Loading...
012808 CC WS AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008 AGENDA 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Roll Call. 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeou Vacant (W3) Wellens B. Review Agenda COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE (Att. - Engineer's memorandum) GOALS AND PRIORITIES (Att. -City Administrator's memorandum) DRAFT POLICY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES (Att. -City Administrator's memorandum) REQUEST RE: BOULDER BRIDGE SEALCOATING (Att. -Staff memorandum) OTHER ADJOURN YY J ,. ,~ , ,,,~ Infrastructure ~ Engineering ~ Planning ~ Construction January 23, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Update WSB Project No. 1459-23 Dear Mayor and City Council: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update on our work effort to revise the City's Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. As you may be aware, this plan is being updated to reflect changes in requirements from the Metropolitan Council, as well as the Mimlehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. The attached Executive Summary gives a brief outline of the various sections of the new Management Plan. The sections that we would like to focus on this evening are Sections IV and V. Section IV discusses the water resources related concerns within the City and identifies possible corrective actions to address these issues. Among the list of problems are the flood problem areas that were studied after the autumn storm events of 2005. An abridged version of Section V is also enclosed for your review. This section outlines the suggested goals and policies for the City. Many of these goals are carryovers fiom the previous plan. There are several new policies that are already included in the City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Other goals and policies are recommended based on input we have received from review agencies on other Cities' plans. If the plan is acceptable, we will be submitting the plan to the Watershed Districts and Met Comrcil for comments. It is anticipated that the stakeholders will use their fii1160-day comment period to provide input. Once we have received their comments, we will finalize the report and re-submit it for approval. While the review process is underway, we will be updating the following items for the City: • Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis • Water quality monitoring • GIS utility mapping and database • Financial analysis KI1959-231Aclrnin IDocs ILTR-hmcc-Ul ?308-enmil. rloc Honorable Mayor and City Council Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Update January 23, 2008 Page 2 I will be at the work session meeting on January 28 to discuss this plan in greater detail. I look forward to meeting with you and answering your questions at that time. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Irtc. Steven G. Gurney, PE Enclosures lll K114 Sg_23 L4cLnir~ IDocs I LTR-hrncc-91?308-enmil. clot SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan for the City of Shorewood has been developed to meet local watershed management planning requirements of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and Board of Water and Soil Resources Rules 8410. It has also been developed to be in conformance with the requirements of the local Watershed Districts, Metropolitan Council requirements, and applicable State and Federal laws. This document and its referenced literature is intended to provide a comprehensive inventory of pertinent water resource related information that affects the City and management of those resources. Section II Section II of this plan provides an introduction and purpose. The Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan has been developed to provide the City with direction concerning the administration and implementation of water resource activities within the City. This plan is intended to meet the requirements for a local surface water management plan as required by the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and be in conformance with Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Rules Chapter 8410. This section also lists the personnel contacts involved in the assistance and implementation of this plan, including the staff from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Section III Section 111 of this plan provides an inventory of land and water resources within the City including a general description and summary of data related to precipitation, geology, topography, flood problem areas, existing flood insurance studies, water quality, water management ordinances, surface and ground water appropriations, ground water, soils, land use, public utilities services, public areas for water-based recreation and access, fish and wildlife habitat, unique features, scenic areas and pollutant source locations within the City. A number of maps were also developed as part of the Plan to assist in summarizing this information. Section IV Section IV of this Water Resource Management Plan provides an assessment of the existing and potential water resource related concerns within the City. These concerns were identified based on an analysis of the land and resource data collected as part of this plan preparation and through public input. A number of problem areas were identified through the plan development process. This section summarizes the problems and corrective actions that were identified through this process. Section V Section V of this plan outlines water resource management related goals and policies of the City. Goals and policies have been developed for the City concerning water quantity, water quality, recreation, fish and wildlife management, enhancement of public participation, information and education, public ditch system, ground water, wetlands, and erosion. City of Shorewood Section I -Page 1 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION I Section VI Section VI outlines implementation priorities and develops an implementation program. This section contains a prioritized listing of the studies, programs and capital improvements that have been identified as necessary to respond to the water resource needs within the City. The implementation period identified within this report for the programs, studies and capital improvements is for 10 years or more from the adoption of this plan. Many of the improvements noted in the plan will most efficiently be implemented over time, as development occurs in the affected areas. This plan is to be used for planning purposes only. Detailed feasibility analysis has not been completed to develop this section; therefore, cost estimates are subject to change and update as more detailed information is obtained. Section VII Section VII discusses the financial considerations of implementing the proposed regulatory controls, programs and improvements, which have been identified in this plan and their financial impact on the City. Funding sources available for implementing the policies and corrective actions identified within this plan are included. Possible funding sources for the implementation of this plan include special assessments and grant monies, which may be secured from various local, regional, County, State or Federal agencies. Section VIII Section VIII discusses the procedures to be followed in the event this Water Resource Management Plan is amended. Once this Water Resource Management Plan is approved, no significant changes to this plan can be facilitated without the approval of the proposed revisions by the Watershed Districts within the City that are affected by the change. Significant changes to the plan shall be made known to the Mayor, City Council, City Staff, the Metropolitan Council, and the affected Watershed Districts within the City. Appendices Appendices are included in the back of the plan and are summarized below. These documents are included because they provide supporting information to the main body of the plan. Appendix A: Storm Water System Modeling Information. A summary of the storm water model that was developed for the City is included in this appendix. This includes drainage areas, high water levels, and peak discharge rates. Appendix B: FEMA Flood Insurance Study. Letters from FEMA indicating that the City does not contain any FEMA designated flood plains are included in this appendix. Appendix C: NPDES Phase 11 Information. A copy of the City's NPDES permit information is included in this appendix. City of Shorewood Section I -Page 2 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION I Appendix D: MnRAM Data. In 2000, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District completed a McRAM assessment of most of the City's wetlands. The results of this effort are summarized in this appendix. Appendix E: Problem Area Summary. A summary of the water resource problem areas within the City is provided here. These include past problem areas that have been addressed, areas that have not yet been addressed, and new problem areas that have been noted in 2007. Appendix F: Ordinances. The City's water resource related ordinances are included in this appendix. The most up-to-date ordinances are available on the City's web-site at www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. Additional material is referenced within this report and is available from the Engineering Department. This document is expected to be a 10 year Water Resource Management Plan, after which time this plan should be updated. However, if significant changes to the plan are deemed necessary prior to that date the City may revise this plan in its entirety. City of Shorewood Section I -Page 3 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION IV IV. PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Outlined below is an assessment of existing and potential water resource-related problems that are known at this time. These problems have been identified based on an analysis of the land and water resource data collected as part of this plan preparation and through information from the City. A description of any existing or potential problems within the topic area has been listed and future corrective actions have been incorporated into an implementation plan. A. Lake and stream water quality problems 1. Impaired waters to which the City discharges and the currently approved impairments for each are listed below: • Lake Minnetonka: Mercury • Christmas Lake: Mercury • Lake Virginia: Mercury, Total Phosphorus • Lake Minnewashta (Located outside of the City): Mercury Corrective Actions: The City shall work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the impaired waters within its boundaries. Currently, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirement for mercury is being developed at the state level. Once developed, the City will review the TMDL and determine if additional policies are needed. 2. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires that the City provide an annual reduction of 50 pounds of phosphorus for areas that drain to Lake Minnetonka from the City of Shorewood. Corrective Actions: The City will complete a feasibility study to identify methods to reduce phosphorus loading in the Lake Minnetonka subwatershed within the City to meet the MCWD requirements. 3. The water quality of Footprint Lake has been noted as a concern. Corrective Actions: Develop and implement a water quality monitoring program with assistance from the Watershed Districts. 4. Storm water pond maintenance for improved water quality treatment, flood control, and aesthetics is needed at the following ponds: • Manor Park Pond Corrective Actions: The City will complete a feasibility study to identify methods to improve this water body as funds are available. B. Flooding and storm water rate control concerns 1. Drainage problems have been reported in the following areas: • 25360 Birch Bluff Rd • 22015 Stratford PI • 5815 Eureka Rd • 20480 Radisson Road • 26220 Wild Rose Ln • Amesbury Townhomes City of Shorewood WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 Section IV -Page 1 SECTION IV • Lake South Auto • 6120 Riviera • 23980 Yellowstone Tr • 23955 Clover Ln • 23930 Yellowstone Tr • 23950 Elder Turn • 23905/23895 Elder Turn • 6180 Murray Hill Rd • 5925 Grant St • 5915 Grant St • 23350 Academy • 6180 Chaska Rd • Minnetonka Country Club • 4770 Lakeway Terrace • 23075 State Hwy 7 • 24735 Glen Rd • 5635 Harding Ln • 5615 Harding Ln • 6100 Apple Rd • 4980 Suburban Dr • 21165 Mtka Blvd • 28070 Woodside Rd • 27780 Island View Rd • 5600 Wedgewood Dr • 26395 Peach Circle • 5900 Afton Rd • 5970 Strawberry Lane • 6045 Burlwood Ct • 6060 Strawberry Lane • 26505 Maple Ave Corrective Actions: The City will work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District to manage flooding and rate control concerns experienced within the City. The City will also complete hydraulic and hydrologic analysis and feasibility reports for each of the flooding and drainage problem areas noted above and follow up as appropriate. 2. A number of landlocked subwatersheds are located within the City. Corrective Actions: The City will complete feasibility studies for these areas, identifying potential flooding areas as well as strategies to minimize flooding and new volumes. C. Impacts of water quantity or quality management practices on recreational opportunities 1. The City has not experienced any impacts to recreational opportunities as the result of water quantity or quality impacts. Corrective Actions: No corrective action needed. D. Impacts of storm water quality on fish and wildlife resources 1. The City recognizes that there is currently not enough water quality monitoring data available to determine the effects of storm water quality on area lakes. Corrective Actions: Implement a water quality monitoring program. E. Impacts of erosion and sedimentation on water resources 1. Soil erosion and sediment transportation associated with new development may impact the quality of water and storage volume available within City lakes, streams, and ditches. Corrective Actions: Consider development and implementation of an erosion control ordinance City of Shorewood Section IV -Page 2 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION IV 2. Erosion problems have been reported at the following locations: Footprint Lake Waterford Place drainage way Corrective Actions: The City will monitor conditions of these areas and consider maintenance and improvement options if needed. 3. The MCWD has requested that shoreline conditions on Christmas Lake, specifically the eastern shore, be monitored and maintained. Shoreline restoration practices need to be implemented to prevent erosion. Corrective Actions: The City will monitor conditions of these areas and consider maintenance and improvement options if needed. F. Impact of land use practices and development on water resource issues 1. Selected areas of the City have been exposed to increased rates and volumes of storm water runoff as a result of an increase in impervious surface area. Other land development and land use practices have negatively impacted both water quality and quantity outside the City limits. Corrective Actions: Implement the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. 2. The MCWD has identified an area north of Lake Virginia and an area west of Christmas Lake as Key Conservation Areas. A small portion of upland area has been developed north of Lake Virginia. These other areas will be appropriately protected where possible. Corrective Actions: None needed. G. Adequacy of existing regulations to address adverse impacts on water resources 1. The City of Shorewood generally has adequate regulatory controls in place to manage and mitigate adverse impacts on public waters and wetlands. However, additional ordinances or ordinance updates are necessary to continue to have adequate regulatory controls. Corrective Actions: Continue to implement the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The City of Shorewood will continue to implement Best Management Practices, review and revise existing ordinances, as necessary, and develop an erosion control ordinance. H. Identification of potential problems which are anticipated to occur in the next 20 years based on growth projections and planned urbanization. City of Shorewood Section IV -Page 3 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION IV 1. The City is almost entirely developed; however, the City recognizes that increased development in the future may increase the volume of runoff directed to the current storm water storage and conveyance systems within the City. 2. The City anticipates the quality of storm water runoff generated from newly developing areas will be treated prior to discharge from the City to areas of concern. Corrective Actions: Implement the City of Shorewood Water Resource Management Plan. I. Availability and adequacy of existing technical information to manage water resources 1. The development of this Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan has provided additional technical information to the City related to storm water management. Corrective Actions: The City will continue to update the hydrologic/hydraulic model and GIS database as new development and redevelopment occur. City of Shorewood Section IV -Page 4 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V V. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES The City has developed a number of goals, strategies, and policies for the management of storm water within the City. These goals and policies have been developed to complement any county, regional, or state goals and policies. The goals of the City are as follows: Goals 1. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems. 2. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality. 3. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems. 4. Promote groundwater recharge. 5. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. 6. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water. In order to achieve the City's goals for managing storm water, four strategies were developed. These strategies will assist the City in targeting its main audiences for the purposes of storm water management as follows: Strategies Cooperation with other agencies: This strategy recognizes that the City is not alone in managing storm water within its boundaries. There are a number of other local, state, and federal agencies that also have rules and regulations related to storm water management. Through this strategy, the City has recognized these other agencies' role in this endeavor and will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as necessary. Education: This strategy includes educating various groups within the City about proper storm water management. Education of residents, City Staff, City Council, business owners, and developers is included in this strategy to assist in meeting the City's goals. Regulation: Much of storm water management comes in the form of regulations put on new or redevelopment within the City. These regulations will also assist the City in achieving their water management goals. Policies related to the management of storm water are included in the regulation strategy. Internal operations: The final strategy relates to the internal operations of the City. By outlining policies related to how the City's operations will treat and manage storm water, the City can work to achieve its storm water management goals. The City has identified target audiences for the polices outlined in each strategy. The target audiences and strategies are as follows: City of Shorewood Section V -Page 1 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V AUDIENCE Public -Residents and Business Owners City Staff and City Council Developers Review Agencies STRATEGY Education, Regulation Cooperation, Education, Operation Education, Regulation Cooperation Based on the target audience and the strategy, the City has developed a number of policies. These policies are outlined below. A. COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES There are a number of other local, state, and federal agencies that have rules and regulations related to storm water management. Through this strategy, the City recognizes these other agencies' role in this endeavor and will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as necessary. This Plan is in conformance with but does not restate all other agency rules that are applicable to water quality and natural resource protection. The other agency rules and policies include rules, policies, and guidelines associated with the following organizations: • Minnesota Department of Health www.health.state.mn.us • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency www.pca.state.mn.us • Board of Water and Soil Resources www.bwsr.state.mn.us and the Wetland Conservation Act www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/index.html • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources www.dnr.state.mn.us • US Army Corps of Engineers www.mvp.usace.army.mi • Minnesota Department of Agriculture www.mda.state.mn.us • US Fish and Wildlife Service www.fws.gav • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District www.minnehahacreek.orq • Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District http://www. rileypu rgatorybluffcreek.org While these other agency rules, policies, and guidelines are not all restated in this Plan, they are applicable to projects, programs, and planning within the City. The Minnesota stormwater Manual, which is a document intended to be frequently updated, is incorporated by reference into this Plan and can be found at www.pca.state. mn. us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual. html. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 2 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V B. EDUCATION The purpose of the education strategy in meeting the City's goals is to foster responsible water quality management practices by educating residents, business owners, City Staff, City Council, and developers about proper storm water management. If these targeted audiences recognize their role in responsible storm water management in their homes, businesses, and practices, it is another means for the City to meet its goals. This education strategy has also been designed to be in conformance with the NPDES requirements. STRATEGY: EDUCATION No. Polic Source/Rationaie 1 The City will continue to implement its public education program This Policy is also as part of the NPDES Phase II program. included in the City Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 2 The City will develop and update its website for water resource SWPPP management information. 3 The City will develop and distribute annual newsletter and SWPPP include information in other City mailings aimed at fostering responsible water quality management practices. Topics may include, but not be limited to: Wetland buffers • Groundwater quality and protection • Controlling invasive species ~ Water conservation and the water cycle • Proper hazardous waste disposal • Yard waste management • Pet waste disposal • Illicit discharge 4 The City will collaborate with MCWD, RPBCWD, and LMCD in SWPPP storm water management education efforts. 5 The City will provide annual training opportunities to City Staff SWPPP regarding housekeeping and construction BMPs and the NPDES permit requirement. 6 The City will conduct pre-construction meetings with contractors This policy is already to review erosion control methods and inspections for projects being practiced that disturb one acre or more for City projects. within the City 7 The City will encourage programs aimed at fostering Existing Policy responsible water quality management practices by its residents, including educating residents on the proper use of fertilizer. Information on the City's Public Education Program is included in the City's NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan at City Hall. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 3 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: EDUCATION No. ~ Polic Source/Rationale 8 The City will submit a public notice 30 days in advance and hold SWPPP an annual public meeting to review the SWPPP, Surface Water Management Plan, and BMPs. 9 The City will maintain a phone line and website link to report SWPPP construction site erosion control concerns and waste disposal infractions. The phone number is (952) 474-3236 and the City's website is www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. 10 The City will work with landowners through public education Existing Policy efforts to reduce the amount of animal or pet waste entering local water bodies. 11 Prepare and distribute information on pertinent water Existing Policy management issues to city residents a minimum of one time per year and as required as part of the NPDES Phase II program. This information will be incorporated into the City's newsletters and will provide an opportunity for residents to participate in watershed management activities. A copy of the description of the program to be implemented by the City is in the NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan at City Hall. C. REGULATION The policies developed in this strategy outline specific storm water management elements that are required to be implemented through the development and/or permitting process. The regulation strategy is targeted at the public, developers, City Staff, and City Council. STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Palcy _ SourcelRationale Rate Control 10 Future discharge rates from new development and Existing Policy redevelopment will not exceed existing discharge rates. 11 Design calculations for the 1 %, 10%, and 99% chance Recommended Revisions storm event must be submitted to the City for review and to Existing Policy approval. Discharge rates must be based on pre- development conditions allowing for no increase compared to existing rates. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 4 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Polic Source/Rationale 12 The design of major storm water storage facilities shall Existing Policy accommodate a critical duration event with a 1 % chance of occurrence. 13 The design of new storm sewer systems shall be based Existing Policy on a critical duration rainfall event having a 10% chance of occurrence in any given year for local storm sewer. 14 For collection systems not designed to meet rate control Recommended Policy to standards (i.e. catch basins) a clogging factor of 50% Consider will be utilized in sizing intake structures. 15 No orifice having a diameter less than 8" is allowed in Recommended Policy to the design of rate control structures within the City. Consider 16 An emergency spillway (emergency outlet) from ponding Recommended Policy to areas shall be installed a minimum of 1 foot below the Consider lowest building opening and shall be designed to have a capacity to overflow water at an elevation below the lowest building opening at a rate not less than 3 times the 100-year peak discharge rate from the basin or the anticipated 100-year peak inflow rate to the basin, whichever is higher. 17 As part of any new development or redevelopment Existing Policy within the City, on-site retention and treatment for storm water runoff will be required to conform to the policies outlined in this plan unless an approved off-site regional facility is available to accommodate this runoff. 18 The 100-year high surface water elevation will be Existing Policy derived from the City's hydrologic/hydraulic model in Appendix A and information from the FEMA Flood Insurance Study. For Silver Lake and the Silver Lake branch of Purgatory Creek, the 100-year high water elevation developed by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District will be used as shown also in Appendix A. 19 Any new or redevelopment building construction within Existing Policy the City will maintain a minimum building opening elevation 3 feet above the projected 100-year high water elevation for the area. If this 3 foot building opening freeboard requirement is considered a hardship, the standard could be lowered to 2 feet if the following can be demonstrated: City of Shorewood Section V -Page 5 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V `STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Polic Source/Rationale • That, within the 2-foot freeboard area, storm water storage is available which is equal to or exceeds 50% of the storm water storage currently available in the basin below the 100-year elevation. 19 • That a 25% obstruction of the basin outlet over a 24 (cont'd.) hour period would not result in more than 1 foot of additional bounce in the basin. An adequate overflow route from the basin is available that will provide assurance that one foot of freeboard will be maintained for the proposed low building opening. 20 Any new development or redevelopment in the City Existing Policy must set minimum basement floor elevations to an elevation that meets the following criteria: • The basement floor will be four feet (4') above the currently-observed groundwater elevations in the area (FHA policy). • The basement floor elevation will be two feet (2') above the elevation of any known historic high ground water elevations for the area. Information on historic high groundwater elevations can be derived from any reasonable sources, including piezometer data, soil boring data, percolation testing logs, etc. • For areas outside of the RPBCWD boundaries, the basement floor elevation will be one foot (1') above the 100-year high-water elevation for the area unless it can be demonstrated that this standard creates a hardship, and that the basement floor will be one foot (1') above the highest anticipated groundwater elevation that could result from high surface water elevations elevating groundwater elevations in the area during the 100-year critical duration rainfall event. The impact of high surface water elevation on groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the structure can take into consideration the site's distance from the floodplain areas, the soils, the normal water elevation of surface depressions in the areas, the static groundwater table, and historic water elevations in the area. • For areas within the RPBCWD boundaries, the low floor elevation must be a minimum of 2 feet above the calculated 100-year flood frequency elevation. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 6 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Polic Source/Rationale 21 No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill Existing Policy for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a conditional use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100-year flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. 22 The City may allow an outlet to land locked basins, Existing Policy provided that the discharge rate from these basins not exceed the 10-day, 100-year average daily run-off rate and that it can be demonstrated that this discharge will not significantly impact the downstream flood profile. 23 The City will require compensatory storage equal to Existing Policy storage losses resulting from floodplain fill as part of any new development. This compensatory storage must be provided in a suitable location so as not to increase the 100-year floodplain elevation for the area. Water Quality Treatment 24 Treatment of storm water to NURP guidelines is Existing Policy required prior to storm water discharge to a lake, stream, or wetland and prior to discharge from the site as part of development. The NURP guidelines for the design of storm water treatment basins are as follows: a. A permanent pool ("dead storage") volume below the principal spillway (normal outlet) which shall be greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2.5-inch storm over the entire contributing drainage area assuming full development. b. A permanent pool average depth (basin volume/basin area) which shall be > 4 feet, with a maximum depth of < 10 feet. c. Basin side slopes above the normal water level should be no steeper than 3:1, and preferably flatter. A basin shelf with a minimum width of 10 feet and 1 foot deep below the normal water level is recommended to enhance wildlife habitat, reduce potential safet hazards, and City of Shorewood Section V -Page 7 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Polic Source/Rationale improve access for long-term maintenance. 24 (cont'd.) d. To prevent short-circuiting, the distance between major inlets and outlets shall be maximized. 25 New storm water management ponds that are This policy is already being constructed as part of private development shall be practiced within the City covered by drainage and utility easements that are dedicated to the City. 26 The City will cooperate with the MPCA and other outside Met Council Requirement organizations to develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans for the listed impaired waters that receive storm water from the City. 27 The City will require the inclusion of skimmers in the Existing Policy construction of new pond outlets, and add skimmers to the existing system whenever feasible and practical to prevent floatables from being discharged downstream. Skimmer structures will have a minimum four-inch (4") overlap and the maximum one-year storm event discharge velocity should not exceed zero point five feet (0.5') per second. The use of skimmer structures other than wood baffles will be encouraged unless the baffle structure is properly designed. 28 The City will include provisions for coarse sedimentation Existing Policy and skimming floatable materials prior to storm water discharge to lakes and DNR-protected wetlands. Skimmers will be designed to skim the one-year storm event. This requirement will apply in all cases except where it is deemed not feasible or not practical to do so. Considerations for variance to this policy will only be made in cases where the direct drainage area is limited in size and the probability that a significant pollutant discharge from the area to areas outside the City would be extremely unlikely. The use of skimmer structures other than wood baffles will be encouraged unless the baffle structure is properly designed. 29 The City has adopted the RPBCWD water quality goals Existing Policy for Silver Lake. These goals are as follows: Water Quality: TSlSO=83 Recreation Goal: Canoeing and aesthetic viewing City of Shorewood Section V -Page 8 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Polic Source/Rationale Aquatic Communities: Preserve lake's wildlife habitat 29 Water Quantity: Manage for regional flood (cont'd.) Wildlife: Protect existing wildlife These goals and information about the lake is included in the Silver Lake Use Attainability Analysis (May 2003) which is available in the Water Resource Libra Infiltration/ Volume Control 30 New development and redevelopment shall consider Policy to Consider and incorporate to the extent practical and feasible Low Impact Development Techniques that have been reviewed and approved by the City. A maintenance plan for these features will be submitted to the City for review and approval. 31 The amount of allowable impervious surfaces within new Existing Policy development will be regulated according to the City's ordinances. 32 The City intends to use both designated and non- Existing Policy designated areas to store storm water runoff in the 100- yearevent. These areas include general depressions, low points, and streets where structures and/or property are not damaged and any inundation will only be temporary in nature. Wetlands 33 Wetlands will be protected within the City boundaries to Existing Policy assure that the value of wetlands in relation to their surface water quantity benefits are not significantly impacted by development. 34 The City will encourage land owners to maintain Existing Policy wetlands and open space areas for the benefit of wildlife. The City will utilize the Planning Commission and Land Conservation and Environment Committee members to promote this objective. 35 Effective May 1, 2008, the City of Shorewood will Recent Change become the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) for areas of City of Shorewood Section V -Page 9 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Polic Source/Ra#ionale the City within the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek 35 Watershed District. The City will manage wetlands in (cont'd.) conformance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 as developed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. 36 The City of Shorewood will defer the Local Existing Policy Governmental Unit responsible for wetland management to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for areas of the City within MCWD jurisdiction. 37 A 35-foot buffer is required around all wetlands, Existing Policy watercourses, and lakes upon development as outlined in the City's wetland development ordinance in Appendix F. 38 Development within the City of Shorewood is required to Existing Policy conform to the Wetland Development Ordinance in Appendix F. 39 The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has Existing Policy developed a Functional Assessment of Wetlands report for the wetlands within the City. This assessment information will be utilized on a case-by-case basis as development is proposed. 40 Based on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Existing Policy Functional Assessment of Wetlands report, wetlands that were identified as having wetland restoration potential included the following and are shown on the map in Appendix B: D-117-23-25-003 D-117-23-33-031 D-117-23-26-008 D-117-23-33-040 D-117-23-29-002 D-117-23-33-045 D-117-23-32-018 D-117-23-33-018 D-117-23-32-020 D-117-23-34-002 D-117-23-32-037 D-117-23-35-015 D-117-23-33-029 As grants or other funding becomes available, the City will undertake projects to restore these wetlands. These wetlands could also be restored as part of a development plan. 41 The City will complete a wetland functions and values Existing Policy assessment for the wetlands within the RPBCWD. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 10 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Palic Source/Rationale Groundwater 42 The City will promote and coordinate with Existing Policy other agencies the continuation of existing groundwater monitoring, inventorying or permitting programs. 35 The City will encourage the development of spill Existing Policy prevention, control, and counter measure plans that are consistent with State and/or Federal regulations. 36 The City will provide assistance to State or other Existing Policy governmental agencies in resolving groundwater quality problems. 37 The City will encourage preservation of wetlands, ponds Existing Policy and parks to encourage infiltration of precipitation in areas where land use is not anticipated to adversely affect surface water runoff. 38 The City of Shorewood will cooperate with Hennepin Existing Policy County Environmental Health Department to insure that all unsealed or improperly abandoned wells within the watershed are properly sealed. Technical requirements for the abandonment of these wells will be in conformance with the Minnesota Department of Health Water Well Code. 39 The City of Shorewood will work with Hennepin County Existing Policy to develop a wellhead protection plan in accordance with State requirements. Erosion and Sediment Control 40 For activities that disturb one acre or more of land, the Existing Policy City shall require the submission and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in conformance with the MPCA NPDES rules to the City. These plans shall conform to the general criteria set outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", Surface Water Management Ordinance, and the NPDES Construction Site permit. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 11 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Polio Source/Rationale 41 For projects that disturb 5,000 sf of land or greater, Policy to Consider excavate or fill more than 50 cubic yards, or result in more than 300 linear feet of trenching or earth disturbance, an erosion control permit from the City is required. 42 The City will conduct erosion control inspections in SWPPP conformance with the NPDES permit for all projects that require an NPDES construction permit. 43 The City of Shorewood will develop and adopt an Existing Policy erosion and sedimentation control ordinance to be consistent with State and local rules. A copy of the City's erosion ordinance will be included in Appendix F once it is available. D. INTERNAL OPERATIONS The City's internal operations can have a significant impact on storm water management. This strategy is targeted primarily at the City with some areas targeted at the public and/or another agency. These policies are aimed at operation and maintenance activities associated with water resource management within the City. STRATEGY: INTERNAL OPERATIONS No. Polio. Source/Rationale 44 The City will sweep the streets at least once annually and Existing Policy record the results. Areas that need more frequent sweeping will be swept as needed. 45 The City will inspect 20% of its storm water treatment SWPPP basins, structural pollution control devices, outfalls, and ponds every year on a rotating basis. Maintenance will be conducted as necessary. 46 The City prefers to use regional detention and treatment Optional areas rather than site specific detention areas where feasible. The City recognizes that development of these areas will likely be incorporated into development activity and not initiated independently by the City. 47 The City requires as-builts of all ponding areas and Current Practice designated emergency overflows. 48 The City will develop an erosion control ordinance and SWPPP make revisions as needed to address the SWPPP and other regulations. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 12 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: INTERNAL OPERATIONS No. Polic Source/Rationale 49 The City will develop an ordinance to address illicit SWPPP discharges and non-storm water discharge to the storm sewer system. 50 The City will develop a storm water management Recommended ordinance. 51 The City will maintain and update its storm sewer map, SWPPP including storm sewer pipes, outfalls, ponds, conveyances, water bodies on an annual basis. 52 The City will conduct visual inspections of storm water SWPPP discharges on City-owned land annually and record results of inspections in conformance with the City's MS4 SWPPP. 53 The City will contact the MPCA State Duty Officer at 1- SWPPP 800-422-0798 to report any hazardous material spills or discharges in conformance with the City's MS4 SWPPP. 54 The City will annually inspect and maintain any exposed SWPPP stockpiles and storage areas on City property to prevent erosion and discharge into the storm sewer system or water body in conformance with the City's MS4 SWPPP. 55 The City will maintain and submit annual inspection SWPPP reports, maintenance reports, and other needed documentation in conformance with the NPDES permit and the MCWD requirements. This will include annually reporting of the progress towards meeting the MCWD goal of a 50 pounds/year reduction in phosphorus. 56 The City Staff will annually review and adjust as necessary SWPPP mowing, fertilizing, and herbicide application practices to reduce organic and pollutant discharges to the storm sewer and water bodies. 57 The City will review road salt application practices and SWPPP consider alternative products as they become available. 58 The City will implement TMDL studies that affect land use Met Council/ within its borders as these studies are completed. SWPPP 59 The City will encourage homeowners with properties Existing Policy adjacent to water resources to establish a vegetative buffer strip at the shoreline. This strip should consist of native vegetation where ossible and limit erosion and City of Shorewood Section V -Page 13 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 SECTION V STRATEGY: INTERNAL OPERATIONS No. Policy _ __ _ - - Source/Rationale - nutrient transport across the buffer strip. 60 The City will develop and implement a water quality Existing Policy monitoring program capable of establishing that the storm water treatment basins constructed within the City are not only designed to NURP standards but also meet the anticipated design removal efficiencies based on actual monitoring of the system. This program will be carried out to the extent deemed necessary and reasonable by the Shorewood City Council. The City will keep the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District informed of all water quality monitoring program updates. 61 The City will implement its NPDES Storm Water Pollution Existing Policy Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is incorporated by reference and is available in the Water Resource Library at City Nall. 62 The City will work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Existing Policy District and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to assure adequate inspection, maintenance and repair of all ditches under their jurisdiction within the City. 63 The City of Shorewood prefers the development of Existing Policy municipal drainage systems whenever possible to the development of private drainage systems. Design of drainage systems shall attempt to accommodate existing drainage systems including the lines. Existing drainage systems will be protected and drainage perpetuated. 64 The City will adopt the MCWD goal to reduce phosphorus MCWD Requirement loading by 50 pounds annually within the City by enforcing the water quality regulations listed above. The City will report annually to the MCWD about the effectiveness of these BMPs and the progress made by each to reduce phosphorus loading. 65 The City will work with the MCWD to monitor shoreline MCWD Requirement conditions on Christmas Lake. City of Shorewood Section V -Page 14 WSB Project No. 1459-23 August 2007 crn or ~ SHOREWOOD o .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: City Council FROM: Craig Dawson, City Administrator ' ' DATE: January 24, 2008 SUBJECT: First Discussion of Goals and Priorities for Apri12008-March 2009 Councilmembers and staff have provided comments to me from the first very rough draft of items to consider on the next year's list of Goals and Priorities. At the January 28 work session, these items can be discussed and clarified, some perhaps deleted and others added. Once the items to be on the list are determined, I will compile them and send them out so that you may indicate your priority ranking (high, medium, lesser) for each. Thereafter, the list can be finalized and prepared for adoption by the Council. a. a. ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER GOALS & PRIORITIES, April 2008-March 2009 Draft for January 28, 2008, City Council Work Session Items on 2007-08 Yet To Be Completed High Priority: 1) Develop comprehensive Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) plan to evaluate Metropolitan Council data & findings. Plan: Obtain proposal for services from engineering consultant. This is important to do in order to be proactive; City was not at disadvantage for lack of progress in 2007. Medium Priority: 1) Review/Implement recommendations for Planning District 6 (County Road 19 from Excelsior to Tonka Bay city limits). Planning Commission is nearing completion of its work; will go to City Council after it's done. 2) Open LaserFiche Weblink module for public access to City documents and records on Website. Weblink was opened, and more types of volume of documents are being added. This should be recategorized as an on-going activity. 3) Accomplish Shorewood/Tonka Bay corporate boundary change in County Road 19/ Smithtown Road intersection area. The final close-out is awaiting completion of administrative activities by Hennepin County on the CR 19 intersection project; then the boundary change can occur. Lesser Priority: 1) Review water rate structure, with attention to minimum charge. Implementation would be in 2"d Qtr 2008, after installation of new utility billing module. 2) Develop & implement water conservation plan. May or may not need to be tied to any change in water rate structure. 3) Review & update parking requirements in zoning chapter of Code. 4) Develop database for historic/cultural/architectural buildings and features. GOALS & PRIORITIES, Apri12008-March 2009 Draft for January 28, 2008, City Council Work Session Page 2 Possible Goals & Priorities for the 2008-1St Qtr 2009 (in no particular order or priority) a) City Hall renovation b) RFP for audit services (July) c) Future of Liquor Fund d) Southshore Center -future responsibilities for building; for activities & programming e) Complete 2008 Comprehensive Plan update Design & conduct public participation plan f) Evaluate continuation of deer management/deer removal g) Plan for financial sustainability of enlarged pavement maintenance efforts h) Transition of permitting responsibilities of Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to City of Shorewood i) Southeast Water Tower rehabilitation project j) Develop plan to complete conversion of water system to radio-read meters k) Develop roadway project "templates" and determine parameters for neighborhood design preferences 1) Update master plan for Badger Park m) Develop auto-pay for utility bills; evaluate feasibility of credit/debit card transactions (to occur after installation of new utility billing module in financial system) n) Complete items listed for 2008 in CIP o) Review Engineering staffing levels for current and future workloads p) Establish the tracking of benefits accruing from radio-read water meters in order to have metrics to establish 2009 revenue and expense budgets q) Create meaningful budget activity indicators and collect 2008 actual and prior to data to use in 2009 budeting (winter road clearing is a prime example of something that's needed) GOALS & PRIORITIES, Apri12008-March 2009 Draft for January 28, 2008, City Council Work Session Page 3 r) Monthly financial reporting packages for Council and departments with tabular and graphical representations (which should be done easily with the new financial package) s) Plan for completing all file scanning (dates and resources enumerated) t) Tennis courts resolution (remove, repair, or renovate) u) Consultant (or other) report on if there are more effective ways to use Silverwood Park space v) Permanently resolve Southshore Center issues with other cities. w) Depending on decisions regarding City Hall, raze or sell the house at 5795 Country Club Road. x) Begin comparing Shorewood's performance against a set of comparable cities. y) Revise City Code related to inspection for sump pump connections to City sewer; discuss refunding surcharges. z) Place instructions on Website on how to use LaserFiche Weblink. aa) Do RFP for all contracted City services bb) Review motorboat complaints at Shorewood Yacht Club to SLMPD and City staff for 2008. Major on-going activities for 2008 i) Conduct primary and general elections ii) Stay atop of building permit/nuisance enforcement on foreclosed houses iii) Star Lane/Star Circle road reconstruction project 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: City Council FROM: Craig Dawson, City Administrator DATE: January 10, 2008 SUBJECT: Draft Policy for Public Purpose Expenditures for Employee Recognition, Etc. Attached is a draft of policies regarding expenditures for employee recognition and other public purposes. It has been freely adapted from policies of the City of Minnetonka. As a matter of observation, the City of Shorewood's practices have been very consistent with what Minnetonka has as a written policy. One question I heard about Minnetonka's practices had to do with the inclusion of guests for some events, although the policy as written referred to employees. With its policy in place, Minnetonka does invite and pay for family members who attend its employee picnic, and volunteers and their guests are also invited. The City also pays for the annual Firefighters Banquet, and firefighters may bring a guest to it. The policy as drafted for Shorewood does not address the question of coffee or a water, service for employees and visitors. If the Council wished to make these available for employee productivity, morale, and retention -all valid reasons for employee recognition and wellness - it would need to be added under Item 1 A in the policy. This matter will be scheduled for the January 28 work session of the City Council. ~a ~®«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER V ~ e, ~~ ~,. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION and PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES Purpose re~ardin~ Employee Recognition: By an Act of the Legislature in 2007, cities are expressly granted the authority to establish and make expenditures for activities recognizing their employees. As codified in Minnesota Statute § 15.46, "... A county or a statutory or home rule charter city may establish and operate a program of preventive health and employee recognition services for its employees and may provide. necessary staff, equipment, and facilities and may expend funds as necessary to achieve the objectives of the program." The following is intended to provide guidelines regarding which personnel expenditures are for public purposes. Examples are not meant to be all-inclusive. These permitted expenditures are intended to serve the public purpose of recruitment and retention of the City's largest asset, its personnel. These practices are meant to ensure high employee productivity and morale and reduce expenses from low productivity and high turnover (e.g., recruitment, training, inexperience, and lack of knowledge). Personnel is meant to have a broad definition, and to include members of the City Council, staff, members of advisory boards and commissions and committees, and volunteers. 1. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION -MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS A. Permitted Expenditures: Use of City funds in reasonable amounts for meals and/or refreshments for elected and appointed City officials and employees are permitted in the following circumstances: • City-sponsored events of a community-wide interest where staff are required to be present. • City Council, boards and commissions and committees meetings held during or adjacent to a meal hour. • Professional association meetings. • Meetings related to City business in which the attendees are predominantly non-city representatives (e.g., city/school district meetings, Chamber of Commerce meetings). • Meetings, training or conferences held outside the seven-county metropolitan area. • Conferences and training when meals are included as part of the registration or program fee, or when meals are not included but a necessary expense due to travel. 2 • Annual employee recognition events to which ail employees are invited (e.g., City Council's annual appreciation event, which also applies to guests). • Annual recognition events for non-benefited employees (e.g., City Council's annual appreciation event, which applies to members of board and commissions and committees, and their guests; SLMPD Reserve Officer appreciation event). • City-sponsored training or work-related meetings where employees are required to participate or be available during break periods. • Work activities requiring continuous service when it is not possible to break for meals (e.g., election days, watermain breaks). • Events recognizing participants in aCity-sponsored wellness program). • Retirement or leaving-employment recognition (light refreshments only). • Events recognizing completion of a significant work-related project). B. Prohibited Expenditures: Use of City funds for meals and/or refreshments for elected and appointed City officials and employees are prohibited in the following circumstances: • Purchase of alcoholic beverages for City-sponsored events. • Purchase of alcoholic beverages as part of an otherwise authorized meal expense. • Employee-sponsored fundraising events (e.g., charitable giving campaign) • Employee functions or celebrations that are solely social in nature (e.g., birthdays, holiday luncheon) • Fundraisers for non-City related events. • Meetings, training or conferences held inside the seven-county metropolitan area. • Conferences and training when meals are not included as part of the registration or program fee, unless meals are a necessary expense due to travel. • Meetings between staff members not in accordance with "1.A. Permitted Expenditures for Meals and Refreshments" (above). 2. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION -OTHER EXPENDITURES A. Other Permitted Expenditures: Use of City funds in reasonable amounts are permitted in the following circumstances: • For a funeral flower arrangement upon death of an employee or elected official, or one of their immediate family members. • Prizes of moderate value awarded randomly at employee recognition events. • Awards of limited value to all attendees at employee recognition events. • Awards of limited value for participants in aCity-sponsored wellness program. • Meals, refreshments, or other items of limited value for people who volunteer for the City. B. Other Prohibited Expenditures: Use of City funds are prohibited in the following circumstance(s): Participation in recreational activities unless included as part of an overall conference registration fee. 3. OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES Pur ose: This section is intended to provide guidelines regarding some miscellaneous expenditures that are for public purposes. Examples are not meant to be all-inclusive. These expenditures are intended to serve the public purpose of fostering community relations, cooperative associations, and positive relationships with residents and the business and nonprofit communities. A. Permitted Expenditures: Use of City funds in reasonable amounts are permitted in the following circumstances: • Memberships and dues in organizations when the primary purpose of the membership is for public benefit and not personal interest or gain. • Refreshments or items of limited value available to attendees at City-sponsored events to which members of the public have been invited (e.g., City cultural events, neighborhood information meetings). • Meals or refreshments for afee-for-service of volunteer consultant attending aCity-sponsored meeting in which employees qualify under Section l .A. (above), and when that individual plays a major role in the meeting (e.g., a trainer/instructor, manager of a City project). B. Prohibited Expenditures: Use of City funds are prohibited in the following circumstances: • Gifts to private individuals or organizations. • Donations to non-City related events. January 2008 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: City Council FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: January 24, 2008 SUBJECT: Proposal from Boulder Bridge Farm regarding Seal coat/Overlay of Roadways Streets in the Boulder Bridge subdivisions are scheduled for a seal coat application in 2008. Staff has been approached by representatives of the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association about the possibility of placing a bituminous .(aka asphalt) overlay on these streets instead of a seal coat, and the Association would be willing to pay the additional cost for the overlay. Seal Coat: A seal coat is an application of trap rock on top of tack oil. When finished, it provides new wearing surfaces that typically will last three to five years. Overla A bituminous (or asphalt) overlay is usually 1.5 to 2 inches thick and has a lifespan of 10 years. Compared to a seal coat, an overlay is the preferred life-extending when the surface has deteriorated and cracked beyond just a simple top or seal coat. Residents typically prefer the aesthetic of an overlay and prefer to avoid the nuisance of oil and gravel during the three-week period that it takes for the gravel to become the new wearing surface. Both methods are cost-effective and appropriate, and the method selected should be which one is the most cost-effective when the surface life needs to be renewed. Discussions with Boulder Bride Farm: Our discussions have been exploratory, and there are policy implications as the proposal goes forward. To what extent should the City's standard approach for all public streets be altered for neighborhood preferences? Who should pay, and what portion, of the added cost? • Are there fairness implications across the City for neighborhoods that are unable to afford (or agree to) more expensive alternatives? • How does the City receive revenue from residents for additional cost? t. ~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • Should residents be given some credit for the additional life to be expected from an overlay compared to a seal coat? o If so, the City would need to cut back on the number of streets in the planned sealcoat/overlay program for that year, in order to absorb the cost of the "credit" • Must the City be the contracting entity for the overlay? If the Council were favorable to the upgrade in the resurfacing of the roadways in the Boulder Bridge subdivisions, the following conditions should be considered: 1) The City would contract for the overlay. The City is the owner of the roadways and must maintain it over time. If the homeowners association contracted for the work, the overlays would need to be inspected by the City before accepting the work done on its streets, and future City action on any subsequent damage or liability would need to be made against the association for the work done by its contractor. 2) The City would determine aper-foot unit price for sealcoating from the bids it receives this year. This price would be multiplied by the number of feet of roadways in the Boulder Bridge subdivisions. 3) The Association would be responsible for the difference in cost between the overlay and the sealcoat. a. The cost can be recovered through special assessment of the affected properties or by a lump-sum payment from the Association. The lump-sum payment prior to the overlay is preferred. Under a special assessment, the City would need to float the cost of the improvement (and tie up other Local Roadway funds) until it is paid off, and the City would want to have waivers to appeal special assessments from owners of all affected properties. 4) The Council will need to decide whether there should be further evaluation of the concept of acknowledging a credit being given for the extended life of the roadway. On one hand, it is additional value and future savings (by not having to do another sealcoat cycle) on these roadways. On the other hand, the proposed overlay is a notable departure from the City's standard practice that will have a financial impact on being able to address other roadways, and the overlay could be viewed as a premium service that the affected and willing property owners should be prepared to pay. In the discussions with Association representatives, they are in agreement with #1-3 above, and would like for the Council to consider the concept of developing an amount for a credit in #4.