City's negligence where such negligence arises out of or is primarily related to the presence, installation, construction, operation, maintenance or repair of said equipment by the registrant or on the registrant's behalf, including but not limited to, the issuance of permits and inspection of plans or work. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the registrant or to the City; and the registrant, in defending any action on behalf of the City, shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf. 901.26 Franchise Holders. If there is a conflict in language between the franchise of a person holding a franchise agreement with the City and this Section, the terms of the franchise shall prevail. 901.27 Supplementary Applications Subd. 1. Limitation on Area. Aright-of--way permit is valid only for the area of the right-of--way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. Subd. 2. Limitation on Dates. Aright-of--way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. 901.28 Other Obligations Subd. 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining aright-of--way permit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the City or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal 26 laws, including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Section 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560. A permittee shall'perform a11`work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the right-of--way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the City, no right-of--way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. Subd. 3. Interference with Right-of-Way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right-of--way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right-of--way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance. with City parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. Subd. 4. Trenchless Excavation. As a condition of all applicable permits, permittees employing trenchless excavation methods, including but not limited to Horizontal Directional Drilling, shall follow all requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560, and-shall require potholing or open cutting over existing underground utilities before excavating. 901.29 Severability. If any portiorrof this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this chapter precludes the City from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. 901.30 VIOLATION. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty u of a misdemeanor, unless otherwise specified. (1987 Code, § 901.04) (Ord. 121, passed 5-28-1980) Penalty, see § 104.01 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of December, 2007. 27 ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk Christine Lizee, Mayor 28 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TITLED "LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1301.02, Section "VI. Building, Zoning, Land Use" of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to add the following fees: LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference VI. Building, Zoning, Ladd Use R-O-W Work Aimual 901.07 $200 Registration R-O-W Excavation Permit 901.09 $ 75 Administration Fee Per Additional Excavation-Paved 901.09 $ 35 Area Per Additional Excavation- 901.09 $ 20 Unpaved Area Underground Utility/Telecom 901.09 $ 45 per 100 L. Ft. (Plus Minmum Installation-Direct Boring or Permit Fee) Tunneling Underground Utility/Telecom 901.09 $ 60 per 100 L. Ft. (Plus Minimum Installation-Open Trenching Permit Fee) Obstruction Permit 901.09 $ 20 Degradation Fee 901.09 Varies Restoration Fee 901.12 varies ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk Attachment #3 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. AND ORDINANCE NO. BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, on December 10, 2007, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. entitled "An Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 901 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Streets and Public Right-of-Way"; and Ordinance No. entitled "License, Permit, Service Charges, and Miscellaneous Fees"; WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a summary of these Ordinances as follows: Ordinance No. revises the Streets and Public Right-of--Way to better manage the City's resource utilizing work registration and record drawings. This Ordinance repeals existing Chapter 901 of the Shorewood City Code, and replaces it with Chapter 901-Streets and Public Right-of--Way. 2. Ordinance No. revises the Streets and Right-of--Way fees in Chapter 1301 to add an R-O-W Work Annual Registration fee of $200, a R-O-W Excavation Permit Administration Fee $75, a Per Additional Excavation-Paved Area $35, a Per Additional Excavation-Unpaved Area $20, Underground Utility/Telecom Installation-Direct Boring or Tunneling (Plus Minimum Permit Fee) $45 per 100 L. Ft., a Underground Utility/Telecom Installation-Open Trenching (Plus Minimum Permit Fee) $60 per 100 L. Ft, an obstniction permit fee $20, a degradation fee varies, and a restoration fee of varies. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish this Resolution, in lieu of publication of the entire text of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4. A full copy of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the City's website. ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 10th day of December, 2007. ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk Christine Lizee, Mayor Attachment 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING December 10, 2007 PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address ~. ~ __ w 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.