Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 06/17/2008
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP & OPEN PODIUM TUESDAY,JUNE 17, 2008 CITY CENTER 5:00—6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOM II 6:30—7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Rob Reynolds, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Communications Manager Joyce Lorenz, Assistant to the City Manager Michael Barone, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters Heritage Room H I. COMMUNITY CENTER UPDATE II. INNOVATIONS IN COMMUNICATIONS Council Chamber III. OPEN PODIUM IV. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY,JUNE 17, 2008 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. COLOR GUARD/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS V. PROCLAMATIONS /PRESENTATIONS A. RECOGNITION OF NEW CERT VOLUNTEERS VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,JUNE 3, 2008 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JUNE 3, 2008 VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.30 RELATING TO WATER SERVICE C. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 9.70 AND 9.71 RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR DISEASED TREES AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.32 RELATING TO EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE CITATIONS AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY ORDINANCE D. ADOPT THE 2008 GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 17, 2008 Page 2 E. AUTHORIZE RENEWAL OF PRAIRIE VIEW LIQUOR STORE LEASE FOR ONE YEAR F. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS INC. (EPI) FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT G. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH SRF CONSULTING FOR FINAL DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STABILIZATION AND RESTORATION OF LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT STUDY AREAS 1 AND 2, I.C. 07-5698 H. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH FORTIN CONSULTING FOR SHORELAND RESTORATION SERVICES FOR MITCHELL LAKE ASSOCIATION, I.C. 06-5679 I. CHANGE ORDER FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT BIRCH ISLAND WOODS PARK, ROUND LAKE BASEBALL STADIUM AND COMMUNITY CENTER IMPROVEMENTS J. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SEH FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, I.C. 07-5708 K. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, I.C. 07-5708 L. ADOPT RESOLUTION AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO S.M. HENTGES & SONS, INC., FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, I.C. 07-5708 M. APPROVE PHASE II NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT, I.C. 02-5585 N. LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (LWMP) UPDATE, I.C. 99-5501 O. ACCEPT THE ADAPTIVE USE STUDY OF THE JOHN R. CUMMINS HOUSE AND DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN MARKETING A PORTION OF THE SITE FOR A HOSPICE WITH THE REMAINDER PUBLIC IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS /MEETINGS X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 17, 2008 Page 3 XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS A. STUDENTS ON COMMISSIONS FOR 2008/2009 SCHOOL YEAR XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. GEARS Board Meeting—Mayor Young B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR 1. Art Center Fundraising Update E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT ANNOTATED AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Neal, City Manager RE: City Council Meeting for Tuesday, June 13, 2008 TUESDAY,JUNE 17, 2008 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. COLOR GUARD/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (See instructions on dais.) III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION Open Podium is an opportunity for Eden Prairie residents to address the City Council on issues related to Eden Prairie city government before each Council meeting, typically the first and third Tuesday of each month, from 6:30 to 6:55 p.m. in the Council Chamber. If you wish to speak at Open Podium,please contact the City Manager's office at 952.949.8412 by noon of the meeting date with your name, phone number and subject matter. If time permits after scheduled speakers are finished, the Mayor will open the floor to unscheduled speakers. Open Podium is not recorded or televised. If you have questions about Open Podium, please contact the City Manager's Office. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. V. PROCLAMATIONS /PRESENTATIONS A. RECOGNITION OF NEW CERT VOLUNTEERS Fire Captains Tony Liddell, Ray Carlson and Mike Stein will read short bios and present certificates to the new CERT members, and Assistant Fire Chief Kipp Springer will show a brief PowerPoint about the program. Mayor Young will assist with presentation of the certificates and join the group for a photo at the completion of the presentation. VI. MINUTES MOTION: Move to approve the following City Council minutes: A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,JUNE 3, 2008 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JUNE 3, 2008 ANNOTATED AGENDA June 17, 2008 Page 2 VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Move approval of items A-N on the Consent Calendar. A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.30 RELATING TO WATER SERVICE C. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 9.70 AND 9.71 RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR DISEASED TREES AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.32 RELATING TO EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE CITATIONS AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY ORDINANCE D. ADOPT THE 2008 GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN E. AUTHORIZE RENEWAL OF PRAIRIE VIEW LIQUOR STORE LEASE FOR ONE YEAR F. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS INC. (EPI) FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT G. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH SRF CONSULTING FOR FINAL DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STABILIZATION AND RESTORATION OF LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT STUDY AREAS 1 AND 2, I.C. 07-5698 H. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH FORTIN CONSULTING FOR SHORELAND RESTORATION SERVICES FOR MITCHELL LAKE ASSOCIATION, I.C. 06-5679 I. CHANGE ORDER FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT BIRCH ISLAND WOODS PARK, ROUND LAKE BASEBALL STADIUM AND COMMUNITY CENTER IMPROVEMENTS J. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SEH FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, I.C. 07-5708 K. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, I.C. 07-5708 ANNOTATED AGENDA June 17, 2008 Page 3 L. ADOPT RESOLUTION AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO S.M. HENTGES & SONS, INC., FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, I.C. 07-5708 M. APPROVE PHASE II NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT, I.C. 02-5585 N. LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (LWMP) UPDATE, I.C. 99-5501 O. ACCEPT THE ADAPTIVE USE STUDY OF THE JOHN R. CUMMINS HOUSE AND DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN MARKETING A PORTION OF THE SITE FOR A HOSPICE WITH THE REMAINDER PUBLIC IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS /MEETINGS X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Move approval of the Payment of Claims as submitted (Roll Call Vote). XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS A. STUDENTS ON COMMISSIONS FOR 2008/2009 SCHOOL YEAR Synopsis: The recruitment period for the 2008 —2009 Students on Commission program began on May 8, 2008, and ended on June 6, 2008, with 15 applications received. A new addition to the Students on Commissions program this year is to place students on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission for the first time. The Assistant to the City Manager held a meeting on June 12, 2008, with the City Commission staff liaisons to review and discuss the applications received. Appointment recommendations are being made based on the students' stated Commission preferences whenever possible, and the quality of their application, with all 15 student applicants recommended for appointment. The Students on Commission program year has the following dates for the terms mentioned in the appointments - - the Fall term dates are September 2008 through December 2008, while the Winter/Spring term dates are January 2009 through April 2009. Student Commission members will attend all monthly meetings for the Commission they are appointed to. Since the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission meets every other month, Student Commission members appointed to that Commission will attend meetings in September 2008, November 2008, January 2009, and March 2009, ANNOTATED AGENDA June 17, 2008 Page 4 and any other special meetings that may be called by that Commission during the program year. An orientation session will be held for all student representatives during the last week of August 2008, where information on City government, the City Council, as well as Commission structure and function will be presented. MOTION: • Move to: Appoint Nicole Garbowicz and Katy Johnson for both the Fall & Winter/ Spring terms on the Arts and Culture Commission during the 2008 — 2009 program year. • Move to: Appoint Vallari Ajgaonkar, Alexandra Baumhardt, and Michael Caughill for both the Fall & Winter/Spring terms on the Conservation Commission during the 2008 — 2009 program year. • Move to: Appoint Michael Dennis and James Maslyn for both the Fall & Winter/Spring terms on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission during the 2008 — 2009 program year. • Move to: Appoint Frank Bi and Stephanie Vilendrer for both the Fall & Winter/Spring terms on the Heritage Preservation Commission during the 2008 — 2009 program year. • Move to: Appoint Ummul Kathawalla, Adam Liter, and Nelum Madanayake for both the Fall & Winter/Spring terms on the Human Rights and Diversity Commission during the 2008 — 2009 program year. • Move to: Appoint Andrew Baker, Marie Loeffelholz, and Michael Powell for both the Fall & Winter/Spring terms on the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission during the 2008 — 2009 program year. ANNOTATED AGENDA June 17, 2008 Page 5 XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. GEARS Board Meeting—Mayor Young B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Report on Proposed Highway 169 Corridor Commission 2. Report on Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission Public Meetin! C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR 1. Art Center Fundraising Update No action is required. This is an informational item. Synopsis: The City Council has asked staff to periodically present updates related to activities surrounding the Arts Center. Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer will update the City Council on recent activities. At the June 3, 2008 City Council meeting, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer presented an update to the City Council on the progress related to the Art Center. Mayor Young asked for a specific amount of funds that are being targeted to be raised. The following is a list of items that funding is being sought for, along with associated cost estimates. The initial fundraising goal to convert the Art Center from a private to a public facility is $326,000. Expand Parking Lot $60,000 Landscaping $10,000 Replace Exit Doors with Crash Bar Doors $6,000 Second Restroom $12,000 Vent & Air Handling $4,000 Interior Paint $7,000 Entrance, Building & Directional Signs $8,000 Change Out Some Flooring $4,000 IT Start Up Costs $10,000 Security Cameras and Card Access $20,000 FF&E (tables, chairs, shelving, dividers, acoustics, etc.) $80,000 Program Equipment& Supplies (pottery, glass, etc.) $80,000 Consulting /Design/Engineering Fees $25,000 Total: $326,000 It was also communicated to the City Council that staff would periodically update them on additional remodeling, fundraising and programming progress ANNOTATED AGENDA June 17, 2008 Page 6 and initiatives. The following are activities that have occurred since the June 3 meeting. Building Transfer/Remodeling • Draft remodeling plans reviewed with architect. Fundraising /Donations • Request in progress to SUPERVALU Foundation for funding. • Request in progress to the Eden Prairie Foundation for funding. • Request in progress to the Lion's Club for funding. • Establishment of Art Center as a funding account within the Eden Prairie Foundation. • Recruitment and preparation for the Art Center Fundraising kick-off event on July 9 at 6 p.m. Program Planniniz • Arts and Culture Commission continues to discuss program ideas and viability. E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the City Council meeting. ITEM NO.: VLA. UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP & OPEN PODIUM TUESDAY,JUNE 3, 2008 CITY CENTER 5:00—6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOM II 6:30—7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Rob Reynolds, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Communications Manager Joyce Lorenz, Assistant to the City Manager Michael Barone, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters CONSULTANT: John Schamber, Marketline Research Heritage Room H I. BUSINESS SURVEY RESULTS John Schamber of Marketline Research presented the results of the 2008 Business Survey. The objectives of the survey were threefold: • To gauge the business climate and compare results with past surveys • To determine quality and quantity of telecommunications services in Eden Prairie • To identify ways in which the City can better serve the business community Four hundred telephone interviews were conducted in March 2008 with individuals holding managerial positions at randomly selected businesses. The largest percent of companies were in the service sector(30%), sales/marketing (16%) or general professional(15%). Thirty-two percent have been in Eden Prairie from 11 to 20 years, 23% from 6 to 10 years, and 20% for 21 or more years. More than half of companies said some type of economic issue is the most serious issue they face, compared to 41% in 2005. Focus on the need to build more roads has declined. Satisfaction with value received for tax dollars paid is trending upward. Satisfaction with how contact with the City was handled remains high. The top three reasons businesses operate in Eden Prairie remained the same: • Highway access • Low crime rate • Great place to live or work City Council Workshop June 3, 2008 Page 2 Seventy-three percent of respondents think a competitive environment for telecommunication services exists in Eden Prairie. Eight-three percent feel the City should investigate cooperative initiatives to improve communications technology. Fifty- nine percent of businesses feel the city should provide municipal wireless. Fifty-four percent of businesses are willing to help provide additional free public access to computers and internet(digital inclusion). II. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah reviewed the City's economic development policies from the 2008 Guide Plan Update. Jeremiah also presented information on the City's main economic development tools: tax increment financing, tax abatement, the business retention fund, and special service districts. Active Housing TIF Districts/Projects include Sterling Ponds, Columbine Townhomes, Edenvale Townhomes, The Colony, Summit Place, Lincoln Parc, Bluffs at Nine-Mile Creek. There are three TIF Redevelopment Districts/Projects: Eden Prairie Center, Superior Office, and Windsor Plaza. Council Chamber III. OPEN PODIUM IV. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES ITEM NO.: VLB. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY,JUNE 3, 2008 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. COLOR GUARD/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Young thanked Boy Scout Troop 347, Immanuel Lutheran Church, for presenting the colors. III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Neal added Item VIII. H. RATIFY DECLARATION OF DEFAULT BY LONE OAK CENTER, LLC UNDER LONE OAK CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 21, 2006 and Item XIV.B.3. Update on Xcel Enemy project. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. V. PROCLAMATIONS /PRESENTATIONS A. HEARTSAFE EDEN PRAIRIE Fire Chief Esbensen said several years ago we started Phase I of Heartsafe Eden Prairie and solicited donations in order to place basic AED devices in all public gathering places. He said $60,000 was raised to purchase these simple defibrillator devices that can be used with little or no training. We are now ready to roll out Phase II to encourage our 2600 businesses to invest in the same technology. A story about this program aired recently on KSTP. He said the Mayor will read a proclamation to encourage businesses in the City to purchase the devices. Mayor Young read a proclamation proclaiming June 2008 to be Heartsafe Eden Prairie month. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 2 VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008 MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the minutes of the Council Workshop held Tuesday, May 20, 2008, as published. Motion carried 5-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008 MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 20, 2008, as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. PLANNING COMMISSION Jon Stoltz, Chair of the Planning Commission, reviewed the duties and responsibilities of the Commission and the projects the commission is currently working on. Since November 2007 they have finished the 2008 update of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, finished the Town Center design guidelines and ordinances, completed eight project reviews and four variances, completed one environmental review, and recommended four code changes. He said they recently recommended approval of the 14,000 square-foot Walgreens project which is on the Council Agenda tonight. They also recommended approval of the Kona Grill project, the Enclave at Old Shady Oak project and the UnitedHealth Group project. Young thanked Mr. Stoltz for his presentation and noted that land use items come to the Council through the Planning Commission where much of the work is done. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. KONA GRILL. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 14-2008-PUD-1-2008 for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service District on 4.44 acres and Resolution No. 2008-57 for Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres. Location: West of Flying Cloud Drive, north of Regional Center Road. (Windsor Plaza) (Ordinance No. 14- 2008-PUD-1-2008 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 2008-57 for Site Plan Review) C. AWARD BID FOR NEW SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS D. AWARD BID FOR TRAIL OVERLAY PROJECTS E. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR CITY TO ACT AS FISCAL AGENT FOR SHORELAND RESTORATION GRANT FOR MITCHELL LAKE ASSOCIATION, I.C. 06-5679 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 3 F. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2008-58 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED PROJECT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 5 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (QUALIFIED HOUSING) DISTRICT NO. 15 G. APPROVE THREE-YEAR LEASE FOR FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR H. RATIFY DECLARATION OF DEFAULT BY LONE OAK CENTER, LLC UNDER LONE OAK CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 21, 2006 MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, to approve Items A-H on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. WALGREENS Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.42 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment with in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 1.21 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.21 acres and Preliminary Plat into one lot and road right-of-way on 1.21 acres. Location: 8240 Flying Cloud Drive. (Resolution No. 2008-59 for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment, Resolution No. 2008-60 for Preliminary Plat) Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 22, 2008, Eden Prairie News and sent to 22 property owners. The plan is for a 14,580 square foot Walgreens drug store. The project requires setback waivers as a result of providing additional right of way for future road improvements in the Major Center Area Plan and to accommodate cross access parking. The 120-day review period expires on July 28, 2008. Neal said the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at the May 12, 2008 meeting with direction to revise the parking dimensions in front of Midas and Checkers to meet city code, to relocate the trash enclosure to the southwest corner of the site, and to modify the landscape plan to include a decorative fence with stone columns and additional shrub plantings. These items have been included in the revised plans before the Council this evening. Jeremiah said there has been a vacant building on this location for a very long time, and staff is pleased to see the project come forward. She said it took some time to work out site issues for the project,but she thought it has improved the aesthetics on the site. Young agreed the redevelopment of this site has been a long time coming. There were no comments from the audience. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 4 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Duckstad, to close the Public Hearing, to adopt Resolution No. 2008-59 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.42 acres, to approve 1 st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment in the C-Reg Service District on 1.2lacres, to adopt Resolution No. 2008-60 for Preliminary Plat on 1.21 acres into 1 lot, and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission recommendations and Council conditions. Nelson asked if there is a sidewalk or trail along the side of this project. Jeremiah said there is. Nelson noted it looks like it has awnings on it and asked if they will be real awnings. Jeremiah said they will be real awnings. Dietz noted on a tight site like this there is a lot of effort to make it fit and the developer put a lot of effort into the project to make it happen. He noted this may be one of the first times we have used underground storage basins for storm water, so the project used some cutting edge technology to make it fit. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. B. THE ENCLAVE AT OLD SHADY OAK Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 28.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 28.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat into 44 lots, 5 outlots and road right-of-way on 28.6 acres. Location: West of Shady Oak Road and South of Highway 62. (Resolution No. 2008-61 for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution No. 2008-62 for Preliminary Plat) Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 22, 2008, Eden Prairie News and sent to 48 property owners. This project is a 44 single family lot subdivision on land that is guided low density residential. The project requires the following waivers for setback and lot frontage: 1. Front yard setback for garages less than 30 feet. A 15 foot minimum front yard setback for garages only for 37 of the 44 lots; 2. Lot width less than 70 feet for lots 15 and 16, Block 1; 3. Lots not fronting on a public street for lots 1-6, Block 4. Neal said the waivers and clustering of lots helps create a plan with a low tree loss of 16% and a minimal wetland impact of.02 acres. The 120-day review period expires on July 28, 2008. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the project at the May 12, 2008, meeting with direction for the proponent to meet with the neighbors relating to tree loss and the wetland buffer. He said right before the meeting tonight staff provided emails that indicate the meeting with the neighbors did occur and the project meets with the approval of the residents. Maureen Henderson, 11769 Thornhill Road, said she has a lot of emotion with this project. She has lived next to the property for 20 years and she grieves for the wildlife that will be lost. She said the public hearing, neighborhood meetings and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 5 the Planning Commission were all very helpful, and City staff acted with the utmost integrity and patience. She commended the City on their processes and on the tree policy which shows that efforts are being made to preserve some of the natural amenities. She hoped the City will monitor the tree policy and make sure the surveys are kept current. Young thanked Ms Henderson for her thoughts and feedback. He said we do take the process very seriously and this project proves that out. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Duckstad, to close the Public Hearing, to adopt Resolution No. 2008-61 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 28.6 acres, to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 28.6 acres, to adopt Resolution No. 2008-62 for Preliminary Plat on 28.6 acres into 44 lots, to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission recommendations and Council conditions, and to approve and authorize issuance of a Grading Permit subject to release by the City Engineer upon determination that the final contract documents conform to plans stamp dated May 19, 2008, as approved by the City Council. Nelson asked if there are conservation easements over the wetland pieces of this project. Dietz said there are easements and buffers. Nelson asked if we can guarantee that the wetland portion will stay healthy and as is. Dietz said there has been a lot of effort put into it, and there are three ponds and two water gardens in the plans. Nelson said she was glad to see that. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. The motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Aho, Butcher, Duckstad, Nelson and Young voting "aye." XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.30 RELATING TO WATER SERVICE Neal said this is a simple change to City Code Section 3.30 to clarify the language by changing the word "resident" to "properties." It has to do with how we enforce our water-use regulatory restrictions. He said they are asking to do First Reading tonight with Second Reading to occur at the next meeting. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve First Reading of an Ordinance Amending City Code Section 3.30 Relating to Rules and Regulations Relating to Water Service. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 6 B. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 9.70 AND 9.71 RELATING TO NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES FOR DISEASED TREES AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.32 RELATING TO EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE CITATIONS Neal said this is an amendment to City Code Section 9.70 which deals with the removal of diseased trees and to City Code Section 9.71 which deals with the abatement of tall grass and weeds among other things. When a diseased tree or vegetation that is in need of maintenance is brought to the City's attention a notice is sent to the property owner ordering compliance with the City Code. Both Sections have been amended to provide for an opportunity for the property owner to appeal the notice to the City Council. This due process is necessary if the City needs to enter the property to remove a diseased tree or abate the vegetation violation. Section 2.32 authorizes various city employees to issue citations for violation of the City Code and this Section is amended to add the Assistant Weed Inspector and the Forestry Technician as employees who may issue citations. He said a number of cities are taking similar action at this time. Rosow said the technical changes to the ordinance are fairly simple and involve specifying in the ordinance itself a hearing process to appeal the notice that is being given. He said we provide notice to the property owner to take action and, if they don't do it, the City would take action to remove the tree or cut the grass. This amendment gives the property owner an opportunity to appeal the action. The problem has been that the property owners were not being informed of their right to appeal. The property owner can appeal and protest the notice. Rosow said an amendment is being made to change the administration of this process. It authorizes two other categories of City employees to issue citations. We had the problem of becoming a lawn mowing service for some residents, so we looked at what kinds of costs we could assess. We were really not assessing all the costs involved because we were just forwarding the bill from the lawn cutting. There was more administrative work involved, and we wanted something built in to cover those costs and provide an incentive not to let it happen again. If the violation occurs a second time, the City goes through the same process and then City officials would go out and issue a citation which would bring the property owner into court. The court system has a schedule of payable fines already established and the clerk of the court would determine the correct fine from the schedule. That amount would be added on top of the costs to cut the grass or remove the tree. If it happened a third time, we would have a regular complaint issued which would elevate the incident to a misdemeanor where the fine would be much more serious. He said this is a series of steps to encourage the property owners to be responsible. Nelson asked if this comes up very often and, if the homeowner is unable to get it done because of age or disability, are they referred to a social service agency. Neal said staff talked about that today and researched how often we are addressing a first or second time offense. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 7 Lotthammer said we looked at last year but we don't have the type of data that would indicate why they didn't mow the grass. We sent out 70 letters for first time offenses which allows them to take care of it on their own. We followed up on the 70, and ten of them needed mowing. We then contracted for mowing services for those ten and charged the property owner for the mowing. The amounts charged ranged from$60 to $130. With this ordinance change, we would have another$100 of administrative costs to add to the costs of mowing. At no time did we have to mow a second time last year. We will now have some pieces in play to deal with that situation should it occur. Nelson asked if we included some kind of paragraph about the Home Agency for seniors. Lotthammer said we have not but we could add it. We will also let them know the first time what the future consequences would be and will alert them to the potential for serious consequences. Nelson said it would be nice to put some information with the phone numbers of agencies that can help seniors or the disabled. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Sections 9.70 and 9.71 relating to notice and due process procedures for diseased trees and herbaceous vegetation abatement; amending City Code Section 2.32 relating to employees who may issue citations; and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 9.99 which among other things contain penalty provisions. Motion carried 5-0. XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Impact of 2008 State Legislative Session Neal said at the end of each legislative session we receive a book from Messerli & Kramer that summarizes every piece of legislation that has an impact on cities. The book should be out next week and we will either copy it or send a link to Council Members and staff. Neal said there was a bill passed requiring private utilities to notify the cities when they are shutting off heat to a home after October 15 so we can then turn the water off. He said the Veterans Memorial received $100,000 in the bonding bill, and we will work with the state and Kathy Kardell, who is in charge, to receive appropriation. We are trying to determine the impact of levy limits. There will be a meeting this Thursday morning where we will hear the impact of levy limits and how they will be implemented. We know we are limited to a levy growth of 3.9% plus 1/2 of the implicit price CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 8 deflator which would add another 1.47%. Our tax levy limit for 2009 would be about 5.5%. Our planned tax levy increase that the City Council endorsed last year is a little under 4%. We believe the levy limits may have some impacts we don't understand,but for 2009 they won't have much of an impact on our annual operations. He said he will continue to keep the Council updated on this. 2. Council Workshop Schedule for Rest of 2008 Neal distributed a revised schedule for the 2008 Council Workshops. The changes are needed because of changes to our calendar. On June 17 we will have a Community Center update, the Capital Improvement Plan discussion on July 15, the 2009 budget on August 19, and the street planning and finance lecture for the year by Mr. Dietz on September 2. He said there will be a special presentation by the Historical Society next month. Presenters at meetings after that will be Friendship Ventures, Southwest Transit, Three Rivers Park District and the Veterans Memorial Committee. 3. Update on Xcel Enemy project Neal said earlier this year he and Mayor Young met with an official from Kroll Ontrack and some concerned residents about power reliability issues. After talking with them, we followed up with Xcel, who assured us they were working on a project that would relieve some of the issues and would be done and in place by May 1. Unfortunately, they did not make the deadline. They continue to plan for the project and work with the City, MNDoT, Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and some private land owners. We told them this is really important to one of the growing businesses in our community and we would like to know the completion date. We walked through Kroll Ontrack and observed their sea of servers. That business wants to be in Eden Prairie,but they are very reliant on a reliable source of electrical power so this is very important to them. Nelson asked if they have a date now or is it just going to be sometime in the future. Neal replied the only information he has is a statement that says when they have a good estimate of completion of this, the Xcel representative will give it to us. We will follow up with them tomorrow and will keep pushing them on this one. Nelson she thought all the Council Members believe residents and businesses should have access to a constant source of power. Neal said the results of our Economic Development survey show that 26% of our businesses are at-home businesses, and those are particularly vulnerable to power interruptions. He said Mr. Dietz and he have organized a way to formally respond to those concerns as we get them in the future. C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 9 1. Art Center Update Lotthammer said at the April 15 meeting the Council accepted the Art Center as a gift from the Sampson family and asked staff to come back with a report at a future meeting on progress regarding the building remodeling, fundraising and programming. Lotthammer said the deed has been transferred and the building is now the City's. We are in the process of converting the utilities. We are working with Dan O'Brien, the architect we contracted with. He has been bringing sketches and draft plans to eventually implement as construction plans. He said City staff has an opportunity to save some money on remodeling activities by breaking it down into smaller pieces and doing some contract administration in-house. Lotthammer said the fundraising to date is $25,050 pledged, primarily from an anonymous donor who pledged $25,000. We have been in discussions with Eden Prairie Foundation representatives to determine their willingness to act as fiscal agents or to be part of the fundraising efforts. We are now recruiting those who will go out and put on events or find other fundraising opportunities. We will have a meeting of those who are interested in fundraising for the Art Center. A local interior designer is willing to donate her time to work with the architect on the interior design. The Arts and Culture Task Force has expressed interest in continuing to move forward with fundraising and programming efforts. Lotthammer said the Arts and Culture Task Force, staff members and Mr. O'Brien toured glass blowing and pottery facilities to learn more about the requirements for those activities. Mr. O'Brien is trying to incorporate that into the electrical and ventilation needs of the building. He said we continue to work with the Arts and Culture Committee to refine programming. Young asked if there is a goal for the fundraising. He asked how much money they hope to raise and who is committed to that effort. Lotthammer replied we have the capital piece of$400,000 to make the building accessible to the public and meet current code. We will try to work with the operating deficit number and hope to see fundraising narrow that gap. There will be a large initial amount required and then some annual amounts after that. We would try to cover the annual amounts through grant writing as well as fundraising. He said it is difficult to put an exact number on it. We are still trying to recruit people in addition to the members of the Arts and Culture Commission. There are also people on the Eden Prairie Foundation whose interest was piqued when they heard about the Art Center. The expectation is that it will not be driven by City staff but by others in the community. Young said it seems to him when we talk about the initial up-front capital costs of$400,000, we should see what portions of that we could reasonably CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 10 raise funds for. It is hard to raise money for a project after the money has been spent, so it should happen on the front end. He thought they should define what amount of the $400,000 is the goal for fundraising. His other concern as far as programming is that this be opened as soon as possible but he didn't think we should make programming commitments until we have a handle on fundraising. Butcher was impressed with the accomplishments made in a short amount of time. She thanked Mr. Lotthammer and the Arts and Culture Commission for their work. In terms of looking for membership or contributions, she thought we should provide an opportunity for people to get involved and she wasn't sure they knew they can get involved. She thought there should be something in the newspaper and on our web site because there were so many people in the community in the past that had an interest and they may not realize there is an opportunity to get involved. There are other opportunities for fund raising and contributions and also for a "Friends of the Art Center" type of organization. Lotthammer said he thought the Foundation could really act as a "Friends of the Art Center" Task Force behind the scenes. We need to get the fundraising going in a relatively short amount of time. It takes a long time to get a 501-C3 up and running so it is good to have a foundation in place that is willing to assume some of the administrative role. We also have a ways to go in terms of the amount of publicity regarding the need for fundraising. That will generate interest in making donations and help us get towards that goal. We do know of several people out there that would be very successful with fundraising. He noted anyone watching the meeting tonight with an interest in fundraising should contact City staff. Butcher thought time is of the essence. She suggested some of the great models done for the Community Center might be helpful for this effort. Neal said he and Mr. Lotthammer have had discussions with Bill Clark about his techniques on fundraising. He has given us some insight on how to prepare it and how to do it. Mr. Clark suggested we should have a number that is connected to something. Neal thought we need to identify the Bill Clark of the local arts world. He thought Mr. Lotthammer and he can do that and bring back a rationale to the next meeting. He thought this kind of discussion will generate some calls. Young thought City staff should have only a limited role in the fundraising efforts. He thought people need to step forward from the arts community here and work with a task force. He thought that someone in the private sector that really wants the Art Center to happen quickly needs to step forward and take a leadership role in fundraising. Nelson agreed that we should use the Eden Prairie Foundation. She would also like to see us look into charter memberships,both corporate and individual. There are a lot of people that might be interested in coming in on CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 11 that level. The Apple Valley Zoo did charter memberships, and that might be something to look at. We should put that in as a piece of what we are considering for getting this off the ground quickly. Duckstad thanked Mr. Lotthammer for the update. He asked Mr. Neal if the Council could have another update in 90 days or so because it is helpful to talk about this. It is an ongoing effort and we need to determine what the programs are at the Art Center and who will decide what it will consist of, who will run it and what it will cost. Aho said we are talking a lot right now about the financial requirements for starting the Art Center. Obviously we will need people to run the center, and he asked if we are actively soliciting people who would act as volunteers to teach and to run the Art Center. Lotthammer replied in general we have heard from people who are interested in a fee-based situation. That can be a fairly good situation in terms of the City minimizing the risk. He said we haven't publicized volunteer applications. The Arts and Culture Commission has a good blueprint of what the curriculum could look like and public demand will ultimately shape it. Some of what we will wrestle with in the future is what the pricing is going to look like. From the volunteer side of things we would be relying on people's skills and abilities as well as their willingness to come in and instruct. In terms of manning the facility, we hope it can be a kind of low overhead in terms of people supervising. Having someone to open and close the facility and supervise may not lend itself so much to volunteers. We could use volunteers to help with the actual programming and assist the instructors and that would also help defray the cost of the classes. E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF 1. Homeland Security Grant Police Chief Reynolds said we have received a 2007 Homeland Security Grant for the amount of$100,750 to fund a part-time contracted employee with MN Joint Analysis Center (MNJAC). He said we would use this as a continuation of the grant we received in the past for Ryan Kapaun. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher, to accept the 2007 Homeland Security Grant for the amount of$100,750.00. Motion carried 5-0. G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 3, 2008 Page 12 XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Nelson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Young adjourned the meeting at 8:15 PM. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: VIILA. Christy Weigel, Clerk's License Application List Police/Support Unit These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Amendment to Liquor License 2AM Closing Permit - Renewals Redstone American Grill, Inc. DBA: Redstone American Grill Select Hotels Group LLC DBA: Hyatt Place Mpls/Eden Prairie Purple Star, Inc DBA: Green Mill of Eden Prairie - 1 - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM NO.: VIILB. Public Works Second Reading of an Ordinance Leslie Stovring Amending City Code Section 3.30 Relating to Water Service Requested Action Move to: Approve Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending City Code Section 3.30 Relating to Rules and Regulations Relating To Water Service. Synopsis City Code Section 3.30 was amended to change the language of Subdivision 12 Section B. The section should be revised to state "property"rather than "resident." The first reading of the Ordinance was approved on June 3, 2008. Background Information This revision clarifies the language within Subdivision 12 relating to Water Use Restrictions. Currently Section B states: "Alternating days means that residents with an address ending in an odd number may irrigate only on odd-numbered days of the month and residents with an address ending in an even number may irrigate only on even-numbered days of the month." The word "residents" should be changed to "properties" to clarify that this section applies to all properties within the City. Attachments Ordinance CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 15-2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 3 BY AMENDING SECTION 3.30 SUBDIVISON 12. B. REGARDING WATER USE RESTRICTIONS; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 3.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.30 Subdivision 12. B. is amended by deleting the word "residents" each time it appears and inserting the word "property" in each instance. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 3.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of June, 2008, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of June, 2008. Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 2008. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Agenda June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: VIILC. Ric Rosow, City Attorney Second Reading of Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 2 Relating to Diseased Trees, Herbacious Vegetation Abatement, and Employees Authorized to Issue Citations Requested Action Move to: • Approve second reading of an ordinance amending City Code Sections 9.70 and 9.71 relating to notice and due process procedures for diseased trees and herbaceous vegetation abatement; amending City Code Section 2.32 relating to employees who may issue citations; and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 9.99 which among other things contain penalty provisions; and • Adopt Resolution approving Summary Ordinance. Synopsis City Code Section 9.70 deals with the removal of diseased trees. City Code Section 9.71 deals with the abatement of tall grass and weeds among other things. When a diseased tree or vegetation that is in need of maintenance is brought to the City's attention a notice is sent to the property owner ordering compliance with the City Code. Both Sections have been amended to provide for an opportunity for the property owner to appeal the notice to the City Council. This due process is necessary if the City needs to enter the property to remove a diseased tree or abate the vegetation violation. Section 2.32 authorizes various city employees to issue citations for violation of the City Code. This Section is amended to add the Assistant Weed Inspector and the Forestry Technician as employees who may issue citations. Attachments Ordinance CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9.70 AND 9.71 REGARDING NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH DISEASED TREE AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT; AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.32 RELATIVE TO THOSE CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE CITATIONS; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIONS 2.99 and 9.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code is amended by amending Section 9.70, Subd. 6 (D) as follows: "Notice. Once a diseased tree has been identified and marked on private property, notice shall be given by the City to the affected property owner. The notice shall state and describe the property affected; order and set forth the date by which the tree must be removed; state that if removal has not taken place the City as a remedial action will remove or cause removal of the diseased tree; that all costs thereof will be billed to the property owner payable within thirty (30) days; that if payment is not received, the costs will be assessed against the property from which such diseased tree is removed pursuant to and in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 429.101 or any similar provision hereinafter enacted; inform the property owner of the right to a hearing before the Council to appeal the notice in accordance with Subd. 6 (F); and inform the property owner that upon filing of a timely appeal the time to comply with the notice is stayed pending a decision by the Council on the appeal." Section 2. The Eden Prairie City Code is amended by adding Section 9.70, Subd. 6 (F) as follows: "The person served with the notice set forth in Section 9.70, Subd. 6 (D) is entitled to a full hearing before the Council to appeal the notice upon serving a written request therefore upon the City Clerk prior to expiration of the date by which the tree must be removed as set forth in the notice. At such hearing the person may present any evidence he deems pertinent to the appeal, but the City shall not be required to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings. The Mayor, or other officer presiding at the hearing, may, in the interest of justice or to comply with time requirements and on his own motion or the motion of the party appealing, the City Manager, or a member of the Council, adjourn the hearing to a more convenient time or place; but such time or place shall be fixed and determined before adjournment so as to avoid the necessity for formal notice of reconvening. The Council may affirm, amend or reverse all or any portion of the notice and shall set a new deadline for compliance if the order to remove the tree is affirmed." Section 3. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending Section 9.71, Subdivision 7 as follows: "Subd. 7. Notice. A. Notice. Once a failure to comply with the height, setback, maintenance, weed, and annual cutting requirements as required by this Section is identified, notice of such failure shall be given by the City to the affected property owner. The notice shall state and describe the property affected; order and allow seven (7) days for the property owner to cause such vegetation to be cut, removed and/or treated for weeds; that if such vegetation is not cut, removed and/or treated for weeds the City as a remedial action will cause such vegetation to be cut,removed and/or treated for weeds; that all costs thereof will be billed to the property owner payable within thirty (30) days; that if payment is not received within thirty (30) days, the costs will be assessed against the property from which such vegetation has been removed pursuant to and in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 429.101 or any similar provision hereinafter enacted; inform the property owner of the right to a hearing before the Council to appeal the notice in accordance with Subd. (C); and inform the property owner that upon filing of a timely appeal the time to comply with the notice is stayed pending a decision by the Council on the appeal. The notice shall be served in the same manner as set forth in Section 9.70, Subd. 6 (E)." Section 4. The Eden Prairie City Code is amended by adding Section 9.71, Subd. 7 (C) as follows: The person served with the notice set forth in Section 9.71, Subd. 7 (A) is entitled to a full hearing before the Council to appeal the notice upon serving a written request therefore upon the City Clerk prior to expiration of the date by which the vegetation is to be cut, removed and/or treated for weeds as set forth in the notice. At such hearing the person may present any evidence he deems pertinent to the appeal, but the City shall not be required to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings. The Mayor, or other officer presiding at the hearing, may, in the interest of justice or to comply with time requirements and on his own motion or the motion of the party appealing, the City Manager, or a member of the Council, adjourn the hearing to a more convenient time or place; but such time or place shall be fixed and determined before adjournment so as to avoid the necessity for formal notice of reconvening. The Council may affirm, amend or reverse the all or any portion of the notice and shall set a new deadline for compliance if the order that the vegetation be cut,removed and/or treated for weeds is affirmed. Section 5. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending Section 2.32 to add under the headiniz "Parks and Recreation Department" the following employ Assistant Weed Inspector and Forestry Technician. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sections 2.99 and 9.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 5th day of June, 2008, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of June, 2008. Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 2008. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 16-2008 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16-2008 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held on the 17"'day of June, 2008. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: A. Ordinance No. 16-2008 is lengthy and contains charts. B. The text of summary of Ordinance No. 16-2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A, conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. C. The title and summary shall be published once in the Eden Prairie Sun Current in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type. D. A printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person, during regular office hours, at the office of the City Clerk, and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City offices. E. Ordinance 16-2008 shall be recorded in the Ordinance Book, along with proof of publication, within twenty (20) days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 17, 2008. Phil Young, Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 16-2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9.70 AND 9.71 REGARDING NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH DISEASED TREE AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT; AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.32 RELATIVE TO THOSE CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE CITATIONS; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIONS 2.99 and 9.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows an opportunity for a hearing before the City Council upon an appeal by a property owner of an order by the City to remove a diseased tree under City Code Section 9.70 Subd. 6 or that vegetation be cut, removed and/or treated for weeds under City Code Section 9.71 Subd. 7. This ordinance further adds the Assistant Weed Inspector and the Forestry Technician as city employees who may issue citations under City Code Section 2.32. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 2008. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Agenda June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: IC 04-5628 ITEM NO.: VIILD. Leslie Stovring Goose Management Plan Public Works /Environmental Requested Action Move to: Adopt the Goose Management Plan dated June 10, 2008. Synopsis The City of Eden Prairie contracted Dr. James Cooper to complete a goose management plan in 2004. Information for the plan was collected between 2004 and 2005 and a draft plan was submitted in 2007. Dr. Cooper has since retired and the report was completed by Staff. A series of recommendations for goose management are included in the report as well as information on the Canada goose and their habitat requirements. Background Information The Canada goose is the most widespread and abundant North American goose and is found in every state and Canadian province at some time during the year. The Canada goose is a migratory bird protected by federal and state law and permits are required from the MN Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for removal of birds, nests or eggs to protect people or property from damage (Depredation Permit). This management plan was developed to insure that a thoughtful plan was developed with the aid of an expert in the field of goose management as the basis of our permit requirements and to establish procedures for management activities of the goose population in our city. Canada goose damage was first reported in 1986 at the Olympic Hills Golf Course. To date over 100 potential goose damage locations have been identified in Eden Prairie, including parks, airports, school grounds, lakes, marshes, and ponds. Eden Prairie has an abundance of high quality breeding and broodrearing sites for Canada geese. In summer 2004, the population was near 1,550, which is approximately 9% of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area population A total of 86 goose damage locations have been identified based on complaints made to the City, DNR and UMES or The Canada Goose Program between 1982 and 2005. Complaints include damage to crops, golf courses, lawns, gardens, decks, vehicles, ponds and lakes due to feeding habits and excretion of fecal matter; attacks by aggressive geese; and walking or flying into traffic. Recommendations outlined in the plan include a range of measures to be implemented. They include the following: • Develop an educational program. • Respond to aggressive goose complaints. • Replace shoreline turf with native species, including trees, shrubs and tall grasses. • Evaluate the use of goose harassment where feasible. • Evaluate the need for a policy or ordinance prohibiting feeding of waterfowl. • Maintain the existing hunting policy where possible. • Continue the current summer goose removal and processing program. • Continue providing cost participation at 50% for residents and businesses who have demonstrated goose damage. An application for goose removal would be required. • Develop a goose damage tracking system to enable City staff to determine the effectiveness of the program and to monitor damage complaints. • Develop a health risk contingency plan when cases of highly contagious disease, such as Avian Influenza, develop in Minnesota's Canada goose population • Reduce the construction and use of nesting islands by prohibiting establishment of new ones in development plans and to evaluate the ability to remove nesting islands if requested. Dr. Cooper sold his files to Canada Goose Management Inc. after his retirement. Staff will work with Mr. Keefe (the owner) to continue the summer goose management program on an as-needed basis. Fees for this program will be paid out of the stormwater utility fund. Attachments Goose Management Plan CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN M1, r WAr x.h - 5 ' S June 11, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE CANADA GOOSE................................................................................................I 1.1 NESTING......................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 BROOD-REARING........................................................................................................................................2 1.3 MOLTING.....................................................................................................................................................2 1.4 GOOSE DAMAGE.........................................................................................................................................2 2.0 EDEN PRAIRIE INFORMATION......................................................................................................................4 2.1 SUMMER GOOSE POPULATION.....................................................................................................................4 2.2 FALL GOOSE POPULATION..........................................................................................................................5 3.3 GOOSE COMPLAINTS...................................................................................................................................5 3.0 DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................................................................6 3.1 DRAFT PLAN PREPARATION/DATA COLLECTION.......................................................................................6 3.2 FIELD SURVEY.............................................................................................................................................6 4.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS...................................................................................7 5.0 CANADA GEESE AND PUBLIC HEALTH......................................................................................................8 5.1 GENERAL HEALTH RISKS............................................................................................................................8 5.2 AVIAN INFLUENZA RISKS............................................................................................................................8 6.0 TCMA CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............................................................................10 7.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................11 7.1 CURRENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............................................................................................11 7.2 HABITAT MODIFICATION...........................................................................................................................11 7.3 REDISTRIBUTION.......................................................................................................................................12 7.3.1 High effectiveness........................................................................................................................12 7.3.2 Moderate effectiveness................................................................................................................12 7.3.3 Low effectiveness.........................................................................................................................12 7.4 POPULATION REDUCTION..........................................................................................................................13 7.4.1 Egg Removal................................................................................................................................13 7.4.2 Egg Destruction/Embryocide Use.............................................................................................13 7.4.3 Vasectomization/Sterilization....................................................................................................14 7.5 TRAP AND RELOCATE................................................................................................................................14 7.6 TRAP AND PROCESS...................................................................................................................................14 7.7 HUNTING...................................................................................................................................................15 7.0 EDEN PRAIRIE GOOSE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................16 9.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................18 APPENDIX A-MNDNR Canada Goose Removal Policies And Procedures (1/10/2001) APPENDIX B -MNDNR Urban Goose Hunting Policy APPENDIX C-MNDNR Contractor Requirements For Conducting Canada Goose Management Programs In Minnesota APPENDIX D -Eden Prairie Site Assessment Sheets 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE CANADA GOOSE The Canada goose is the most widespread and abundant North American goose, found in every state and Canadian province at some time during the year. In spring, the species breeds from Labrador, throughout the high Canadian arctic islands to Alaska, south to California, and eastward to Georgia. Wintering Canada geese are found from southeastern Alaska to Hawaii and northern Mexico eastward to Massachusetts and Florida (Bellrose, 1976). The Canada goose is one of the earliest spring migrants, first among Midwestern waterfowl to return to the breeding grounds. Current surveys indicate that the species exceeds 4 million individuals. At one time virtually extinct, the Canada goose was re-established over much of its former range by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), state wildlife departments, and conservation clubs. The population, particularly in urbanized areas, is now growing exponentially. The Minnesota wild giant Canada goose population went from zero in 1954 to more than 360,000 in 2004. The Canada goose shows great variation in body size and regional differences in plumage, bill shape and call. One resident and three migrant Canada goose subspecies are found in Minnesota. These include Richardson's goose, Canada goose and Todd's Canada goose. The largest birds average 12 to 14 pounds, although some weigh up to 18 pounds. Mowed lakeshores, parks and golf courses provide an abundance of brood-rearing habitat and food sources. Predator densities are low, hunting is limited and the bird is unaffected by most human activities. As such, the bird has become supremely adapted to an urban environment. When Canada geese damage crops, golf courses, parks; reduce water quality; or endanger human life on roads and airports, intensive management programs are needed. 1.1 Nesting Female geese build the nest and incubate the eggs without direct aid from the gander (the male). The gander guards the female from disturbance by other mature pairs and assists the female in protecting the eggs, and later, the goslings. Eggs are laid as soon as there is open water for mating and snow-free nest sites. It is not unusual for the birds to continue nesting in spite of temperatures as low as zero degrees Fahrenheit and snowfalls up to 10 inches. Pair bonding takes place in spring among young geese at 1 or 2 years of age. The pair remains steadfast until the death of one of the members. There are no known cases where a female has successfully nested after the death of her mate. Nests are typically built on isolated sites separated from adjacent dry land by a moat of open water, this could include nesting islands, beaver lodges or sedge hummocks. Females often use the same site year after year or alternate between 2 nest sites in close proximity. Young females nesting for the first time attempt to nest close to the location where they were reared. The female incubates from 97 to 98% of the day, taking only one or two brief recesses from incubation. Because she feeds so little, the female can lose up to 30% of her body weight during incubation and is within 4-10 days of starvation when the eggs hatch. Canada goose nest success normally ranges from 60 to 80%. On average, 4 goslings are hatched per successful nest. Nests can be lost to predators such as coyote, fox, skunk, raccoons, crows, Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page I of 32 ravens and large gulls. Nests can also be lost to flooding or desertion (usually due to interference by adjacent territorial pairs). 1.2 Brood-Rearing Once the young have hatched, the family abandons the nest site and travels overland, up to 5 miles in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA), to a suitable brood-rearing site. Most commonly, brood concentration sites have expanses of grass (such as bluegrass turf) where visibility is good, food is abundant and open water is only a short run away. Geese are social animals and flocks can exceed 100 or more birds. 1.3 Molting Five weeks after hatch, the breeding female loses her flight feathers and enters what is termed a molt period. The male molts 4 to 10 days later. Both remain flightless until the young can fly, which is approximately 9 to 10 weeks of age. Because of the energy and nutrients needed to replace the adults' flight feathers and for the goslings to grow from fist-sized to nearly full-grown in less than 10 weeks, large quantities of forage must be consumed during this period. 1.4 Goose Damage Damage complaints due to Canada geese have been filed for damage to crops, golf courses, lawns, gardens, decks, vehicles, ponds and lakes due to feeding habits, excretion of fecal matter and walking or flying into traffic. When human health or safety is endangered, intensive management programs are often needed. Goose digestive systems are relatively inefficient and results in production of approximately 3 to 4 lbs. of droppings or fecal matter per day. The amount of droppings produced can reduce water quality in lakes and ponds adjoining brood-rearing and feeding areas. In 1994, Manny, Johnson, and Wetzel found that goose droppings were contributing up to 70% of the phosphorus entering a small Michigan lake. The goose serves as a transport vector, moving nutrients derived from upland grass into or near a wetland, pond or lake. The potential for impact depends on size of goose population, volume of water, time spent on the water body and water inflow and outflow. In summary, the Canada goose has adapted to both highly human altered and wilderness settings. Predation is low, hunting is limited by human safety, and the bird is unaffected by most human activities. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 2 of 32 Table 1 - Canada Goose Damage Reported in 1998 in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Government and Non-governmental organizations) Damage Typ Number Grass damage 40 Decreased water quality 34 Road Traffic Hazard 32 Droppings on residential yard 30 Droppings on playground 25 Droppings on public park 25 Damage to gardens 25 Droppings on golf course 24 Attacks on people 24 Droppings on commercial property 21 Droppings on swimming beach 19 Shoreline erosion 17 Other 4 Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 3 of 32 2.0 EDEN PRAIRIE INFORMATION No comprehensive surveys of the Eden Prairie Canada geese have been done previously. Using University of Minnesota Extension Service (LIMES) data, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) goose damage databases and additional sites provided by City of Eden Prairie staff, 101 potential goose damage locations were identified. The sites evaluated include marshes, lakes and ponds that were greater than 1/2 acre in size. These sites were visited during the June through July and November 2004 periods. Sites with evidence of summer goose use were visited again June through August in 2005. Goose broods were sighted at 46 wetlands in Eden Prairie, with more than 400 non-breeding birds found at Purgatory Creek Park alone in the summer of 2004. Among the 101 sites evaluated, 57 ranked high or excellent quality for summer use, 66 ranked moderate to excellent quality for fall use and none were ranked as high or excellent quality for over-winter use due to the lack of open water in the winter. Summer complaints for goose damage, health safety risks or aggressiveness were recorded at 60 different sites. Canada goose damage was first reported in 1986 at the Olympic Hills Golf Course. A trapping program was implemented and 134 birds were captured and relocated in 1987. Removals at the course continued until 1995, when the population stabilized at approximately 34 geese. Since that time a dog has been used to harass and disperse the geese to adjacent wetlands. The first removal for management of goose damage and beach health concerns occurred in 2000 at Round Lake Park. The summer population of geese at Round Lake has declined from 52 in 2000 to 5 in 2005. Since 2000, the City has expanded its program to more than 20 locations. A total of 86 goose damage locations have been identified based on complaints made to the City, DNR and UMES or The Canada Goose Program between 1982 and 2005. Based on an ecological impact assessment survey of 48 TCMA municipal governments, lakeshore homeowner's associations and corporations reporting goose damage in 1997, a median economic loss of $2,001 to $5,000 for Canada goose damage sites was estimated (University of Minnesota, 2001). Based on this estimate, the cost of the damage in Eden Prairie was estimated as between $172,000 and $430,000 per year, not including the cost of harassing birds at Flying Cloud Airport. The 2.1 Summer Goose Population In summer 2004, the population was near 1,550 (9% of the TCMA population) and goose broods or goose damage were found at 86 Eden Prairie water bodies. Sites ranked as high for damage during the summer included Purgatory Creek Park, Round Lake, Duck Lake, Hidden Ponds, Bearpath Golf & Country Club, Bryant Lake, Water Treatment Plant, Emerson-Rosemount property, GMAC-RFC property, Mitchell Lake / Miller Park, Olympic Hills Golf Course, Smetana Lake, Red Rock Lake and the intersection of Highway 5 /Prairie Center Drive. Eden Prairie has an abundance of high quality breeding and broodrearing sites for Canada geese. Among the 101 sites evaluated 20 ranked high and 14 excellent for goose nesting. Goose broods and flightless adult geese in summer require areas with open water and shorelines with ample grass for food. Among the 101 Eden Prairie summer sites evaluated, Purgatory Creek Park, Round Lake, Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 4 of 32 Duck Lake and Lake Smetana ranked as excellent and 57 sites ranked as high for goose broodrearing. The Minnesota River Valley also supports a goose population but is relatively light (85 geese counted by aerial survey) 2.2 Fall Goose Population There are 23 excellent and 18 high quality fall use sites in the city. In fall 2004 large numbers of flying geese populations were identified at: • Purgatory Creek Recreation Area (200-600 birds) • Olympic Hills Golf Course (up to 300 birds) • Eden Prairie High School (75-400 birds) • Bearpath Golf and Country Club (100-150 birds) • Eden Lake School(50-150 birds) • Eden Lake Park/Eden Lake School (100-300 birds) • Eden Prairie High School (50-150 birds) • Prairieview School(up to 150) • Prairieview Park(up to 150 birds) • Round Lake Park(up to 100±birds) • Flying Cloud Airport (up to 500 birds) (the Airport has their own goose management program) Summer and fall goose use typically extends to neighborhood businesses, streets, and highways, especially in locations such as the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. 3.3 Goose Complaints There are 86 Eden Prairie locations where complaints were recorded by the City, DNR, LIMES, or The Canada Goose Program during the 1982 to 2005 period or from the field assessment conducted for this plan. Complaints included: • Residential (35) • Business /Commercial (16) • Parks (11) • Golf courses (4) • Beaches (3) • Schools (3) • Highways (3) • Churches (1) • Water treatment plant(1) • Nature center(1) • Airport (1) In most cases, the complaint arose from both the physical impact of grazing on turf and the impact of the goose droppings. For example, concern for contracting disease from droppings was expressed in 14 cases. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 5 of 32 3.0 DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive survey of the Eden Prairie Canada geese was done by The Canada Goose Program in 2004 and 2005. University of Minnesota Extension Service (LIMES), DNR goose damage databases, and data provided by City of Eden Prairie staff were used to identify potential goose damage locations. 3.1 Draft Plan Preparation/Data Collection All data used to prepare this Plan was collected by James A. Cooper, Ph.D. with The Canada Goose Program, Inc. The data was compiled and submitted to the City in December 2007 by Dr. Cooper and Erin Cooper of The Canada Goose Program. City staff edited the draft plan and information submitted and this report is a compilation of both the data provided and that collected by staff. 3.2 Field Survey A total of 101 potential locations were identified and visited during the June through July, and November 2004 periods. Sites with evidence of goose use were surveyed again in May through June 2005. To assess fall damage, managers of golf courses, schools with playgrounds and athletic fields, large parks, and the Flying Cloud Airport were contacted by phone, followed by a site visit to reported damage sites in November 2004. In comparison with most TCMA cities, Eden Prairie has an abundance of high quality breeding, summer broodrearing, and fall sites for Canada geese. Among the 101 sites evaluated: • Goose Nesting—20 sites ranked high and 14 excellent for nesting. • Goose Broodrearing — 57 sites ranked either high (24%) or excellent (33%) for goose broodrearing. Purgatory Creek, Round Lake, Duck Lake, and Lake Smetana in particular ranked as excellent. • Fall Use / Grazing - 23 sites ranked as excellent and 18 as high quality for fall usage. Major fall goose concentrations were identified at the Olympic Hills Golf Course (up to 300 birds), the Bearpath Golf Course (100-150), Eden Prairie High School (75-400), Eden Lake School (50- 150), Prairieview School (up to 150), Purgatory Creek Park (200-600), Eden Lake Park (50- 150), Prairieview Park (up to 150), and Round Lake Park(approximately 100). In the Purgatory Creek Park area, both summer and fall goose use extends to neighborhood businesses and streets. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 6 of 32 4.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS The Canada goose is a migratory bird protected by federal and state law. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs except during established hunting seasons or by USFWS permit. Activities covered by permits include capture and banding (Banding Permit), collection for scientific or educational purposes (Scientific Collecting Permit), removal of eggs from wild nests and possession of captive birds by aviculturalists (Special Purpose Permit), and the removal of birds, nests or eggs to protect people or property from damage (Depredation Permit). Due to the rapid expansion of Canada geese and the concurrent increase in requests for depredation permits, the USFWS has implemented a policy allowing states broader authority to address goose damage under a 5-year Resident Canada Goose Permit. The precedence for issuing a depredation permit was upheld in federal court under Humane Society of the United States vs. USFWS. Currently this permit is being used in states such as Minnesota where an urban Canada goose management plan has been prepared. Minnesota statutes also protect migratory birds. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was established as the regulatory authority to review and issue permits to manage goose populations (Appendix A). The legality and humaneness of the procedures used in the Twin Cities were upheld in state court by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) vs. the DNR and the University of Minnesota. More information on state and federal provisions and permits can be found online at the following websites. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.,izov/ http://www.fws._o�_r�ybirds/issues/cangeese/finaleis.html State of Minnesota http://www.dnr.state.mn.us http://www.revisor.le,iz.state.mn.us/stats Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 7 of 32 5.0 CANADA GEESE AND PUBLIC HEALTH Due to their inefficient digestive systems, grazing habits and molting patterns, geese do pose a risk to human health and safety. Canada geese can also cause a deterioration of water quality in ponds or lakes that support geese. 5.1 General Health Risks Potential health risks posed by the abundant droppings of the Canada goose are a relatively untouched area of study as the urban goose concentrations are a relatively new phenomenon. Human pathogens, such as Giardia sp. and Cryptosporidium sp. have been found in goose droppings in New Jersey Canada goose droppings (New Jersey Wildlife Dept.), although the longevity of the pathogens in the droppings or the likelihood of human ingestion or inhalation were not studied. A study conducted in London, England (Feare et al. 1999), where introduced Canada geese are also causing damage in urban parks and at airports, showed that bacterial species such as E. coli and Salmonella sp. remained viable in Canada goose droppings for at least a month after they were deposited. Because fecal material is readily transferred to human hands by the handling of soccer and other game balls, the authors concluded that pathogens present in waterfowl droppings constitute a potential health risk to humans using parkland for recreation activities. Locally, high fecal coliform levels attributed to goose droppings have been identified in lakes in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, including Round Lake in Eden Prairie. These findings have resulted in mandatory beach closures after analysis of water samples by the Minnesota Department of Health for lakes such as Round Lake. Due to the fact that it is possible to contract disease from goose fecal matter, following are general recommendations for areas where these droppings may be present. • Wash hands, clothes and sports equipment immediately after exposure • Small children, pregnant women or immune-compromised individuals should avoid areas with high concentrations of droppings • Small children who may put hands in their mouths should not be placed in contact with these areas 5.2 Avian Influenza Risks Currently there is serious concern and research on the potential pandemic threat of avian influenza (otherwise known as bird flu or the H5N1 virus). At present, there appears to be three likely scenarios for bird flu. From best to worst they are: 1. The virus will loose it virulence and while still spreading be less of a threat to humans and birds. This is hypothetical, based on changes between influenza strains found in the past and current flu outbreaks. 2. The virus will remain as it is and be spread widely by migratory birds. Management of bird bird and bird/human contacts is and will continue to be required to follow the spread of the virus and will be important if the virus reaches Minnesota. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 8 of 32 3. The virus will mutate and be transmitted human to human. This could produce a worldwide pandemic and would need to be addressed by the development of effective rapid quarantine methods and production of a vaccine. There is a high likelihood that H5N1 will be brought to Minnesota by migratory birds. The Tundra swan is a likely vector candidate and their migratory route includes Minnesota in both spring and fall where they mingle with migrating geese. Ducks may also carry the virus to the Midwest. There are a number of measures that are and should be done now. • Monitor for the virus. The DNR and the Canada Goose Program, Inc. agreed to cooperate with the University of Minnesota's H5N1 monitoring program beginning in summer 2007. • Determine where humans would be exposed to infected birds. Unlike the current situation overseas, where human contact has been primarily with infected domestic poultry and waterfowl, North American exposure is likely to come from wild bird populations as most domestic North American fowl are reared indoors. Top among the wild birds that have the potential to transmit the virus to humans is the Canada goose. This is because viruses are common in geese and other waterfowl, are shed in the droppings, and Canada geese concentrate droppings in numerous public areas that are frequently used by people. If bird flu were detected, The Canada Goose Program recommends that a massive goose reduction program be implemented to reduce the chance of human-goose dropping contact in parks, playing fields, beach areas and others. In addition, goose harassment should be used in areas where geese remain on or near playing fields, beaches or others to further limit human exposure to the droppings. Additional information on the avian flu and its risks can be found at the following web sites: U.S. Center for Disease Control www.cdc.,izov/flu/avian/ U.S. National Wildlife Health Laboratory www.nwhc.us,lzs.,Izov/research/avian influenza/avian influenza.html U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration www.osha.,izov/dts/shib/shib 121304.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service www.fws.,izov/mi,izratofybirds/issues/AvianFlu/WBAvianFlu.html Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 9 of 32 6.0 TCMA CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM In 1982 when it became clear that the Canada goose population was negatively impacting people and the environment, the DNR took the lead in developing an urban Canada goose management program as well as joining U of M and UMES cooperative research program. The DNR has established an Urban Goose Management Plan for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA). This Plan includes information on: • Canada goose history and biology • Social goose carrying capacity within the TCMA • Rationales for management technique recommendations • The damage site management decision making process • Policies for goose hunting and goose removal • Requirements for goose removal contractors • Population management Central to the management plan is the acceptance of the fact that the biological carrying capacity (the level the goose population would reach if left alone) far exceeds the social carrying capacity (the number of geese people will tolerate). The former has been estimated at 400,000 to 500,000 birds in the summer, the latter at 25,000 in the summer. The decision-making process for dealing with goose damage was adapted in 1982 from the DNR's urban deer control policy. This policy requires that where a hunting harvest cannot be used to manage a wildlife population, the local governmental unit(usually a city council or township board) must establish population goals, select control procedures, fund the operational phase and evaluate the program. Procedures must comply with state and federal statutes and permit requirements. The DNR, USFWS, and the UMES provide technical input, and a contractor provides operational assistance and evaluation. A goose hunting policy was adopted state-wide in Minnesota in 1994. Based on the distribution of open space, metropolitan area municipalities are classified by the potential for safe hunting. Priorities are set for removal of problem geese based on the potential for hunting harvest. Assistance in determining the potential for safe hunting is provided by DNR Area Wildlife Managers. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 10 of 32 7.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Current Goose Management Program Successful management of the goose population typically includes a mix of management measures. The City currently utilizes public education on how to manage geese, trapping and removal of adults and young in summer and allowing sport hunting wherever it can be done safely (such as in the Minnesota River floodplain). The City has a private / public management program for trapping and removal of geese. Private businesses or individuals who wish to participate in the program, either for a survey of the property or collection of geese due to damage to property, must complete a Wildlife Management Report Form. The form includes a requirement that alternate measures used on site to manage geese be listed and incorporated where feasible. The form is available on the City's web site and through Environmental Services. Federal authorization of goose population management is based on the depredation provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This means that a goose damage management program must be complaint-based. 7.2 Habitat Modification A comprehensive evaluation of the utility and effectiveness of habitat modification is lacking. However, the University of Minnesota did use TCMA goose population, goose damage, and wetland data to assess the potential biological and economic efficacy, social acceptability, and application of landscape alterations as an urban goose management tool. Potential alterations of Twin Cities nesting habitat for either short- or long-term goose management are limited. Alternatives that could be used include: • Remove and replant shoreline areas with tall vegetation, such as grasses or shrubs. This would only serve to displace geese to open turf areas such as parks, playgrounds, school fields, lawns and golf courses where they would become more concentrated. • Reduce or eliminate mowing. Again, this would only displace geese to more open areas and the vegetation may not grow to a desirable height to limit goose usage. • Drain or fill ponds and wetlands to limit goose habitat. This would negatively impact other wildlife and diminish water quality and habitat. From a long-term management perspective, if sufficient shoreline were converted from grass to natural vegetation not used by geese, the population would be limited through higher gosling mortality, that is, summer starvation. The magnitude of habitat conversion necessary to limit the Twin Cities goose population at its desired level (25,000 birds in summer), was estimated in a 1998 U of M study. Using the area of the TCMA Public Waters wetlands, it is estimated that the Twin Cities has a minimum of 3,308 miles of shoreline. Based on estimates of grass shoreline made at 227 wetlands in 1994, one-quarter (25%) of the TCMA shoreline is in mowed grass or pasture. Therefore, 750 miles of shoreline is currently suitable for goose broodrearing. Because goose broods will go at least 100 yards from the water to feed, the TCMA has about 30,000 acres of suitable brood habitat. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 11 of 32 One acre of un-manicured pasture grass will support a minimum of 13 geese per acre. Assuming this is representative of the capacity of fertilized and mowed urban lawns to support geese, the Twin Cities brood carrying capacity is approximately 375,000 birds. Stated another way, 93% of the existing shoreline turf in TCMA would have to be converted to limit the population to 25,000 geese. Based on the cost of planting tall grass prairie, trees and shrubs, the cost of controlling the goose population by habitat change would be nearly $34 million. However, returning shorelines to native vegetation provides many other environmental benefits and decisions to resolve goose damage should consider habitat modification where feasible, particularly on small wetlands and ponds where water quality is likely to be impacted by the geese. 7.3 Redistribution Short-term or redistribution techniques involve denying or limiting goose access to specific sites for periods ranging from hours to weeks. Twelve TCMA redistribution techniques have been evaluated on a scale of low (no or little effect), moderate (worked temporarily,but the geese returned), or high (birds were displaced permanently). The most effective measures are listed below. 7.3.1 High effectiveness • Permanent or electric fences to block access during the broodrearing period in June and July. Barriers must be sturdy enough to deter geese from going under, over or around them. • Harassment with dogs in late summer and fall. Harassment works best at locations that lack large water bodies and alternative foraging areas are nearby. • Elimination of nesting islands 7.3.2 Moderate effectiveness • Temporary barriers constructed from products such as Mylar tape, rope or wire to deter flightless geese. • Harassment with dogs during broodrearing. However, the broods will either return or walk to nearby areas when the dogs are gone. 7.3.3 Low effectiveness • Spray area with aversive chemicals such as Rejex-It TM or Flight Control TM. These will be very effective for the short-term; however, the effect of these chemicals only persists about 14 days or until the first rain or irrigation. • Harassment or hazing using various sounds, swans, decoys, vehicles, or humans. However, geese often become habituated to these tactics. • Habitat modification. The extent to which the modifications would have to change the landscape would preclude human use of the area as well and are often not used. In addition, habitat modification of the entire shoreline could also entrap goose broods, including goslings. • Prohibition of feeding by ordinance. Human feeding of waterfowl tends to concentrate birds and their impacts on localized areas and has a negative impact on the health of geese and other birds. Such a ban will not reduce bird populations because of the abundance of grass, but it could spread the impact of the geese over a wider area. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 12 of 32 • Use of live swans. • Use of decoys such as swans or dead geese. Drawbacks to redistribution techniques include: • Displaced geese frequently cause damage elsewhere. • The techniques don't stem overall goose population growth. • Barriers erected around the entire shoreline of a pond or wetland with nests may entrap goose broods, which could result in starvation. • The likelihood of displaced geese being accepted elsewhere is low (U of M graduate student (Al Eiden) research). 7.4 Population Reduction Long-term approaches to population reduction act by directly decreasing reproductive success and survival. Reproduction has been reduced by using techniques such as use of embryocides, egg destruction, and vasectomization. Hunting, shooting, and capture and processing for human food are also used to reduce populations. Habitat modification can lower nesting and bird survival. Whether by removing eggs or killing embryos, reproductive management of a goose population can be expensive. In a study in the TCMA during the 1990-96 period, the average cost to destroy each egg was $4.17 (based on an $8/hour wage plus travel and equipment). Currently, the DNR has only approved this method for population reduction in airport areas and for research. 7.4.1 Egg Removal Reduction of reproduction is one potential option for the management of geese doing damage. This is done by searching out nests and removing eggs, which replicates natural predation, or killing the embryos and leaving the nest intact. Nest searching in spring can be difficult as Canada geese nest in early spring and use lakes and marshes for nesting. Searching can be dangerous and time consuming. Once a nest is found, the eggs may be removed, but if they have been incubated less than 2 weeks, the female may re-nest if all of the eggs are taken. 7.4.2 Egg Destruction/Embryocide Use Different techniques can be used to eliminate egg hatching. • Blocking air passage through the shell with mineral oil, thus killing the embryos • Shaking the egg to break the egg aircell resulting in asphyxiation, but does not work well on advanced stage embryos. • Injecting eggs with an embryocide such as 10% formalin. The drawback to techniques that leave eggs in the nest is that Canada geese are indeterminate incubators and use a fasting incubation strategy. This means that if at least 1 egg does not hatch, the female will continue to attend the clutch until she reaches starvation conditions, and has to abandon the effort. To be humane, it is necessary to return to the nests and remove the eggs after the 14h day of incubation and before the 281h day of incubation when hatching would have occurred. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 13 of 32 7.4.3 Vasectomization/Sterilization Males can be captured in summer, surgically vasectomized, and then returned to the wild. No studies have evaluated the efficacy or cost of vasectomization as a population control method, but would likely be expensive. Several multiple-year chemical sterilents are also available for birds, but none are labeled for use in wild geese because of the unknown health risk to humans who eat the meat. 7.5 Trap and Relocate As part of a U of M research program, 22,477 flightless adult and 44,183 young geese were trapped in and relocated from the Twin Cities between 1982 and 1995. The efficiency of trapping was high, averaging 98%, and ranging from 96 to 99%, of the flightless geese present at the time of capture. Mortality during trapping and transport totaled 45 birds (0.07%). An analysis of banded birds trapped in the Twin Cities at sites from which birds had been relocated in previous years shows that 22-42% of the adults sent to southern states returned to the TCMA. Less than 0.01% of the young geese released were trapped again. In spite of the return of some of the relocated adults, removal and relocation reduced populations at TCMA removal sites significantly. Overall, after 5 years of continuous removal, the population was 60% lower than at the start, after 10 years an 80% reduction was attained. However, after 10 years of relocation, the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi indicated that they would no longer accept geese. As a result, if population control through removal was to continue, an alternative to relocation was needed for adults by 1996 and for goslings a few years thereafter. The DNR found locations for gosling release between 1996 and 2006, with more than 58,000 young transported to Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, Iowa, or Minnesota and set free since 1982. However, since 1996, releases have been limited to Iowa and Minnesota. In 2006, the Iowa Conservation Department indicated that they would not take additional geese. 7.6 Trap and Process Due to requests by citizens and elected officials who suggested that using the surplus geese for food would be an acceptable alternative to relocation, a feasibility study was done in 1995. Operational processing of geese for TCMA food shelves began in 1996. St. Paul and Minneapolis food shelf distribution center operators indicated that they had difficulty obtaining donations of high protein products, and that the centers would take all the goose products that were available. The centers agreed to accept the frozen goose products provided the geese were processed by either a USDA or state inspected plant. As a result, a total of 16,551 geese were trapped and processed from 1995 to 2005. In 1999, a white paper was prepared on the disposal of goslings if they could not be relocated. Using U of M and Goose Program research on gosling disposal options and costs, two options appeared feasible: use for human food and use as animal food. A third option, killing and landfilling or incinerating was discussed and rejected. This option may be necessary if geese become infected with avian influenza in the future. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 14 of 32 In 2002, the Goose Program explored gosling pasturing by surveying the availability of rental goose pastures and costs by contacting Minnesota elk ranchers. Survey results showed no individual properties large enough to take the 2,500± goslings trapped each year. Combined with processing costs, labor, and transportation, the pasturing option would increase the program cost about $25 per gosling. Holding the goslings in pens and feeding them grain until they could be processed in September was less expensive, at $18 per gosling. However, this option would require construction of new pens. The Wildlife Science Center, a non-profit education and research program, indicated interest in using the birds as food for captive wolves and bears. The animal food option was approved by the USFWS and DNR in 2006. Initially 400 goslings were humanely killed and frozen for use by the Wildlife Science Center (WSC). The Center's freezer space was quickly filled, and by early July, other options for the 2,000 remaining geese were explored. The DNR has a Southeast Asian Program (SEA) that utilizes donated wildlife for human consumption. While the SEA Program was given whole humanely killed goslings, the Goose Program objected to this practice due to concerns it might potentially violate Minnesota Public Health standards for food handling. In 2007, all goslings were provided to WSC at a cost to the Canada Goose Program of$6 per bird. 7.7 Hunting In response to the growth of re-established Canada geese in the U.S., the USFWS approved provisions for special early and late Canada goose hunting seasons in 1983. Minnesota initiated experimental early and late seasons in the TCMA in 1987; these seasons became non-experimental in 1991. Early seasons occurred during the first 10 days of September, prior to the arrival of migrant geese, with a 5-bird bag limit. In 1999, the early hunting season was extended to 20 days on an experimental basis until the proportion of migrant geese shot was evaluated. Late seasons have also lasted 10 days beginning in mid-December with a 2-bird limit. Harvest data for these seasons were attained from DNR and the USFWS surveys. The effect of hunting on the TCMA goose population was also measured by comparing the number of geese counted in the hunted and non-hunted zones in 1994 and 1999, and from neckband goose re-observation in 1987-89. Data from the DNR surveys indicate that the goose harvest during the early September special season ranged from 2,782 to 16,345 and late season harvest from 376 to 895. Because the latter was incorporated into the regular hunting goose season, which extended from on or near 1 October to 1 December, there were no data after 1992 for the late season. However, if the harvest has been similar to that of the 1994-96 period, from 10,000 to 16,000 additional TCMA geese were killed during the special hunts. The number of geese found in the hunted and non-hunted wetlands in the TCMA averaged 30.9 and 46.1 in 1994, and 25.2 and 35.3 in 1999. These differences were statistically significant with hunting determined to be the significant variable. The effect of hunting on survival was also evident in the survival of geese neck banded in 1987. When survival estimates were compared for class 1, 2, and 3 cities, geese banded in class 3 cities with hunting had a statistically significantly lower survival rate than those banded in cities with no or restricted hunting. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 15 of 32 7.0 EDEN PRAIRIE GOOSE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Following are recommendations developed that will be implemented as part of this Plan. • Develop an educational program: Provide a basic understanding of goose biology and management to the citizens of Eden Prairie. This would include items such as the objectives, background, methods, complaint process and applicable ordinances and policies regarding the City's goose management program. This could be done through newsletters, the City's web page, and public access programming. If needed, signs will be developed to educate park patrons who may be feeding geese. • Respond to aggressive goose complaints: Aggressive geese who have attacked humans, especially the young or elderly, should be handled quickly and efficiently to prevent future attacks. This would include actions such as removal of nests and/or geese by a permitted contractor. • Replace shoreline turf with native species: Where feasible, establishment of shoreline buffers on private and public properties will be encouraged to help reduce goose movement between the water and the upland and displace the geese to other locations. The buffers should include a mixture of tall grasses, shrubs and trees to deter ground and flight connections and be at least 15 to 30 feet wide. The action would also improve biodiversity and water quality. Because geese are attracted to new plantings, intensive removal or harassment may be needed until the vegetation is well established. Plantings could also be extended into the shoreline area by adding emergent vegetation such as water lilies which cover the water. • Minimize use of Kentucky bluegrass: Where feasible, Kentucky bluegrass should be replaced or interspersed with other vegetation. Warm season grasses could be considered as they are less desirable to geese for feeding. Areas that are infrequently used should have the height of the grass kept as high as possible, as much as 8 inches, to deter feeding. Use of grasses that don't require fertilizer would reduce the nutritional value of the grass. Other options that could be considered include planting islands of trees or tall grasses within open areas to reduce the open feel of the space or use of lure crops in nearby areas to provide alternative habitat near public use areas. • Evaluate the need for a policy or ordinance prohibiting feeding of waterfowl: Waterfowl that are fed by the public will concentrate in these areas and increase goose impacts and risk of the spread of bird disease. • Evaluate the use of harassment: This technique can be used to move geese from parks or other open areas where they are unwanted to alternative locations. This does not manage the size of the goose population and may shift geese to unwanted locations so the use of harassment must be evaluated carefully and only used where feasible. • Maintain hunting policy: Hunting is an effective method for limiting goose populations where sufficient open space exists for the safe discharge of shotguns. Allowing hunting where it can be done safely is a DNR prerequisite for issuance of goose removal permits (see Appendix B) to a City. Hunting near Flying Cloud Airport should be prohibited because Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 16 of 32 geese disturbed by shooting may fly into the paths of aircraft approaching or departing the airport. • Continue summer goose removal and processing program: To maintain a goose population at a level which can be sustained with fewer safety or health issues, a population reduction technique is needed. Trapping and removal of geese for processing during the early summer is an effective technique for goose population reduction (Appendix Q. Areas of focus should include parks, public beaches, elder care facilities or other areas where there are large goose populations, safety concerns or high numbers of damage complaints. If requested, the City will evaluate residential and commercial properties to determine if removal on private property is warranted. • Continue wildlife management request policy: The current policy includes asking applicants for the goose management program to participate in the program by matching the cost on a 50% basis. We also partner with other agencies, such as the Three River Park District, and individuals as needed. To effectively reduce the city population, it is necessary to remove large concentrations of birds whether they are on public or private property. • Utilize a goose damage tracking system: The laws permitting goose removal require documentation of damage. A goose damage report form for both public and private property will be developed. Information such as date, location, damage type(s), estimated economic loss, health and safety concerns, and an estimate of the number of geese present would be included on the report. • Develop a health risk contingency plan: In case of a highly contagious disease, such as Avian Influenza, developing in the Minnesota Canada goose population, the State of Minnesota will be contacted to determine what steps would be required for dealing with this event and a contingency plan would be developed as needed. • Reduce the construction and use of nesting islands: Nesting islands would be prohibited in new development plans to reduce goose habitat for nesting. City staff would evaluate requests for removal or modification of nesting islands where appropriate to reduce the number of productive or desirable goose nesting wetlands. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 17 of 32 9.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ANKNEY, C.D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: too many geese. J. Wildl. Manage 60: 217-223. BELANT, J., T.W. SEAMENS, L.A. TYSON, AND S.K. ICKES. 1996. Repellency of methyl anthranilate to pre-exposed and naive Canada geese. J. Wildl. Mange. 609:923-928. BELLROSE, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA, 544 PP. CONOVER, M.R. 1985. Alleviating nuisance Canada goose problems through methiocarb- induced aversive conditioning. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:631-636 CONVERSE, K.A. AND J.J. KENNELLY. 1994. Evaluation of Canada goose sterilization for population control. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:265-269. COOPER, J.A. 1987. The Canada goose and its management. Minnesota Out-of-Doors, 33:16-19. COOPER, J.A. 1998. Habitat management as an urban Canada goose control procedure. 18th Vert. Pest Control Conf. Proced.18:18-25 COOPER, J.A. 2001a. Population ecology of the Twin Cities Canada geese. Proc. First Urban Canada Goose Conf. Toronto Zoo. COOPER, J.A. 2001b. Canada goose damage and population management in the Twin Cities of Minnesota. Proc. First Urban Canada Goose Conf. Toronto Zoo. COOPER, J.A. AND T. KEEFE. 1997. Urban Canada goose management: procedures and policies. N. A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. Trans. 62:412-430 COOPER, J.A. AND R.D. SAYLER. 1974. A study of the ecology of urban nesting Canada geese: first annual report. Dept. Ent., Fish, and Wildl., Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN. 16 pp. CUMMINGS, J.L., J.R. MASON, D.L. OTIS,. AND J.F. HEISTERBERG. 1991. Evaluation of dimethyl and methyl anthranilate as a Canada goose repellent on grass. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:184-190. DOLBEER, R.A., T.W. SEAMANS, B.F. BLACKWELL, AND J.L. BELANT 1998. Anthraquinone formulation (Bird Flight Control) shows promise as avian feeding repellent. J. Wildl. Manage. 62:1558-1564. FEARE, C.J., M.F. SANDERS, R. BLASCO, AND J.D. BISHOP. 1999. Canada goose (Branta canadensis) droppings as a potential source of pathogenic bacteria. J. Royal Society Promotion of Health 119:146-155. GOSSER, A.L, M.R. CONOVER, AND T.A. MESSMER. 1997. Managing problems caused by urban Canada geese. Berryman Institute Research Publication 13, Utah State University, Logan, 8 pp GRANDY, J.W. AND J. HADIDIAN. 1997. Making our peace with Canada geese. HSUS News Spring 1997, Humane Society of the U.S., Washington DC. HAWKINS, A.S. 1970. Honkers move to the city. Pages 120-130 in H.H. Dill and F.B. Lee, Eds. Home grown honkers. U. S. Dept. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D. C. 154 pp. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 18 of 32 HEINTZELMAN, DONALD S. 2002. Canada goose habitat modification manual, Friends of Animals. 16 pp. JOHNSON, R. 1994. A long range plan for the management of Canada geese in the metro region. Unpubl. Rep. Division of Wildlife, MNDNR, St. Paul, 17 pp. KEEFE, T. 1996. Feasibility study on processing nuisance Canada geese for human consumption. Minn. Dept. Nat. Res., St. Paul, MN 17 pp. MANNY, B.A., W.C. JOHNSON, AND R.G WETZEL. 1994. Nutrient additions by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiology 279/280:121-132. MARTZ, J., L. POSPICHAL, AND E. TUCKER. 1983. Giant Canada geese in Michigan: experiences with relocations and nuisance management. Page 57-59 in M.A. Johnson, Ed. Transactions of the Canada goose symposium. North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1994. Urban Goose Management Program-Capture, Holding, and Relocation of Giant Canada Geese Alternative Environmental Assessment Worksheet, 10 April 1994 and subsequent Finding of Fact, Conclusions, and Order, 13 June 1994. DNR, St. Paul, MN. PALMER, R.S. 1976. Handbook of North American Bird: Vol. 3. Waterfowl Part 2. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 560 pp. SAYLER, R.D. 1977. Breeding ecology of the Twin Cities, Minnesota, Metropolitan Canada geese. MS Thesis, Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN 61 pp. SMITH, A.E., S.R. CRAVEN, AND PD. CURTIS. 1999. Managing Canada geese in urban environments. Jack Berryman Institute Publ. 16, and Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, N.Y., 42 pp. ULRICH, R.S. 1986. Human response to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29-44. ZICUS, M.C. 1981. Molt migration of Canada geese from Crex Meadows, Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:54-63. Goose Management Plan June 11, 2008 Page 19 of 32 APPENDIX A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA GOOSE REMOVAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 1/10/2001 Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie MNDNR CANADA GOOSE REMOVAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 1/10/2001 The removal of nuisance geese from Minnesota cities and towns requires a state permit and is subject to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) policies. Oversight of state-wide goose management programs by DNR requires a federal permit. Removal and relocation/processing for the food banks are considered when other methods of addressing nuisance situations are deemed ineffective. To conduct a nuisance goose removal within the metropolitan Twin Cities area (TCMA), the following DNR policies must be satisfied: The removal of geese at any location within TCMA must be approved by the local government unit (LGU) with jurisdiction over the site. If more than one LGU has jurisdiction over the site (i.e. Lake Owasso in Roseville and Shoreview) then all LGUs must approve the removal. Removal approval must include the establishment of a population goal(e.g., 25 geese on lake in summer). Municipalities with open space where goose hunting might be done safely must provide an evaluation of the potential for hunting if goose hunting is currently prohibited by a firearm discharge (see Metropolitan Twin Cities Area Goose Hunting Policy). The steps for establishing and conducting a goose population reduction program and the agencies involved are: 1. Determine whether your site is in a class 1, 2, or 3 goose hunting area (check city shooting ordinances and contact your DNR Area Wildlife Manager.) 2. Establish target goose population reduction levels (DNR, city or township personnel, and removal contractor). 3. Obtain city council or township board approval of proposed goose management program (city or township,removal contractor, DNR). 4. Ascertain goose population and site characteristics (removal contractor). 5. Prepare and approve removal contract(proposer and removal contractor). 6. Obtain state permit(removal contractor). 7. Capture and ship birds in summer(removal contractor in cooperation with DNR). 8. Monitor population to determine effectiveness of removal program (removal contractor and DNR). 9. Conduct additional removal as needed under contract(removal contractor). The services provided by the removal contractor include the design of the removal program, public meeting participation, technical information on goose ecology and management, humane and professional removal of problem geese, coordination of permits and bird disposal, and evaluation of effectiveness of the removal program. Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie APPENDIX B MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES URBAN GOOSE HUNTING POLICY Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES URBAN GOOSE HUNTING POLICY It is the policy of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) to control and maintain wildlife populations whenever possible through a hunting harvest. There are three times Canada geese can be hunted in Minnesota; a regular season from October to late November and two special hunting seasons specifically designed to harvest local Canada goose populations. The first special season is held in early September before the arrival of migrant geese. The second is held in mid-December after most migrants have left the Twin Cities metropolitan area (TCMA). Bag limits are set at five per day in the September season and two per day in the December season. TCMA goose harvest surveys indicate that 10,000 - 12,000 geese per year are taken in these seasons. Increasing the harvest will help control TCMA goose populations. Based on the distribution of open space, TCMA municipalities are classified by the potential for safe hunting. These classes are: Class 1: Open space is too limited for safe discharge of shotguns. Class 2: Open space is patchy within the municipality but some areas may be hunted safely with minimum restrictions. Class 3: Extensive open space exists where shotgun hunting can be done safely. The following priorities have been established for the nuisance goose removal program based on potential for hunting harvest: Class 1: High priority Class 2: High priority at swimming beaches and airports; medium priority at locations within extensive areas that cannot be hunted safely; low priority at other locations. Class 3: High priority at public swimming beaches and airports; low priority elsewhere. If your municipality is rated Class 2 or Class 3 and has prohibited the discharge of shotguns, it will be necessary for you to assess the potential for hunting prior to requesting approval of a removal program. For assistance please contact: Diana Regenscheid Bob Welsh Bryan Lueth DNR South Metro Wildlife DNR North Metro Wildlife DNR Urban Wildlife 7151-190th St. W., Rm. 135 5463-C W. Broadway 5463-C W. Broadway Jordan, MN 55352 Forest Lake 55025 Forest Lake 55025 763-492-5461 651-296-3450 651-296-3450 Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie APPENDIX C MNDNR CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN MINNESOTA Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie MNDNR CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING CANADA GOOSE CAPTURE AND REMOVAL IN MINNESOTA 3/21/2001 BACKGROUND: The Twin Cities Canada Goose Removal Program is an important component of Canada goose management in the seven county Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The program has captured and relocated over 66,000 geese since 1982. The program has grown from one site and 456 geese per year in 1982 to over 140 sites and 6000 - 7500 geese per year more recently. The program has proven to be effective at reducing nuisance goose problems at specific sites. The University of Minnesota's College of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Extension Department, has contracted the removal of the geese with local landowners from 1982 - 2000. This program is highly visible and receives close public review. The program has been challenged in court by animal rights groups who claimed the program was ineffective at controlling goose numbers, utilized inhumane handling techniques and that other management alternatives were more feasible and prudent. These claims were shown to be false and ineffective. The program has been held up as an example of a management program that has shown effective control, demonstrates humane wildlife handling techniques and is considered a prudent alternative for nuisance Canada geese problems. The primary reason for the success of this capture and removal program from 1982 - 2000 is the professional and knowledgeable University of Minnesota staff responsible for implementing this management program. As the removal program enters the private sector, DNR is concerned that future contractors maintain a similarly high level of expertise and effectiveness that has been exhibited by the University staff. Failure to maintain a high level of professional expertise and effort could impact the entire metro program and our ability to successfully manage nuisance Canada geese throughout the entire state. The permitting of an organization or agency to conduct this removal requires more than simply capturing geese. The ability to conduct surveys, measure program effectiveness, provide information and expertise on Canada geese to local government units, handle public relations needs, and capture geese in a variety of habitats and locations within the entire metro area is needed. OBJECTIVE: To ensure that the Canada goose control program remains a viable program for Canada goose management in the metro areas. REQUIREMENTS: The following is a list of requirements, abilities and permit conditions that must be met and/or demonstrated in order for DNR to provide a permit to remove geese in the Twin Cities metro area by any private or public company, organization, agency or person(s). The requirements, abilities and permit conditions were developed based on the experience and problems encountered in the program. Further requirements may be added to address future problems or concerns. "Permittee" refers to the company, organization, agency or person(s) requesting or named on the permit. The "permittee" may also include all employees, volunteers, interns, officers and Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie subcontractors conducting the removal or implementing the provisions of the permit under direction of the named permittee. A. PERMITTEE REQUIREMENTS AND ABILITIES: The permittee must demonstrate the expertise, personnel and equipment necessary to implement the following requirements. This can be accomplished through prior experience coordinating goose removal activities or a one-year probation period with a series of trial removals. The permittee may be required to present both a removal plan outlining details of proposed activities and an inventory of equipment to adequately and humanely handle Canada geese. 1. The permittee must possess a BS or BA or higher degree in wildlife ecology, management or a closely related field (e.g.. biology) and have a thorough knowledge of Canada goose ecology, biology and management. 2. The permittee must be familiar with alternatives to capture and removal, be able to explain alternative procedures to the public and be able to estimate costs and effectiveness of alternatives. 3. The permittee must cooperate in the implementation of the following Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR)policies and plans. A. Nuisance Wildlife Control Policy and Management Plan B. Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Management Plan C. Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Relocation Facilities Management and Disease Contingency Plan D. Policy directives on Canada goose management within Minnesota and as it relates to the Twin Cities Canada Goose Management Program 4. The permittee must demonstrate the ability to capture Canada geese in a variety of habitats within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and handle and transport captured geese in a humane manner. A. Conduct pre-capture and post-capture surveys and provide pre-capture data to the DNR prior to initiation of capture at the site. B. Capture 95% of the flightless geese present at nuisance control sites. C. Capture geese in a variety of habitats including, but not limited to, golf courses, parks, lakes, large (20+ acres) cattail marshes, large and small rivers and streams located within the seven county metro area. D. Capture,hold, load, and transport 350 geese from a single site. E. Handle and transport geese to an approved staging area in an effective and humane manner that results in not more than 1 goose death per 1000 geese trapped and transported. F. Recognize sick geese prior to or during the capture process and determine cause of the sickness (disease or toxin) or be able to submit sick or dead birds to an authorized wildlife disease diagnostic laboratory. G. Identify injured geese during capture and transport and humanely euthanize geese that cannot be treated. H. Follow and understand the Migratory Bird Banding Laboratory leg and neck band Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie removal and reporting procedures. I. Maintain and provide accurate records of capture operations. These records include but are not limited to; pre-capture and post-capture populations at specific nuisance sites, disease and injury reports, age (adult/gosling), brood patch females, and sex of adults captured and removed or released at each nuisance site. 5. The permittee must have a comprehensive public relations program and be able to demonstrate conflict resolution skills. B. PERMIT CONDITIONS: The following conditions would be part of a MNDNR permit to capture geese in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1. The permittee will obtain all local and state permits that pertain to this program and follow all permit requirements and regulations. 2. The permittee may contract with private and public landowners to remove geese under this program but such a program must include: A. Development of a control program B. Establishment of a population goal C. Selection of control procedures D. A public meeting to review the control program E. A fee for all geese removed, staged/pastured and processed. 3. The permittee must provide evidence of insurance including but not limited to liability ($1,000,000), workman's compensation and motor vehicle insurance. 4. The permittee must develop and implement a comprehensive safety training program that covers human and goose safety. Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie ATTACHMENT 1 MNDNR AND CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CANADA GOOSE CAPTURE AND REMOVAL IN MINNESOTA - 2001 DNR will be responsible for the following activities: 1. December 2000: DNR will identify the number of goslings to be pastured and fall processed. 2. May 1, 2000: DNR will identify food banks in the Twin Cities metropolitan area which will accept processed geese for distribution throughout Minnesota. 3. June and July 2001: DNR will be responsible for transporting goslings from the staging area to relocation sites. The contractor will be responsible for the following activities: 1. The contractor will be responsible for the daily management of geese in the staging facilities including: A. Purchase of specified waterfowl pellets and corn for feed (see Attachment 2). Storage areas are available at staging facility. B. Daily feeding C. Daily cleaning of pools in occupied pens D. Recording/reporting of injuries, illnesses or deaths E. Daily inspection of pens. 2. The contractor will select a processor that is inspected and certified by Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) or inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture. Processing plants must meet or exceed MDA requirements for slaughtering, packing and processing as specified in MDA Regulations 1545.0890 - 1545.2040. Proof of licensure and recent inspection must be submitted to DNR prior to processing activities. Processors must make operations available for inspection by contractor, DNR and MDA staff during contract period. A. Geese must be handled and slaughtered humanely using accepted animal handling practices. B. Processing must be completed within 24 hours of delivery. C. Dressed geese must be individually wrapped and cooled to 36 degrees Fahrenheit within 24 hours and frozen solid in less than 60 hours. D. All product donated to food banks will be labeled with information identifying the product, the processing plant with MDA or USDA identification information, USFWS permit number and additional information (see Attachment 4). E. DNR must be notified of dates and quantities delivered to food banks within 24 hours of delivery. 3. The contractor will transport live geese to the processing plant. 4. The contractor will arrange for delivery of processed product to food banks identified by DNR in approximately equal quantities. 5. The contractor will arrange for pasturing and fall processing of 500 goslings. Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie ATTACHMENT 2 WATERFOWL FEED SPECIFICATION 3/21/O1 Feed in pellet form. Each 50-pound bag tagged. Amount(lbs.) Item 1390 ground shell corn 430 44% soybean meal 50 17% alfalfa meal 50 55% meatmeal 40 40% fish solubles 35 dicalcium phosphate 10 calcium carbonate 6 QT turkey premix 5 dynamate 2 white stock salt 2 lysine 0.5 methionine 2020.5 lbs./batch Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie APPENDIX D EDEN PRAIRIE SITE ASSESSMENT SHEETS (Available upon request) Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008 City of Eden Prairie CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Agenda June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: VIILE. Sue Kotchevar, Office of the Authorize staff to renew lease for the Prairie City Manager/Finance View Liquor Store for an additional year Requested Action Move to: Accept Amendment No. 1 to the Prairie View Liquor Lease which extends the lease until September 30, 2009. Synopsis The current lease agreement expires on September 30, 2008. The City plans to extend the lease one year and to continue to work with United Property representatives on other location opportunities in the mall. The annual rent on the amendment is $70,092 or$16.50 per square foot which is consistent with the amount budgeted. Attachments • Lease Amendment AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE (this "Amendment") is made on June 2008, by PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Landlord") and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (d/b/a Eden Prairie Liquor Store) ("Tenant"). RECITALS A. Landlord and Tenant entered into a certain Lease (the "Lease") with a reference date of September 15, 2003, concerning certain commercial space comprised of approximately 4,248 square feet (the "Premises") in the Prairieview Shopping Center (the "Shopping Center"), which is located at 950 and 952 Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. B. Landlord and Tenant desire to extend the Lease term and otherwise modify the Lease as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Definitions. Each capitalized term used in this Amendment that is not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given to it in the Lease. 2. Extension of Term. The term of the Lease, which is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008, is hereby extended until at 11:59 p.m. on September 30, 2009 (the "Termination Date"). The period from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009, is hereinafter referred to as the "Extended Term." (a) The Extended Term will be upon the terms and conditions of the Lease, as amended hereby, and henceforth all references in the Lease, as amended by this Amendment, to the "term," "lease term" and "term of this lease" shall now include the Extended Term. (b) Tenant has no options to further extend the term of the Lease. 3. Minimum Rental. During the Extended Term, Tenant shall pay Landlord fixed monthly minimum rental payments, in advance, in the amounts set forth in the chart below: Monthly Minimum Rent Annual Minimum Rent Rate $5,841.00 $70,092.00 $16.50 4. Operating Expenses and Taxes. Tenant shall remain obligated to pay Tenant's Proportionate Share of Common Area Maintenance and Taxes pursuant to the Lease. 5. Condition of Premises. Tenant is currently in possession of the Premises and shall continue to occupy the same in its current "AS-IS" condition, without any improvements, refurbishments, allowances or other payments to be provided by Landlord. Doc#2687218\2 6. Submission to Tenant. Submission of this Amendment by Landlord or Landlord's agent to Tenant for examination and/or execution will not bind Landlord. No obligation on Landlord will arise under this Amendment until this Amendment is fully signed and delivered by Landlord and Tenant; provided, however, the execution and delivery by Tenant of this Amendment to Landlord shall constitute an irrevocable offer by Tenant of the terms and conditions of this Amendment, which offer may not be revoked for thirty (30) days after such delivery. 7. Ratification Except as amended hereby, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. In the event of a conflict between the terms of the Lease and the terms of this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall control. 8. No Other Inducements. Each party warrants to the other that no promise or inducement has been offered except as herein set forth and that this Amendment is executed without reliance upon any statement or representation of any person or party released or its representatives concerning the nature and extent of damages, costs and/or legal liability therefor. 9. Broker. Each of the parties represents and warrants that there are no claims against the other for brokerage commissions or finder's fees in connection with this Amendment and agrees to indemnify the other against and hold it harmless from all liabilities arising from any such claim, including without limitation, the cost of attorney's fees in connection therewith. 10. Bindinz. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Landlord, Tenant and their respective successors and permitted assigns. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts and such counterparts shall constitute one fully-executed agreement. [Signature Page Follows] Doc#2687218\2 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the day and year first written above. LANDLORD: PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: United Properties Investment LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company Its: Manager By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: TENANT: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: Doc#2687218\2 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: V . F e Eugene A. Dietz Professional Services Agreement for Public Works Water Treatment Plant—2008 Roof Replacement Requested Action Move to: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) for professional services related to the Water Treatment Plant — 2008 Roof Replacement Project, in an amount not to exceed $188,500 without prior written authorization. Synopsis The last phase of our water treatment plant expansion process was completed in approximately 1998 and included a new roof system for the entire plant. The roof has leaked almost since completion. Although the City Attorney's office is engaged in a legal process against the designer/contractor/supplier, the forensic engineering company, our attorneys and City staff are in agreement that the roof system cannot be salvaged and must be replaced. This Professional Services Agreement will create the design and construction management to replace the entire roof system at the plant. Background Information The roof leaks have progressed from an aggravating nuisance to a point that has increasingly caused interior damage in the building facility. The Professional Services Agreement is set up in a two phased process — a design of one of nineteen sections of the roof will be created, a contractor will be hired and the team will remove and replace the test section and create any modifications to the design prior to implementing a design—bid—build solution. It is our intent to develop an ultimate solution and then offer the original contractor/designer/vendor an opportunity to assume responsibility for the project. However, if those entities refuse, it is our plan to replace the roof and litigate for damages. Our Attorney advises that replacing the roof prior to litigation does not materially affect the outcome compared to litigation first and replacement to follow. The entire process is expected to cost between 1.5 and two million dollars. Although we hope to recover most, if not all, of the cost from the original designers/suppliers/constructors of the roof system, any City share will be paid for from our utility enterprise construction fund. Attachments • Professional Services Agreement • Exhibits A 1 through A-4 Standard Agreement for Professional Services This Agreement is made on the 17th day of June, 2008, between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter "City"), whose business address is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, and Environmental Process, INC., a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter "Consultant') whose business address is 715 Florida Avenue South, Suite 111, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55426- 1700. Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of professional services by Consultant for Water Treatment Plant-2008 Roof Replacement hereinafter referred to as the "Work". The City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work(ProposaL The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services shown in Exhibit"A-1 through A-4" in connection with the Work. The terms of this standard agreement shall take precedence over any provisions of the Consultants proposal attached as Exhibits A-1 and Exhibits A-2 and/or general conditions. 2. Tenn. The term of this Agreement shall be from June 17, 2008 through December 31, 2009, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Consultant on an hourly basis plus expenses in a total amount not to exceed$188,600 for the services as described in Exhibit A. A. Any changes in the scope of the work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Consultant shall require prior written approval by an authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for services that do not have prior written authorization. B. Special Consultants may be utilized by the Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by the City. C. If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to strikes, riots, fires, acts of God, governmental actions, actions of a third party, or actions or inactions of City, the time fo r performance shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 4. City Information. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with the complete information concerning the Scope of the Work and to perform the following services: A. Access to the Area. Depending on the nature of the Work, Consultant may from time to time require access to public and private lands or property. As may be necessary, the City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private lands or property as required for the Consultant to perform such services necessary to complete the Work. B. Consideration of the Consultant's Work. The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Consultant, and shall inform the Consultant of all decisions required of City within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Consultant. C. Standards. The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any standard or criteria, including but not limited to, design and construction standards that may be required in the preparation of the Work for the Project. D. Owner's Representative. A person shall be appointed to act as the City's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City's policy and decisions with respect to the services provided or materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 5. Method of Payment The Consultant shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, an itemized invoice for professional services performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City for: A. Progress Payment. For work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Consultant shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an itemized listing and such documentation as reasonably required by the City. Each invoice shall contain the City's project number and a progress summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the contract, current billing, past payments and unexpended balance of the contract. B. Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Consultant shall be paid for any services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such suspension, all as shown on Exhibit A. C. Payments for Special Consultants. The Consultant shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described in Section 3B, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. D. Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: "I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." 6. Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant has designated and to serve on the Project. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace these designated staff from the Project without the approval of the City. 7. Standard of Care. All Work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the standard of care in Hennepin County, Minnesota for professional services of the like kind. 8. Audit Disclosure. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six(6) years after the effective date of this Contract. The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat. 13.01 et seq., the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to the extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the possession of the Consultant. 9. Tennination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however,the City terminates the Agreement because the Consultant has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Consultant, and the City may retain another consultant to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. 10. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the Scope of Work, without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within the ten (10) days of the Consultant's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Consultant fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Consultant has received payment by the City, the Consultant shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1.5 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Consultant shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorneys fees, incurred in bringing the action. 11. Independent Consultant. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 12. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. The Consultant further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Of 1990. 13. Assignment Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 14. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Consultant not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 16. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 17. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Consultant shall abide by statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. The Consultant and City, together with their respective agents and employees, agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 13, as amended, and Minnesota Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 13. Any violation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the services to be provided shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 18. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 19. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the Consultant, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said Consultant fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. 20. Insurance. A. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work, Consultant shall procure, maintain and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims for bodily injury or death, or for damage to property, including loss of use, which may arise out of operations by Consultant or by any subcontractor or by anyone employed by any of them or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of liability specified in this Paragraph, or required by law. The policy(ies) shall name the City as an additional insured for the services provided under this Agreement and shall provide that the Consultant's coverage shall be primary and noncontributory in the event of a loss. B. Consultant shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverages and limits of liability on this Project: Worker's Compensation Statutory Limits Employer's Liability $500,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 disease each employee Comprehensive Liability $1,000,000 property damage per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 Products—Completed Operations Aggregate $100,000 fire legal liability each occurrence $5,000 medical expense Comprehensive Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit(shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles. Umbrella or Excess Liability $2,000,000 C. The Comprehensive General/Commercial General Liability policy(ies) shall be equivalent in coverage to ISO form CG 0001, and shall include the following: a. Premises and Operations coverage with no explosions, collapse, or underground damage exclusion (XCU). b. Products and Completed Operations Property Damage coverage. Consultant agrees to maintain this coverage for a minimum of two (2) years following completion of its work. C. Personal injury with Employment Exclusion (if any) deleted. d. Broad Form CG0001 0196 Contractual Liability coverage, or its equivalent. e. Broad Form Property Damage coverage, including completed operations, or its equivalent. f. Additional Insured Endorsement(s) on ISO form CG 2010, or its equivalent, naming "the City of Eden Prairie." The additional insured form needs to extend protection for"product and completed operations". g. If the Work to be performed is on an attached community, there shall be no exclusion for attached or condominium projects. h. "Stop gap" coverage for work in those states where Workers' Compensation insurance is provided through a state fund if Employer's liability coverage is not available. i. Incidental Malpractice and Host Liquor Liability insurance applicable to the Consultant's performance under this Agreement. j. Severability of Insureds provision. D. Professional Liability Insurance. The Consultant agrees to provide to the City a certificate evidencing that they have in effect, with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the City, in the insured's capacity as the Consultant, if such legal liability is caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of$2,000,000. Said policy shall not name the City as an insured. E. Consultant shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this Paragraph at Consultant's sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to do business in the state in Minnesota and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-, unless specifically accepted by City in writing. In addition to the requirements stated above, the following applies to the insurance policies required under this Paragraph: a. All polices, except the Professional Liability Insurance policy, shall be written on an "occurrence" form ("claims made" and "modified occurrence" forms are not acceptable); b. All polices, except the Professional Liability Insurance policy, shall be apply on a "per project" basis; C. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker's Compensation Policies, shall contain a waiver of subrogation naming "the City of Eden Prairie"; d. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker's Compensation Policies, shall name "the City of Eden Prairie" as an additional insured; e. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker's Compensation Policies, shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement; and f. All polices shall contain a provision that coverages afforded there under shall not be canceled or non-renewed or restrictive modifications added, without thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. A copy of the Consultant's insurance declaration page, Rider and/or Endorsement, as applicable, which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph 20, must be filed with City prior to the start of Consultant's Work. Such documents evidencing Insurance shall be in a form acceptable to City and shall provide satisfactory evidence that Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates shall be provided to City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. City will not be obligated, however, to review such declaration page, Rider, Endorsement or certificates or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Consultant of any deficiencies in such documents and receipt thereof shall not relieve Consultant from, nor be deemed a waiver of, City's right to enforce the terms of Consultant's obligations hereunder. City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for under this paragraph. F. Effect of Consultant's Failure to Provide Insurance. If Consultant fails to provide the specified insurance, then Consultant will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City's officials, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) to the extent necessary to afford the same protection as would have been provided by the specified insurance. Except to the extent prohibited by law, this indemnity applies regardless of any strict liability or negligence attributable to the City (including sole negligence) and regardless of the extent to which the underlying occurrence (i.e., the event giving rise to a claim which would have been covered by the specified insurance) is attributable to the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission (including breach of contract) of Consultant, its subcontractors, agents, employees or delegates. Consultant agrees that this indemnity shall be construed and applied in favor of indemnification. Consultant also agrees that if applicable law limits or precludes any aspect of this indemnity, then the indemnity will be considered limited only to the extent necessary to comply with that applicable law. The stated indemnity continues until all applicable statutes of limitation have run. If a claim arises within the scope of the stated indemnity, the City may require Consultant to: a. Furnish and pay for a surety bond, satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing performance of the indemnity obligation; or b. Furnish a written acceptance of tender of defense and indemnity from Consultant's insurance company. Consultant will take the action required by the City within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice from the City. 21. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of the Agreement ("Information") shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for its purposes and the Consultant also may use the Information for its purposes. Use of the Information for the purposes of the project contemplated by this Agreement ("Project") does not relieve any liability on the part of the Consultant, but any use of the Information by the City or the Consultant beyond the scope of the Project is without liability to the other, and the party using the Information agrees to defend and indemnify the other from any claims or liability resulting therefrom. 22. Dispute Resolution/Mediation. Each dispute, claim or controversy arising from or related to this Service Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or legal or equitable actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the American Arbitration Association and the other party. No arbitration or legal or equitable action may be instituted for a period of 90 days from the filing of the request for mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. Cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in the City of Eden Prairie unless another location is mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a Mediated Settlement Agreement, which Agreement shall be enforceable as a settlement in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 24. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Board of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. The violation of this provision renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Mayor City Manager FIRM NAME By: Its: { A l Environmental Process, Inc. 715 Florida Avenue South,Suite 111, Golden Valley, MN 55426-1700 Phone:763-398-3040 • Fax: 763-398-0121 email: epimpisOrconnect.com June 17,2008 Mr.Eugene A.Dietz,PE Director of Public Works The City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Re: The City of Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant-2008 Roof Replacement(Your Code: 7005-6302) Proposal for Architectural,Engineering,and Environmental Services EPI File No.2008-964 Dear Mr.Dietz: 1.0 INTRODUCTION Thank you for this opportunity for Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) to submit our proposal to provide Architectural,Engineering,and Environmental services for the Roof Replacement at the Water Treatment Plant located at 14100 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota ("WTP"). We visited the WTP and briefly observed the existing roof area systems on February 26 and 29, 2008. Our proposal is also based upon our familiarity with the existing problems at the WTP roof since our initial involvement in this matter in May 2005. Because the roofing project is now in litigation,we have included in our Proposal the necessary time and materials to prepare a photographic record of conditions observed during the demolition of the roof system and the modifications being made for Discovery purposes. As we previously discussed, we plan to completely remove the existing roof and flashing from one (1) Test Roof area as a prototype of the final design for the balance of the roof(e.g., the 1,300 square,foot area located above the corridor near the Filter Area and Equipment Room).McPhillips Roofing will then install the new roof design in the Test Area. This test area will be contracted with and paid directly by the City and McPhillips Roofing. This Test Area will also be made available to the other parties in the litigation as part of the Discovery Process. Our new roof design will examine the feasibility of using the existing roof drains and piping. Since there are approximately 200 roof drains with many of them located __.._..... ---- directly above the various water tanks, rerrioving all of them would mv-ONe substantial-additional cost: - -- The ability to reuse the existing drains is one of the objectives we wish to confirm in the Prototype Test Area. Once this Test Area has been completed, we will be able to determine if the existing roof drains can be reused,or need to be replaced. We requested our Insurance Carriers to review the Standard Agreement for Professional Services Contract, Rev. 05-14-2008 that you provided us. We have included with this Proposal the Insurance Certificates requested in your Standard Agreement. Denny R. Langer, PE will be the Project Manager and Lead Contact Person with the City for the Roof Project. Please direct all contact to Mr.Langer during the Project. The City of Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant-2008 Roof Replacement June 17, 2008 Page 2 Charles A. Lane, AIA, CID, SE, PE, CIH, CSP will be the Principal Professional for the Project and Responsible Design Professional. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND COST ESTIMATE BY WORK PHASE EPI will provide Architectural,Engineering,and Environmental Services for the total roof replacement of all nineteen(19)roof areas with a completely new roof/flashing system. We propose to perform the work on an hourly basis with a not-to-exceed estimate without prior authorization from the City. We have attached our 2008 Fee Schedule. 2.1 A summary of the work phases and cost estimates is below: Phase 1-Limited Asbestos Survey per regulatory requirements. Cost Estimate: EPI$6,000.00 Phase 2-Test Roof area with McPhillips Roofing performing the tear off and new roof. Cost Estimate: EPI Roof design concept details(Non-Bid)$8,000.00 EPI Site Observations $4,000.00 McPhillips Construction work budget estimate: 1,300 Square feet @ $16.00/square foot = $20,800.00 1Note: The McPhillips work will be contracted directly with the City and paid directly by the City. This$20,800.00 is not included in EPI's Contract cost budget estimate-] Total Estimate: $12,000.00 Phase 3-Final Plans and Specifications(Bidding Documents)for the entire roof. Cost Estimate: EPI$73,200.00 Phase 4-Bidding Services. Cost Estimate: EPI$10,000.00 Phase 5-Construction Administration. Cost Estimate: EPI$78,900.00 Reimbursable Expenses. Cost Estimate: EPI$8,400.00 2.2 The scope of work for Phase 1-Limited Asbestos Survey is as follows: a. Coordination of roof test cuts and patching with Roofing Contractor for roofing materials suspect limited asbestos survey. Roofing Contractor fees to be billed directly to Owner, at cost of NTE rate(see Proposal Section 5). b. Roofing materials suspect asbestos survey (collection and analysis of samples). We anticipate collection and analysis of approximately 90 samples. C. Verify and record existing roof system and identify existing materials for possible reuse during the limited asbestos roof survey. The City of Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant-2008 Roof Replacement June 17,2008 Page 3 d. Field verify existing roof system - perform field measurements, verify existing as built plans from Owner(i.e.,details and specific project conditions). e. Roof structural review,storm drainage, fire/building system code compliance analysis. 2.3 The scope of work for Phase 2—Test Roof area is a follows: a. Develop the design details in sufficient detail for McPhillips Roofing to perform the work on the Test.Area. b. McPhillips will perform the roof tear off and install the new roof. C. EPI will obtain a detailed photographic record of existing conditions and the installation of the new roof. 2.4 The scope of work for Phase 3—Bidding Plans and Specifications is as follows: a. Preparation of registered Architectural/Engineering plans and specifications (Contract Documents)for the purpose of obtaining public(open)bids for the total roof replacement of nineteen(19)roof areas(approximately 77,000 square feet). b. This proposal is based on the assumption that the existing roof structural system and roof storm drainage system are code compliant. Fees are not included for structural modifications or storm drainage modifications if found in Phase 1 not to be code complaint. The storm drainage is currently via internal roof drains and storm sewer piping. C. This proposal is based on the assumption that the existing roof system is asbestos free. If asbestos containing materials are found in Phase 1 testing, additional fees for the abatement design and project management(plans and specifications)will be included in a separate future proposal. d. Provide schematic design with feasibility estimated cost of construction. 2.5 The scope of work for Phase 4—Bidding Services is a follows: a. Prepare bid advertisement,submit to Owner for publication. b. Distribution of plans and specifications to Bidders. C. Pre-bid conference meeting with minutes. d. Review Contractor questions,clarify work scope,Addendums,etc. during bidding. e. Bid opening meeting attendance, Contractor Qualification review, and bid review and recommendation. f. Review Contractor Contract, Insurance, Bonds for Owner/Contractor Agreement, (Prepared by Owner). The City of Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant-2008 Roof Replacement June 17,2008 Page 4 g. Pre-construction conference meeting with minutes. 2.6 The scope of work for Phase 5-Construction Administration is as follows: a. Review Shop drawing and submittal review (schedule, payment schedule of values, samples,etc.). b. Site observations during construction during construction. An Architects' Field Report will be prepared for each site observation. An estimated maximum of four (4) site observations and Architects'Field Reports are included for each of the nineteen(19)roof areas for a total of 76 site observations. [The exact number of required site observations will become known as the actual roof work proceeds. This estimated number of site observations can be adjusted(i.e.,more or less)as conditions are known and as agreed to by both the Owner and EPI] Additional site observations and field reports during construction will be extra @$600.00 per visit with prior approval from the City. C. Contractor payment request and lien waiver verification reviews. d. Contractor/Owner change order requests and execution. e. Final punch list site observation with documentation and preparation of punch list. Nineteen (19)punch list site observations are included, one (1)at the completion of each of the nineteen(19)roof areas. f. Preparation of the substantial completion document at the project completion. g. Collect and assemble contractor closeout documents, Lien Waivers, IC-134, and contractor as-built plan submittal to Owner. h. EPI can complete an as-built set of documents at an extra cost after Contractor submits their documents (with Prior approval from the City). This cost can be provided upon project completion. 2.7 Total EPI Budget Estimate is$188,500.00 for all Work Phases. 3.0 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES This proposal is based on the following client responsibilities. 3.1 Provide EPI with a current Infrared Roof Moisture Survey. We recommend Infrared Consulting Services, Inc. be used for this service. This information will be used in the preparation of the design. 3.2 Provide the existing and/or as-built building plans & specifications (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, and Electrical). 3.3 Provide the existing and/or as-built roof system plans&specifications. The City of Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant-2008 Roof Replacement June 17,2008 Page 5 3.4 Provide any required documents to be inserted in the contract document. 3.5 Provide review of EPI's contract documents before bidding. 3.6 Provide access to the building and roof areas as needed. 4.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 4.1 Expansion of the scope of project. 4.2 Asbestos (hazardous materials) abatement design (plans and specifications). This proposal assumes no asbestos is present in the work areas. The asbestos survey will be completed in Phase 1 work scope. If the existing roofing materials are found to be asbestos, additional fees for the abatement design and management(plans and specifications)will be included in a separate future proposal. 4.3 Storm sewer design. This proposal assumes the existing storm drainage system is code complaint. The storm sewer analysis will be completed in the Phase 1 work scope. The storm drainage system appears to be via internal roof drains and storm sewer piping. 4.4 Structural design. This proposal assumes the existing structural system is code complaint. The structural analysis will be completed in the Phase 1 work scope. Additional Asbestos fees(if necessary and prior approval by City) Additional fees for Asbestos abatement design (plans and specifications) and management (quality control)will be included in a separate future proposal if required. If asbestos containing materials are found in Phase 1 testing, the on-site monitoring will be included in the asbestos abatement contract document plans and specifications and will be part of the contractors work scope. Please feel free to call us at(763) 398-3040 with any questions or comments. The direct phone number for Project Manager Mr. Denny Langer is 763-398-3046. We feel confident that we can assist you and _.look forward_to__working_vsrit ID s�z�Ll�is._project._If this proposal is acceptableZ 1p ease sign, date_and return and we will schedule a date to begin. The City of Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant-2008 Roof Replacement June 17,2008 Page 6 Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS,INC. Charles A.Lane,AIA,CID,PE,SE,CIH,CSP Denny R.Langer,PE President(CEO Project Manager Copy: Michael Berreau, EPI File 2008-964 Please sign below indicating your acceptance of this proposal. The attached AIA. B727 agreement is incorporated as part of this proposal. Two(2)copies of each are provided. Please sign both copies of the proposal and AIA B727 agreement dated June 17,2008,return one(1)copy of each to EPI. This needs to be submitted prior to start of this work to comply with EPI's Professional Liability and Commercial Liability insurance requirements. Again,thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal. Signature of Acceptance Date T H E A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H I T E C T S AIA Document B727 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect for Special Services 1988 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION. AGREEMENT made as of the Seventeenth (17) day of June in the year of Two Thousand Eight (2008). BETWEEN the Owner: (Name and address) City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 and the Architect: (Name and address) Environmental.Process,Inc. 715 Florida Ave. South,Suite 111 Golden Valley,MN 55426-1700 For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project, location, address and scope.) Provide construction documents and project management for the roof replacement(77,000 square feet)of the Water Treatment Plant located at 14100 Technology Drive,Eden Prairie,MN 55344. The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. Copyright 1972,1979, ©1988 by The American Institute of Architects,1735 New York Avenue,N.W.,Washington,D.C.20006. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without written permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT B727•OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT•1988 EDITION•AIA® •©1988•THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE,N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 B727-1988 I WARNING:Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S,copyright laws and Is subject to legal prosecution. ARTICLE 1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES (Here list those services to be provided by the Ambitect under the 7krms and Conditions of Ibis Agreement.Note under each servke listed the metbod and means of compensation to be used, if applicabig as provided in Article 8.) See attached Environmental Process,Inc, proposal dated June 17,2008. AIA DOCUMENT 5727 OWNER-ARCttITECT AGREEMENT•1988 EDITION•AIA® •©1988•THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE,N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 B727 1988 2 WARNING.Unlicensed photocopying violates US.copyright laws and Is subject to legal prosecution. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARTICLE 2 matter in question not described in the written consent or with a person or entity not named or described therein.The OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES foregoing agreement to arbitrate and other agreements to arbi- trate with an additional person or entity duly consented to 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding by the parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforce- requirements for the Project. The Owner shall furnish able in accordance with applicable law in any court having required information as expeditiously as necessary for the jurisdiction thereof. orderly progress of the Work,and the Architect shall be enti- 4.4 The award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall tied to rely on the accuracy and completeness thereof. be final,and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance 2.2 The Owner shall designate a representative authorized with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project.The Owner or such authorized representative shall render deci- ARTICLE 5 sions in a timely manner pertaining to documents submitted by the Architect in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's services. 5.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ARTICLE 3 not less than seven days'written notice should the other parry USE OF ARCHITECT'S DOCUMENTS fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the party initiating the termination. 3.1 The documents prepared by the Architect for this Proj- ect are instruments of the Architect's service for use solely 5.2 If the Owner fails to make payment when due the Archi- with respect to this Project and,unless otherwise provided, tect for services and expenses,the Architect may,upon seven the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents days'written notice to the Owner,suspend performance of and shall retain all common law,statutory and other reserved services under this Agreement. Unless payment in full is rights,including the copyright.The Owner shall be permit- received by the Architect within seven days of the date of the led to retain copies, including reproducible copies; of the notice,the suspension shall take effect without further notice. Architect's documents for the Owner's information,reference In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall and use in connection with the Project.The Architect's docu- have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused ments shall not be used by the Owner or others on other proj- the Owner because of such suspension of services. ects, for additions to this Project or for completion of this 5.3 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, Project by others,unless the Architect is adjudged to be in the Architect shall be compensated for services performed default under this Agreement,except by agreement in writing prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses and with appropriate compensation to the Architect. then due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph 5.4. ARTICLE 4 5.4 Termination Expenses shall be computed as a percentage ARBITRATION of the compensation earned to the time of termination, as follows: 4.1 Claims,disputes or other matters in question between the .1 For services provided on the basis of a multiple of parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Direct Personnel Expense, 20 percent of the total Agreement or breach thereof shall be subject to and decided Direct Personnel Expense incurred to the time of ter- by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry mination; and Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association cur- ,2 For services provided on the basis of a stipulated sum, rently in effect unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. 10 percent of the stipulated sum earned to the time -_--4.2—A--demarW-for-zlsiu^atto-n shall-Yse-mrde-within a-reason------of-ter-mination. able time after the claim,dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be ARTICLE 6 made after the date when institution of legal or equitable pro- ceedings based on such claim,dispute or other matter in ques- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS tion would be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 6.1 Unless otherwise provided,this Agreement shall be gov- 4.3 No arbitration arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall include,by consolidation,joinder or in any other man- erchitect. by the law of the principal place of business of the Architect. ner,an additional person or entity not a party to this Agree- ment,except by written consent containing a specific refer- 6.2 Causes of action between the parties to this Agreement ence to this Agreement signed by the Owner,Architect and pertaining to acts or failures to act shall be deemed to have any other person or entity sought to be joined. Consent to accrued and the applicable statute of limitations shall com- arbitration involving an additional person or entity shall not mence to run not later than the date payment is due the Archi- constitute consent to arbitration of any claim,dispute or other tect pursuant to Paragraph 8.4. AIA DOCUMENT B727•OWNERARCHITECT AGREEMENT•1988 EDITION+AIAe •©1988•THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE,N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 B727 1988 3 WARNING:Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S.copyright laws and Is subject to legal prosecution. I 6.3 The Owner and Architect,respectively,bind themselves, tect and Architect's employees and consultants in the interest their partners,successors,assigns and legal representatives to of the Project for: the other party to this Agreement and to the partners,suc- .1 expense of transportation and living expenses in con- cessors,assigns and legal representatives of such other party nection with out-of-town travel authorized by the with respect to all covenants of this.Agreement. Neither Owner; Owner nor Architect shall assign this Agreement without the .2 long-distance communications; written consent of the other. .3 fees paid for securing approval of authorities hav- 6A This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agree- ing jurisdiction over the Project; ment between the Owner and Architect and supersedes all A reproductions, prior negotiations,representations or agreements,either writ- ,5 postage and handling of documents; ten or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by writ- .6 expense of overtime work requiring higher than ten instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. regular rates, if authorized by the Owner; 6.5 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a con-, .7 renderings and models requested by the Owner; tractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a' .8 expense of additional coverage or limits,including third party against either the Owner or Architect, professional liability insurance, requested by the B.6 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement,the Archi- Owner in excess of that normally carried by the tect and Architect's consultants shall have no responsibility Architect and the Architect's consultants; and for the discovery,presence,handling,removal or disposal of .9 Expense of computer-aided design and drafting or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in any form equipment time when used in connection with the at the Project site, including but not limited to asbestos, Project. asbestos products,polychlorinated biphenyl(PCB)or other toxic substances. 7.3 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ARCHITECT'S SERVICES ARTICLE 7 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT 7.3.1 Payments on account of the Architect's services and for Reimbursable Expenses shall be made monthly;upon presen- 7.1 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE tation of the Architect's statement of services rendered or as otherwise provided in this Agreement.. 7.1.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct salaries of the Architect's personnel engaged on the Project and the 7.3.2 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 8.1 is the portion of the cost of their mandatory and customary con- minimum payment under this Agreement. tributions and benefits related thereto,such as employment taxes and other statutory employee benefits,insurance;sick 7A ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS leave,holidays,vacations,pensions,and similar contributions and benefits. 7.4.1 'Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses per- 7.2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES raining to services performed on the basis of a multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall be available to the Owner or 7.2.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Architect's the Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient compensation and include expenses incurred by the Archi- times. ARTICLE 8 BASIS OF COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: 8.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT OF Zero Dollars(S 0 )shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account at final payment. 8.2 COMPENSATION FOR THE ARCHITECT'S SERVICES, as described in Article 1, Architect's Services, shall be computed ---- (Insert basis of compensation,including stipulated sums,multiples or percentages,and identify the services to wbicb particular metbods of compensation apply, if necessary.) Work will be performed per the attached EPI proposal'.dated June 17, 2008. Billing invoices shall be submitted for the work performed as.,outlined in the proposal. AIA DOCUMENT B727•OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT•1988 EDITION•AIAO •01988•THE 4 B727.1988 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE,NW,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 WARNING:Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S:copyright laws and is subject to legal prosecution. 8.3 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES,as described in Article 7,and any other items included in Article 9 as Reimbursable Ex- penses, a multiple of at actual cost ( 0 ) times the expenses incurred by the Architect, the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project. 8.4 Payments are due and payable thirty ( 30 )days from the date of the Architect's Invoice.Amounts unpaid thirty ( 30 )days after the Invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. (Insert rate of interest agreed upon.) Note: Invoices are due upon receipt. (Alate payment FINANCE CHARGE will be charged at the periodic rate of 1.5%per month or a maximum allowed by law)on any balance remaining unpaid 30 days after the date of invoice. (Usury laws and requirements under the Federal 7Euth in Lending Act similar state and local consumer credit laws and otber regulations at the Owner's and Ambitect's principal places of business,the location of the Project and elsewhere may affect the validity of this provision.Specific legal advice sbould be obtained witb respect to deletions or modifications,and also regarding other requirements sucb as written disclosures or waivers.) 8.5 IF THE SCOPE of the Project or of the Architect's services is changed materially, the amounts of compensation shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 9 OTHER CONDITIONS See attached EPI proposal dated June 17,2008. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER ARCHI (Signature) (Signdture) Charles A. Lane / CEO (Printed name and title) (Printed name and title) i 1 CAUTION: You should sign an original AIA document which has this caution printed in red. An original assures that changes will not be obscured as may occur when documents are reproduced. AIA DOCUMENT B727•OWNER-ARCHITL'CT AGREEMENT• 1988 EDITION•AIA® •©1988•THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE:OF ARCHITF,CTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE,N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 - B727-1988 5 WARNING:Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S.copyright laws and is sublect to legal prosecution. ADDENDUM A TO STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE(OWNER)AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS,INC.(ARCHITECT)WITH STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES, (1988 EDITION-AIA DOCUMENT B727) Standard Form of Agreement For Special Services Between Owner and Architect 2_1 Delete this paragraph and replace it with the following: "The Architect acknowledges that the Owner has provided the Architect with sufficient information regarding the requirements of the Project, including the program prepared to date by the Owner. Owner shall furnish the Architect with such additional information that is in the Owner's possession concerning the Project as the Architect may request from time to time." 2_2 Amend this paragraph by adding the following at the end of the first sentence: provided however the approval of the City Council of Owner is required for decisions affecting cost." 3_1 Delete this paragraph and replace it with the following: "All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of the Agreement("Information") shall become the property of Owner, but Architect may retain copies of such Information as records of the services provided. Owner may use the Information for its purposes and the Architect also may use the Information for its purposes. Use of the Information for the purposes of the Project contemplated by this Agreement does not relieve any liability on the part of the Architect, but any use of the Information by Owner or the Architect beyond the scope of the Project is without liability to the other, and the party using the Information agrees to defend and indemnify the other from any claims or liability resulting therefrom." _..__...-------------- - --- ------- ---------------------- Article 4 Delete"Arbitration"and replace it with"Mediation" 4_1 Delete this paragraph and replace it with the following: "Each.dispute, claim or controversy arising from or related to this Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or legal or equitable actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Procedures of the American 1 Arbitration Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the American Arbitration Association and the other party. No arbitration or legal or equitable action may be instituted for a period of 90 days from the filing of the request for mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. Cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in the City of Eden Prairie unless another location is mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a Mediated Settlement Agreement, which Agreement shall be enforceable as a settlement in any court having jurisdiction thereof." 4_2 Deleted. 4_3 Deleted. 4_4 Deleted. 5_3 Place a period (".") after the word "due" in the third line and delete the rest of the paragraph. Insert the following: "Such compensation shall be at the rate and in accordance with the provisions contained in Architect's 2008 Fee Schedule attached hereto as Attachment A." 5_4 Amend this paragraph by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner at any time. In the event of such termination, the Architect shall be compensated as provided in paragraph 5.3." 6_1 Delete this paragraph and replace it with the following: "This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota." 6_2 Deleted. Article 9 The following provisions shall be added to Article 9—Other Conditions: 9_1 Unless excluded by the applicable law the following provisions shall apply to this Agreement: 9.1.1 Data Practices Act. The Architect shall at all times abide by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.01, et seq.,to the extent that the Act is applicable to data and documents in the hands of the Architect. 9.1.2 Audits. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices 2 of the Architect or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the Owner and either Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six years after the effective date of this Agreement. 9.1.3 Worker's Compensation. Architect represents and warrants that it has and will maintain during the performance of this agreement worker's compensation insurance coverage required pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2 and that the certificate of insurance or the written order of the Commissioner of Commerce permitting self insurance of worker's compensation insurance coverage provided to the Owner prior to execution of this Agreement is current and in force and effect. 9.1.4 Discrimination. In performance of this Agreement, the Architect shall not discriminate on the grounds of or because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regards to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age against any employee of the Architect, any subcontractor of the Architect, or any applicant for employment. The Architect shall include a similar provision in all contracts with subcontractors to this contract. The Architect further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act,Minn. Stat. § 363.01, et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 9.1.5 Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the Owner and no member of the Commission shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The violation of this provision renders the Agreement void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 9.1.6 Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: "I declare under penalty of perjury that this account,claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." 9.1.7 Architect's Prompt Payment of Subcontractors. The Architect shall pay to any subcontractor within ten (10) days of the Architect's receipt of payment from the Owner for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The Architect shall pay interest of one and a half percent 2 o per month or any part o a month to a subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of$100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than $100.00, the Architect shall pay the actual amount due to the subcontractor. 9.1.8 Limitation of Remedies. Neither party shall be entitled to recover punitive damages in the event of a breach of the Agreement. 3 ARCHITECT ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS,INC. By Charles A. Lane Its Chief Executive Officer OWNER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Phil Young Its Mayor By Scott Neal Its City Manager P:\Home\1608.049\Documents\AIA B727(1988)ELECTRONIC ADDENDUM 2008 06 12.doc -4- r Attachment A 2008 Fee Schedule January 1,2008 Note: All Professional Fees are based on a hourly rate-no extra overtime costs. 1 Professional Fees Forensic Design/Construction Diagnostician/Claims Evaluator/investigator 225.00 Associate Design/Construction Diagnostician/Claims Evaluator/Investigator 195.00 Design/Construction/Private Investigator 195.00 Indoor Air Quality Diagnostician 180.00 Principal Project Manager 175.00 Sr. Indoor Air Quality Diagnostician 155.00 Licensed Principal Architect/Engineer/Interior Designer 150.00 Certified Industrial Hygienist/Safety Professional 150.00 Licensed Code Specialist 150.00 Sr.Project Manager 150.00 Environmental Manager/Designer/Inspector/Planner/Coordinator 150.00 Licensed Asbestos Designer/Inspector/Management Planner 150.00 Licensed Lead Inspector/Risk Assessor 150.00 Licensed Sr.Structural/Mechanical/Electrical Engineer 145.00 Sr.Construction Diagnostician/Claims Evaluator/Investigator 135.00 Licensed Sr.Asbestos Designer/Inspector/Management/Planner 130.00 Construction Specifier/Estimator/Plans Examiner/Special Inspector 118.00 Licensed Asbestos Inspector/Management Planner 100.00 Associate Designer(Architect)/Asbestos/Lead Designer 100.00 Industrial Hygienist 100.00 Associate Mechanical/Structural/Electrical'Engineer 97.00 Associate Construction Diagnostician/Claims Evaluator/Investigator 89.00 Associate Engineer Technician 77.00 Licensed Asbestos Building Inspector 77.00 Industrial Hygiene Technician/Micro/Asbestos/Lead/Radon 74.00 Environmental Analytical Technician/Niosh 582 Certified 74.00 A/E Draftsman/Cad Operator 72.00 Environmental Technician/Licensed Asbestos Site Supervisor 66.00 Associate Environmental Technician 64.00 Word Processor/Clerical/Administration 47.00 Lenai Professional Fees Work-Up Per Fees Above Testimony Deposition/Mediation/Arbitration/Trial 250.00 Page 2 of 3 2 Analytical Expenses Lead-water,paint soil 40/sample Elemental Analysis(PIXE) 325/sample Microbiological-Tease,Air, Bulk,Surface 1-5 samples 100/each 5-20 samples 95/each 21-40 samples 90/each Toxic Characteristic Leachate Procedure(TCLP) 2,500/sample Lead Air 84/sample Silica Air-Respirable 240/sample MVOC-(AIHA EMPAT Protocol) Regular 520/sample Rush 920/sample Volatile Organic Compounds/OVM Regular 325/sample Rush 400/sample Flec-Voc 500/sample Summa Canister Rate Varies Particulate Sample Regular 310/sample (Macroscopic or Quantitative) Rush 330/sample Asbestos Bulk-AHERA Methodology(PLM) Rush Regular 0-50 samples 26/sample 51-100 samples 24/sample 101-up 22/sample Rush(No Discounts) 12 to 24 hours 38/sample Emergency Rush<12 to 8 hours 60/sample TEM Asbestos Air Samples-(quoted/project basis-cost vary-quantity&time frame) TEM = 72 Hours 135/sample TEM = 48 Hours 150/sample TEM = 24 Hours 180/sample TEM 6 Hours 250/sample TEM Prep 10/sample Asbestos(PCM)(NIOSH 582)Air Samples (PCM)Air) Regular/Rush/QA/QC 20/sample Note; Weekend and Holiday Lab Opening Cost Extra 3 Equipment Use Tracer Analysis 510/site Infra Red Service 100/hour 550/day XRF Lead Analyzer 80/hour 500/day Thermal Sensor 50/day Carbon Monoxide Sensor 110/day Carbon Dioxide Sensor With Recorder 110/day Page 3 of 3 3 Equipment Use-(continued) Portable Carbon Dioxide/Temp Sensor 55/day Moisture Content Sensor-(Delmhorst-Tramex) 95/day Anderson TM Sampler 110/day Anderson TM Flow Pump 110/day Calorimetric/Air Flow Tubes 20/tube Temperature/Relative Humidity with Recorder 110/day Quad Meter(Confined Space Monitor) 110/day SolomatTM Monitor 120/day Two Way Radio-Per Day Per Radio 10/day Portable Micromanometer 30/day Recording Manometer 35/day Air Pumps-High Flow 25/day Air Pumps- I -Low Flow 30/day Data Logger 90/day XRF Lead Analyzer 550/day PAPR-Piggyback Filter(microbiological-asbestos) 32/each PAPR HEPA Filter(asbestos) 27/each Half Face HEPA Organic Filter 22/each Half Face HEPA Filter 14/each Tyvec Suits-Asbestos 16/each Tyvec Suits-Micro-Polypropylene 23/each HEPA Vac 30/each Negative Air Machine-2000/1000 CFM 25/day Auto CADD 8/hour Hammer Drill/Reciprocal Saw 40/day Ozone Unit 30/day 4 Other Expenses Travel-Mileage IRS Rate Other Expenses at cost Electronic Communication 2%of Professional Fees-(Maximum$150.00) Meals government rate Sub Contractor or Contractors cost plus 20%markup Digital Camera/Photos $1.00/each JUN-11-2008 WED 02:00 PM Le Sueur FAX NO, 6123380138 P. 01/01 ...,uu W:•-82. fiLM 8138 The Aartfaed Fax page NZ S 'r Op ME kJARTFORD 215 AROCHSS, ]�"• psa�"rods 06-10■2008 pl+on+r� t6 3Se p�oa ss►xe (612 O-o2aa Mr t mm OppzC9 s► awts,amta�e x eve* arc/arcs 7Yas11 so �e 296,11 6 ez akemwe 6b3W)1�7.99zg90 11lZt (877)$28.9626 1.Worke11!ei rt sCa4°%ty X. Co41 waC aK3139 09012008 05012009 $4,019,00 IQ! MOM llorkseyr I ggWm M&IL&pn �41',�it!0 Oea�eaeaeation G�ree�aeisA T• P0� c snC $500,000 Disease - Mach ftployme $500,000 Disease - POUCY LiMit $600,000 Tbia ISMdaW and its attaci onto provides a bigh level overview,of policy coverages and does not include all conditions, limitations or exalugiens. Please refer to the actual policy tonne for detailed coverages, limits sea deductibles. r " r Jun 18 2M 14:4x:49 -> 61 MN138 So 9arUard Fax Pages taB'3 AOQRO . CERTIFICATE OF UABIUTY INSURArNCE��p gq U0 a�0�6�p-10 2009 'a0D°0� ��affi. CO�FOE CTtONA LT G=AGiM RSR MDT SVCS 1=098 HOIS CRTIFICATB ES O t'o EXTENp 710211 P: (866)467-8730 F: (877)838-8526c fl eP C s PO 20% 29611 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGR 28229 mwarRreo C$ t zul SWIROlKMAL PYi,OCESS, zNC. PO BOX 215 Nam to COVrIRAGES THE POLIC11M OF INSURANCII LISTRA BELOW HAVE N"MWM)TO THE INRp{JCND NAMED AROVII FOR THH POLICY PERIOD IND ICAM.NWt WITHSTANDING ANYMAY►MMTAIN,TO INSURANCE A!f01M 1�YOF�CONTRACT TDI�CIII�NfREIN IE SUwITH&I0?TO�LLLL 7HECT V T1ffl l WHICH UISIOM MIG�ONLITIONa Q SUCH POLICIE& A®OIfEgATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE OEEN HIMUCED SY PAID CWM9. MAINM o am CO SICIALUprB�LIANI Ty 59 PebM IAW 00 Mg • CLAMD MAN u 000UR mgppwIwjLmmwl • sc s R.A=VM a UMff A FHtr 'C PD LOC 6� tOl&i C'tlY a ANY AUTO Al.1.UMMAUMV g r�l r 6al+mulD m"m Ww • Hm AUrOV - PODLY"JU" NDWbWNtD AUTCtlt ��oap�np � a wi AQF 0AUG/lh Uffr D r. ANY AUTO w I�� IlfO CNLYi ma 4 ldiS�IIY f : OC 06 • oOC4R {�_ CLAIMO MAp� R v • R 141TpN • � Wad T",00 x C A A, VAmd A1°`a"m 41 WEC 093139 05/01./08 05/01/09 JLU GAM AMDRR0500 0 EL Ast?• ,anaD,la #509,200 A 000 of�fil ateaArrriorvaraieo�,ananrsaaeAOara�uaaisaaDr�on�alrtDru�IppaDr � Mono usual to the .lnsured's operations. CERTIFICATRHOWER acmwm:ntamwww CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOW DUCXXM PaLICIES U CANCMAW WQAB 7HE XXPIRATION DATi TWONOP,THE U14NO INSILRM WILL 04NAVOR TO MAL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOT=110 DAYS FOR NON4WAYMOM7}TO IM CERTIFICATE City Of Eden P1 ai re HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,MR FAILURE TO DO 30 SHALL IMPOSE ND 130130 [++1TTC'1iELL RD OKIWION OR UANUYY OF ANY KIND UPON TM IWJ M.ITS AQa>ALTS OR RIPlWTATMi. ' ED= PRAIRIE,MN,55344 AcogD 26•9 171871 ACM CORPORATION 1 Belk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Agenda June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: IC 07-5698 ITEM NO.: VIILG. Leslie Stovring Erosion Stabilization Study Project for the Public Works /Environmental Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Requested Action Move to: Approve the proposal from SRF Consulting for completing the Final Design Plans and Specifications for stabilization and restoration of Study Areas 1 and 2 within the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District at a cost of$27,300. Synopsis Lower Minnesota River Watershed District has requested that the City partner with the District to stabilize and restore four(4) areas that have eroded within the Minnesota River valley. This proposal is for two of these areas, Study Areas 1 and 2. The District has authorized a cost share of fifty percent(50%) for consulting and construction costs. Remaining costs will be paid out of the stormwater utility fund as part of our stormwater permit program. Background Information Study Area 1 is south of the intersection of Charlson Road and Highway 212, south of Old Riverview Road and includes an erosion gully after the surface runoff leaves the culvert which runs under the roadway. Study Area 2 is south of Highway 212,just west of Study Area 1 and includes a box culvert that exits from under Highway 212 and runs through a severely eroded gully southward. Property owners include U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service, Sever Peterson and the Upgrala Holding Co. The scope of work for this proposal includes: • Final geotechnical design for approval by the City and District, including attending a meeting with the District to review the plans • Review of site conditions for presence of wetlands or other environmental features • Preparation of the bid documents • Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) • Application for permits from the MPCA and MDNR • Construction administration and inspection Financial Information The preliminary estimate for construction costs is$125,000 plus consulting fees of$27,300 for a total estimated project cost of$161,700. Of this amount, $75,000 would be reimbursed by the Watershed District and the remainder would be paid out of the stormwater utility fund. The City would request additional funds from the Watershed District after the bids are received if the final costs exceed$150,000. Attachments SRF Proposal Feasibility Study ® C O N S U L T I N G G R O U P , I NC . M I N N EAPO EI S FARCO E N G I N E E R S I P L ANNE R S I D E S I G N E R S MAD ISO N June 9, 2008 Ms. Leslie Stovring Environmental Coordinator CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 SUBJECT. EROSION STABILIZATION STUDY PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF FINAL DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FOR STUDY AREAS 1 AND 2 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Dear Leslie: Based on your request, we are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional services to prepare the construction documents, permits and provide construction administration for the above referenced project. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services includes final design documents, permits, and construction administration. The documents will be based on the preliminary stabilization study documents that were submitted in March 2008 for the two project areas. Based on this document, as well as our understanding of the current requirements, we propose a scope of services as shown below, details of which are contained in the attached spreadsheet. ASSUMPTIONS The Scope of Services and costs are based on the following assumptions. ■ All survey for final design has been collected during the Feasibility Study phase. ■ Both sites will be part of one construction plan and bid package. ■ Advertisement will be completed by the City with the bidding process conducted by SRF. ■ Full City bidding process will be utilized. ■ Permits will not be required from the MPCA (NPDES Phase 11) or the MnDNR. Permit review by the LMRWD will be required. www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North,Suite 150 1 Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 1 763.475.0010 Fax:763.475.2429 An Equal Opportuunify Employer Ms. Leslie Stovring - 2 - June 9, 2008 ■ SRF will undertake construction administration duties, and prepare all payment and closeout documentation. Assumes inspector is on site up to two hours each day when active construction is underway. (Assumes 25 days for construction.) ■ Construction inspection 'includes a limited number of alternative materials requests. ■ Gale-Tec Engineering will provide geotechnical design and CA services as a subconsultant to SRF. ■ Since two sites are involved, construction will take approximately five (5) weeks (25 days) to complete. ■ All terms and conditions set forth in Contract No. 07-5698, "Erosion Stabilization Feasibility Study," will remain in effect. This includes the Standard Agreement for Professional Services dated July 31, 2007. SCHEDULE We understand that you would like to bid the project this summer for fall construction. With that in mind, we will work with you to develop a design and bid process schedule that will meet this goal. BASIS OF PAYMENTIBUDGET We propose that we be reimbursed for our services on an hourly basis for the actual time expended. Other direct project expenses, such as printing, supplies, reproduction, etc., will be billed at cost, and mileage will be billed at the current allowable IRS rate for business miles. Based on our understanding of the project and our Scope of Services, we estimate the cost of our services to be $27,300, which includes time and expenses for both SRF and Gale-Tec Engineering. Additional services that may be requested will be billed on the same time and expense basis. SCOPE SUMMARY AND COSTS Final Stabilization Design and Bid Document Preparation $10,666 Permitting $ 2,212 Construction Administration $11,830 Gale-Tee Engineering $ 2,200 Expenses—reproduction, vehicle mileage, etc. 392 Total $27,300 Invoices are submitted on a monthly basis for work performed during the previous month. Payment is due within 30 days. Ms. Leslie Stovring - 3 - June 9, 2008 CHANGES IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES/ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is understood that if the scope or extent of work changes or additional services are requested, the cost will be adjusted accordingly. Before any out-of-scope or additional service work is initiated, however, we will submit a budget request for the new work and will not begin work until we receive authorization from you. NOTICE TO PROCEED A signed copy of this proposal or a separate letter of authorization, either mailed or faxed to our office, will serve as our notice to proceed. Our fax number is 763-475-2429. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, APPROVED: SRF CONSULTING GROUP,INC. (signature) Name Walter C. Eshenaur, P.E. Senior Associate Title �a q� Date David F. Filipiak, P.E. Principal SRF P08373RI WCE/DWF/smf Attachment This cost proposal is valid for a period of 90 days. SRF reserves the right to adjust its cost estimate after 90 days from the date of this proposal. 6WODB WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATE PAGE 1 CLIENT: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP,INC. SUBCONSULTANT: Gale-Tec Engineering PROJECT: EROSION STABILIZATION FINAL DESIGN STUDY AREAS 1 AND 2 —ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS— ESTIMATED TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL SR.ASSOC. A&SOCIATE SR.PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FEE 1.0 Stabilization Final Design and Bid Documents 1.1 Prepare 60%construction plans and details for review by the City of 1 2 0 30 0 18 0 50 $4,636 Eden Prairie and Lower Minnesota Watershed District. Plans will include layout,details,cross sections of selected stabilization solution(s). Includes embodiment of geotechnical recommendations and preliminary engineer's cost estimate. Half-size(11x17)format will be used. Includes performing a design level Gopher-One utility locate request. 1.2 Prepare 100%final signed construction plans for inclusion in bid 1 2 a 20 0 12 0 34 $3,233 documents. Includes all plans,details, typicals,cross sections and construction notes needed for successful implementation during the dormant season.Half-size(11x17)format will be used. 1.3 Prepare specifications and a submittal register and assemble all bid 0 2 0 16 0 0 4 22 $1,918 documents. Includes functioning as bid documents distributor, keeping the plan-holder's list,and issuing up to one amendment. 1A Prepare preliminary(60%)and final(100%)engineer's cost estimates 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 $475 and schedules of estimated quantities. 1.5 Attend one design meeting with the City as needed. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 $405 Assumptions: - Advertisement will be completed by the City with the bidding process conducted by SRF. - Full City bidding process will be utilized. - All survey for final design has been collected during Feasibility Study phase. - Both sites will be part of one construction plan and bid package. Deliverables: -60%construction plans,quantities,and engineer's cast estimate. -100%signed construction plans,quantities and engineer's cost estimate -Specifications and submittal register SUBTOTAL-TASK 1 2 10 0 70 0 30 4 114 $10,666 2.0 Permitting 2.1 Prepare and submit the necessary documentation to the Lower 0 2 0 22 0 0 1 25 Minnesota Watershed District for a successful board review. Assumes attendance at one LMRWD board meeting. Includes verification by certified wetland delineator that no wetland impacts will occur. SRF CONSULTING GROUP,INC. H:1MarketingkPropossIM2006 Letter Proposalsl1308373 EPEro9ionStabiQzatlon1&2.x1s ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS,MN. 61912008 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATE PAGE 2 CLIENT: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP,INC. SUBCONSULTANT: Gale-Tec Engineering PROJECT: EROSION STABILIZATION FINAL DESIGN STUDY AREAS 1 AND 2 —*ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS'"— ESTIMATED TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL SR.ASSOC. ASSOCIATE SR.PROF, PROF, TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FEE SUBTOTAL-TASK 2 0 2 0 22 0 0 1 26 $2,212 3.0 Construction Administration 3.1 Attend preconstruction meeting,and all Construction meetings 0 3 0 12 0 0 0 15 3.2 Review required shop drawings and materials submittals, respond and 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 9 review those that require resubmittal. Includes review and response to two alternative materials requests. 3.3 Complete all payment requests,a punch list and final construction D 2 0 16 0 0 0 18 close-out documentation. 3.4 Conduct daily site visits for construction inspection,conduct planed 0 8 0 18 0 60 0 84 materials quantity checks,complete daily logs,review time-and- materials submittals,approve payment requsts,etc. Assumptions: -SRF will undertake construction administration duties,and prepare all payment and closeout documentation. Assumes inspector is on site up to two hours each day when active construction is underway. - Includes a limited number of alternative materials requests and one amendment(if necessary) -Construction will take approximately 5 weeks(25 days)to complete. SUBTOTAL-TASK 3 0 14 0 62 0 60 0 126 $11,630 TOTAL ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS 2 26 0 144 0 90 5 265 AVERAGE HOURLY BILLING RATES $159 $135 $105 $85 $66 $92 $72 ESTIMATED LABOR AND OVERHEAD $313 $3,510 $0 $12,240 $0 $8,280 $360 $24.708 ESTIMATED DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES $2,592 TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $27,300 SRF CONSULTING GROUP,INC. HAMarkethg4Proposa#s52008 Letter ProposalslP08373 EPErosionStabilization1&2.xis ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS,MN. 6/9r2008 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATE PAGE 3 CLIENT: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP,INC. SUBCONSULTANT: Gale-Tec Engineering PROJECT: EROSION STABILIZATION FINAL DESIGN STUDY AREAS I AND 2 —ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS---- ESTIMATED TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL S.R.ASSOC. ASSOCIATE SR.PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FEE ESTIMATE OF DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES: MILEAGE: Personal Vehicles 697 Miles @ $0.505 $352 Company Vehicles 0 Miles® $0.505 $0 REPRODUCTION:Bid documents Copy Duplication 400 Copies @ $0.10 $40 Bond Prints 0 Prints $6.00 $0 Mylar Prints 0 Prints C $12.00 $0 COURTHOUSE COPIES: 0 Copies @ $1.00 $0 PRINTING: $0 SUPPLIES: $0 COMMUNICATIONS: Mail,Express,Etc. $0 Cell Phone Charges 0 Minutes @ $0.30 $0 SUBCONSULTANTS: Gale-Tec Engineering $2,200 ESTIMATED DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES $2,592 SRF CONSULTING GROUP,INC. H:WarketingTraposals=08 Letter ProposalslP08373 EPEroslon5tabillzatlon1&2.xIs ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS,MN. Erosion Stabilization Study Study Area 1 Final Report Prepared for the City of Eden Prairie March 2008 Prepared by SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. SRF No.0076205 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................... 1 SITEINVESTIGATION.............................................................................................................................7 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY..............................................................................................................................7 STORM SEWER INSPECTION........................................................................................................................7 SOILANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................................7 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS.................................................................................................7 ALTERNATIVESANALYSIS...................................................................................................................9 ALTERNATIVE 2: STORM SEWER DROP STRUCTURE AND OPEN CHANNEL.............................................. 14 ALTERNATIVE 3: OPEN CHANNEL WITH RIPRAP BASIN........................................................................... 18 GRASSED SWALE ABOVE RIVERVIEW ROAD............................................................................................. 18 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................18 APPENDICES A—Geotechnical Report H:AProjects\6205\WR\DOC\STUDY AREA 1TINAL SUBMITTAL\Study Area One Report 03072008.doc t LIST OF TABLES Page No. Table 1: Existing Condition XP-SWMM Model Results .......................................................... 8 Table 2: Alternative 1 Design Information.............................................................................. 10 Table 3: Alternative 1 Hydraulic Analysis............................................................................... 10 Table 4: Alternative 1 Cost Estimate....................................................................................... 13 Table 5: Alternative 2 Design Information.............................................................................. 14 Table 6: Alternative 2 Hydraulic Analysis............................................................................... 14 Table 7: Alternative 2 Cost Estimate....................................................................................... 17 LIST OF FIGURES Page No. Figure 1: Study Areas 1 &2 Location Map..............................................................................2 Figure 2A: Gully Located Immediately Downstream of Riverview Road..................................3 Figure 213: 30-inch CMP Storm Sewer Outlet into Gully............................................................3 Figure 3: Curb Opening Catch Basin Inlet................................................................................4 Figure 4A: Grassed-Swale Upstream of Gully............................................................................5 Figure 413: Erosion with Grassed Swale......................................................................................5 Figure 5A: Alternative 1 - Storm Sewer Drop Structure...........................................................10 Figure 513: Alternative 1 Profile................................................................................................I I Figure 6A: Alternative 2 - Storm Sewer Drop Structure with Open Channel...........................14 Figure 613: Alternative 2 Profile................................................................................................15 ii Introduction The City of Eden Prairie, in cooperation with the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District commissioned SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to study various sites experiencing significant erosion within the Minnesota River Valley. The purpose of this study is to determine the root cause of the identified erosion problems and develop corrective measures that restore the identified sites and prevent future erosion problems. This report details one of four sites: Study Area 1. Detailed discussions of the site background, site investigation, proposed alternatives and recommendations follow. Background Study Area 1 consists of the area immediately south of Riverview Road located approximately 0.6 miles east of the roadway intersection with Flying Cloud Drive as shown in Figure 1. This area has been severely eroded due to the concentrated discharge of stormwater emanating from the outlets of a 30-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm sewer line and a 36-inch CMP centerline culvert that pass underneath Riverview Road. These discharges have caused the development of a large gully that is illustrated in Figure 2. Approximately 31.5 acres comprising a segment of Flying Cloud Drive, a residential development and a grassed hillside located between Riverview Road and Flying Cloud Drive, drains through the two culverts. In general, the drainage area is characterized by steep vegetated slopes, an impervious roadway corridor, residential development, and virtually no surface storage that would provide attenuation of surface runoff. The 30-inch CMP storm sewer extends approximately 512 feet north of the gully at an 11-percent grade to an eight-foot (span) by eight-foot (rise) box culvert that crosses Flying Cloud Drive. The upstream end of the box culvert has been bulkheaded, and receives stormwater discharge from a large stormwater detention pond located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Charlson Road and Flying Cloud Drive. The inlet to the 30-inch CMP storm sewer lies at the south end of the box culvert and consists of an eight-foot long, high-capacity catch basin with curb opening (Figure 3). A small embankment has been built around the inlet to allow stormwater to pool above the curb opening catch basin when inlet capacity is exceeded. The 36-inch CMP centerline culvert drains stormwater conveyed via a broad grassed swale that extends north of the gully and Riverview Road up to the previously described box culvert crossing Fly Cloud Drive. The centerline culvert conveys stormwater to the gully generated from the local drainage area, i.e. the upstream hillside, as well as spillover flows from the high-capacity catch basin with curb opening inlet for the 30-inch CMP storm sewer. Some attenuation of stormwater discharges through the culvert will occur upstream in a small storage area created by the Riverview Road roadway embankment and depression at the inlet of the culvert. The loss of topsoil within localized pockets has occurred at several locations along the broad grassed swale north of Riverview Road as shown in Figures 4A and 413. The presence of silt fence at the upstream end of the broad grassed swale indicates that construction activity related to Flying Cloud Drive may have caused the erosion. Given the steep nature of the Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 1 conveyance path, however, it is possible that the erosion is an entirely natural phenomenon. The outlets of the 30-inch CMP storm sewer and 36-inch CMP centerline culvert release stormwater high on the Riverview Road roadway embankment, approximately 16 feet and 18 feet above the gully bottom, respectively. High-velocity discharges have eroded the gully over time causing significant down-cutting to occur immediately downstream. The gully profile appears to have equilibrated with the downstream conveyance path approximately 150 feet downstream. A large amount of concrete rubble has been placed as a temporary measure where the gully head-cut is located in order to arrest the erosion. However, the gully side slopes continue to erode due to mass wasting caused by undercutting of the banks and by saturation during high-flow periods. Nearly-vertical side slopes are present that are held only by the root mass of intermittent vegetation and the inherent, albeit limited, cohesion/friction of the parent soil materials. Further head- cutting or slope erosion may soon endanger the Riverview Road embankment and the road itself. Immediate attention to this fast-forming gully is warranted. Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 2 71 1 ,� ' �• S '�-ti X. T r ti +,sport r;', � •.f r f �. �sr•r J �a• I 1' _ •f '� L ' _ •r f . '�Y �'�r•. �Fjyin9 GOuld'�r A. r .• _ ,, {�,?z. :..�.'-. Riverview Rd=. , ., - L tud AreaStudy�Area"1 S y t �+s r� r•K• r Aerial: USGS 2005 N _ - l• E 0 1,000 2,000 �• Feet sota Riper Nlinne ® Study Areas 1 & 2 Location Map Figure 1 Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study-Draft Report �6aoo Eden Prairie, MN Figure 2A: Gully located Immediately Downstream of Riverview Road ` �lar` r ��' may,, �� •'. F• .-��h, �� - Figure 2B: 30-inch CMP Storm Sewer Line Outlet Into Gully _ _. .S n•.. ':fit. _!q� r- Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 4 Figure1 Opening Catch Basin .rr'• 4'• F tea_ .. - :��'. Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 5 _`�^ -�.�� �.9 Jam' •,�� '�3F�-'.. •.�, .. �. .` - .. .. -. F ,p- .. � .r Y��-�'- .. -- ire •=.�'F .n'""fir � .. J. Figure 4A: Grassed-Swale Upstream of Gully 7` Figure 4B: Erosion With Grassed Swale ru� '•`fit �,;:, ,.:� .�.� .w��r;:�d,:, ;;,,:,..:"- . - ^: i , •,•'= :.� ';: t".s 1�r;•[y ��'p:�+ � i - .i.`-• i.g�::..�...�" "� 4 r`ti Y •� ',r�.�'ry •.v+u • _4yy {y,5��� �, 1�4.�" r- x. e:j�;::" f•.Yp�� ���i :S ,ls �•';,' yy . • S'.� �:• mil'.H���•� i� 4,4 : A'f' l 4'• qq 'L'�""7.,•� ._ v �.. •• 7-'S r -j Av IN Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 6 Site Investigation Topographic Survey A topographic survey of Study Area 1 was conducted on October 24, 2006. The topographic survey encompassed not only the eroded embankment area and gully immediately downstream of Riverview Road, but also the upstream infrastructure that conveys stormwater to the discharge point causing the erosion problems. Survey data were utilized for development and augmentation of a hydrologic and hydraulic model, and design of the proposed improvements. Storm Sewer Inspection Hydro-Vac, Inc. was commissioned by the City of Eden Prairie to inspect the 30-inch CMP storm sewer running from Flying Cloud Drive to the gully immediately below Riverview Road. The storm sewer inspection was precipitated by the presence of intermittent pockets of erosion directly above the storm sewer within the broad grassed swale (Figure 4). Video camera inspection was performed on the storm sewer on November 1, 2007. Review of the video showed no indication of pipe separation or other damage that would have caused the migration of soil immediately above the conduit through the storm sewer. Qualitative analysis of the video indicates that the CMP storm sewer is still in relatively good condition. Soil Analysis Gale-Tec Engineering performed soil borings for Study Area 1 on November 20, 2007 at two locations downstream of Riverview Road on the perimeter of the gully. The borings were drilled by hand auger methods and identified as borings B-1 and B-2 in the attached Appendix. Boring B-1 was located on the east side of the gully, approximately 55 feet south of Riverview Road, adjacent to a bare scarp area. From this point, Boring B-1 was located approximately two feet from the gully edge and 18 feet above standing water in the channel bottom. Soils at this location consist of approximately two feet of fine to medium sand overlying a silty sand. The soils were classified by the Unified Soil Classified System (USCS) as an SP soil extending into an SM soil at depth. Boring B-2 was located on the west side of the gully approximately four feet from the edge and 90 feet south of Riverview Road. The soils in this area were identified as silty sand (SM) from a depth of zero to six inches, silty sand (SP-SM) from six to 18 inches, and fine to medium sand (SP) below 18 inches. The complete soil investigation report including the boring logs is included in the Appendix. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis An XP-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic model was developed to represent Study Area 1 for the determination of existing condition stormwater discharge rates and corresponding velocities. Data obtained from the topographic survey were utilized for the characterization of the stormwater conveyance route while two-foot contour data were utilized for the delineation of the contributing drainage areas. Recent aerial photographs along with the Hennepin County Soil Survey and site soil investigations Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 7 allowed the characterization of runoff parameters. The Type II, 24-hour rainfall events of various return frequencies were used in combination with the SCS Method of Abstractions for the development of synthetic hydrographs that were ultimately routed through the conveyance system. Table 1 summarizes the results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for various events at the outlets of the 30-inch CMP storm sewer system and 36-inch CMP centerline culvert discharging into the gully. Table 1: Existing Condition XP-SWMM Model Results 30-INCH CMP STORM SEWER OUTLET RETURN FREQUENCY 2-YEAR 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR DISCHARGE RATE(ft3/s) 30.0 51.2 69.8 72.5 DISCHARGE VELOCITY(ft/s) 13.8 15.5 16.1 16.1 PIPE FLOW DEPTH(feet) 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.2 36-INCH CMP CENTERLINE CULVERT RETURN FREQUENCY 2-YEAR 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR DISCHARGE RATE(ft3/s) 1.3 6.4 11.8 18.5 DISCHARGE VELOCITY(ft/s) 4.5 6.5 7.3 7.8 PIPE FLOW DEPTH(feet) 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 The results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis show that the stormwater conveyance system delivers large volumes of stormwater at high rates and velocities to the gully causing and exacerbating erosion. Combined discharge rates entering the gully range from approximately 31 ft3/s to 91 ft3/s for the 2-year and 100-year rainfall events respectively. Discharge velocities from the storm sewer system range between 13.8 ft/s and 16.1 ft/s for the 2-year and 100-year rainfall events respectively. As a reference, the sandy material present within proximity to Riverview Road is easily eroded with flow velocities over 6 ft/s. Discharge velocities from the 36-inch CMP centerline culvert are held in check largely because of insignificant runoff volumes generated by the undeveloped watershed and small amount of flood storage immediately upstream of the culvert. As the vertical drop between the storm sewer and culvert outlets and the gully bottom increased over time, stormwater discharge gained even more energy, causing down-cutting to accelerate. Placement of waste concrete material as riprap within the gully has been used as temporary armament to protect against further down-cutting. While this has stabilized the gully to some extent, sloughing of the steep gully side slopes continues. Without a compete stabilization of the gully, continued side slope erosion and down-cutting may soon endanger Riverview Road. Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 8 Alternatives Analysis Various alternatives were considered to mitigate the damage and stabilize the gully created by stormwater discharges from the two pipe outfalls below Riverview Road. Two general types of solutions were investigated: closed-conduit solutions and open channel. Closed-conduit solutions effectively dissipate energy through the use of drop structures and storm sewer, allowing the discharge of stormwater to the existing conveyance channel at non-eroding velocities. Open channel solutions allow the conveyance of stormwater within a stabilized channel originating at the pipe outfalls and ending at the existing conveyance channel over a sufficient length to reduce the channel grade and corresponding flow velocities. The alternatives considered for Study Area 1 were evaluated based on hydraulic and energy dissipation efficiency, constructability, use of existing infrastructure, available right of way, and construction cost. Each alternative is described in detail along with corresponding cost estimates. Alternative l: Storm Sewer Drop Structure Alternative 1 consists of discharging the existing 30-inch CMP storm sewer into a drop structure (MH 100) placed immediately above Riverview Road along with the stormwater conveyed by the existing 36-inch CMP culvert and extending storm sewer from this point underneath Riverview Road to a second drop structure (MH 101) located downstream as shown in Figure 5A. Additional storm sewer would then convey stormwater to a point where the down-cutting has eased and the channel banks have stabilized, ultimately discharging to the natural channel. The down-cut portion of the gully would then be backfilled over the storm sewer line with compacted fill to a point where the channel side slopes can be stabilized. The outlet from the drop structures would consist of 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe laid at a grade that would reduce velocities to a minimum. A small riprap basin is proposed at the outlet of the storm sewer system to further reduce the energy of the stormwater discharge. The riprap basin provides a preformed, riprap-lined scour hole for the stormwater to plunge into before dispersing and flowing downstream. Compacted fill placed over the storm sewer would be vegetated to prevent erosion due to overland flow generated by the adjacent roadway. The existing channel banks would be graded at a maximum three (horizontal):one (vertical) side slopes. The depth of fill placed within the gully to form a minimum seven- foot channel will determine the extent to which the existing channel side slopes are pulled back. While it is proposed that a channel be constructed to convey local runoff, because local runoff is minimal, it is technically feasible to fill the entire gully over the storm sewer eliminating the need for additional right of way. Figure 5B shows the profile view of the proposed alternatives. Table 2 provides design information that corresponds to Figure 5B and Table 3 provides hydraulic analysis information for Alternative 1. Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 9 Table 2: Alternative 1 Design Information MANHOLE Mn/DOT HEIGHT CASTING RCP PIPE RCP PIPE ID DESIGN (feet) ASSEMBLY DIAMETER LENGTH (inches) (feet) 100 72-4020 12.2 A-71) 48—CLASS V 68 101 72-4020 19.4 A-71) 48—CLASS V 146 Table 3: Alternative 1 Hydraulic Analysis PIPE VELOCITY PIPE VELOCITY CHANNEL EVENT RETURN DISCHARGE (MH 100—MH 101) (MH 101-Outlet) VELOCITY FREQUENCY (ft%) (fps) (fps) (fps) 1-YEAR 22.8 7.7 4.5 3.6 2-YEAR 30.2 8.1 4.9 4.0 10-YEAR 55.0 8.9 5.9 4.8 50-YEAR 77.8 9.6 6.7 5.3 100-YEAR 91.0 9.9 7.5 5.5 A cost estimate for the construction of Alternative 1 is summarized in Table 4. Prices were obtained from average bid prices for Mn/DOT-awarded projects during 2006. The total estimated cost of construction for Alternative 1 including a 20-percent contingency is $90,110. The majority of the cost associated with this alternative results from the storm sewer and drop structure construction. Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 10 O� 0" RCP APRON N MH 1 PROPOSE RIVERVIEW RD. 48 " RCP— H 101 8 . 0 ' SWALE co @ 15% GRADE - l 709. 0 RI \�P m T to j �I �O W U_ L n • Of O O N (O W 0 25 50 U N scale In -Feet 0 _a t Alternative I -Storm Sewer Drop Structure Figure 5A Consulting Group,Im. Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study- Draft Report Eden Prairie,MN Job# 3/7/2008 RIVERVIEW RD . EXISTING GROUND EX 30'' CMP PROPOSED LINE 750 GROUND LINE MH 100 740 8 ' SWALE @ 15% SLOPE MH 101 0 730 720 6@ ' 8'' RC 301 ' RCP 710 NLET 146 ' 48 '' RCP 72-4020 72-4020 0. 4% SLOPE to U) 0 15 30 O N O scale In feet N U_ L a N Alternative 1 Profile O N O N U N O G. L Alternative 1 Profile Figure 5B Consulting Group,Inc. Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study- Draft Report Eden Prairie,MN Job# 3/11/2008 Table 4: Alternative 1 Cost Estimate ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY AVERAGE PRICE' COST 2021.501 MOBILIZATION(5%) LS 1 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 5,050.00 $ 5,050.00 2104.501 REMOVE 36-INCH CSP CULVERT LF 41 $ 10.00 $ 410.00 2104.501 REMOVE 30-INCH CSP SEWER PIPE LF 52 $ 6.00 $ 312.00 2118.502 AGGREGATE SURFACING CLASS 5 CY 68 $ 35.00 $ 2,380.00 2105.511 COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION CY 346 $ 4.00 $ 1,384.00 2451.503 GRANULAR BACKFILL(CV) CY 865 $ 15.00 $ 12,975.00 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW(LV) CY 400 $ 13.00 $ 5,200.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT LS 1 $ 2,940.00 $ 2,940.00 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CAT 3 SY 2420 $ 1.20 $ 2,904.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1 $ 920.00 $ 920.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 72-4020 LF 35 $ 380.00 $ 13,300.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 2 $ 551.00 $ 1,102.00 2503.511 30"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LF 6 $ 47.00 $ 282.00 2501.515 30"RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 705.00 $ 705.00 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 30"PIPE EACH 1 $ 649.00 $ 649.00 2503.511 48"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LF 214 $ 83.00 $ 17,762.00 2501.515 48"RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 859.00 $ 859.00 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 48"PIPE EACH 1 $ 1,034.00 $ 1,034.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP,CLASS IV CY 26 1 $ 51.00 $ 1,326.00 20-PERCENT CONTINGENCY $ 15,020.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $ 90,110.00 Average bid prices obtained from average bid prices for Mn/DOT awarded projects for 2006. Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 13 Alternative 2: Storm Sewer Drop Structure and Open Channel Alternative 2 consists discharging the existing 30-inch CMP storm sewer into a drop structure (MH 200) placed immediately above Riverview Road along with the stormwater conveyed by the existing 36-inch CMP culvert and extending storm sewer from this point underneath Riverview road to a second drop structure (MH 201) located downstream as shown in Figure 6A. An outlet would be placed at MH2O1 in order to discharge to a riprap-lined channel that would convey stormwater to the existing conveyance channel. Compacted fill would be placed within the channel to elevated to a point where the channel side slopes can be stabilized and stormwater discharge from the drop structure can be conveyed at reasonable, non-eroding velocities. A 48-inch flared end section apron would be utilized to disperse the stormwater as it enters the riprap-lined channel, which would have a bottom width of at least eight feet, a minimum depth of two feet and at least three (horizontal):one (vertical) side slopes. This alternative allows the discharge of stormwater at a higher elevation, eliminating the need for lengthy storm sewer. A riprap basin would be utilized at the end of the riprap-lined channel to dissipate energy before flowing downstream. Figure 6B shows the profile view of the proposed alternative. Table 5 provides design information that corresponds to Figure 6B and Table 6 provides hydraulic analysis information for Alternative 2. Table 5: Alternative 2 Design Information MANHOLE Mn/DOT HEIGHT CASTING RCP PIPE RCP PIPE ID DESIGN (feet) ASSEMBLY DIAMETER LENGTH (inches) (feet) 200 72-4020 12.2 A-71) 48 68 201 72-4020 12.3 A-71) 48 36 Table 6: Alternative 2 Hydraulic Analysis PIPE PIPE RIPRAP NATURAL EVENT DISCHARGE VELOCITY VELOCITY CHANNEL CHANNEL RETURN (MH 200- (MH 201- FREQUENCY (ft3/s) MH 101) Outlet) VELOCITY VELOCITY (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) 1-YEAR 22.8 7.7 3.5 5.2 3.6 2-YEAR 30.2 8.1 3.9 5.8 4.0 10-YEAR 55.0 8.9 5.0 7.0 4.8 50-YEAR 77.8 9.6 6.7 7.8 5.3 100-YEAR 91.0 9.9 7.9 8.1 5.5 A cost estimate for the construction of Alternative 2 as described previously was developed and summarized in Table 7. Prices were obtained from average bid prices for Mn/DOT-awarded projects during 2006. The total estimated cost of construction for Alternative 2 including a 20-percent contingency is $80,960. Although less storm sewer and earth work is required for this alternative, significant cost is tied to the riprap used to armor the stormwater conveyance channel and for the energy dissipation basin. Erosion Stabilization Study-Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 14 O� 30" RCP APRON MH 20 NLE� RIVERVIEW RD. ~MH 01 \V ` 717 . 0 H f 800 ' SWALE @ 6% GRADE BOT = 709 . 0 m T m of N O W U_ L n • Of O N (O W 0 25 50 U N scale In -Feet 0 _a t Alternative 2 -Storm Sewer Drop Structure with Open Channel Figure 6A Consulting Group,Inc. Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study- Draft Report Eden Prairie,MN Job# 3/7/2008 EXISTING RIVERVIEW RD . PROPOSED GROUND INED EX 30'' CMP GROUND 750 _LINE __ __ _ _ _ MH 200 740 MH 201 0 730 8 ' SWALE 0 6% SLOPE 720 ( RIP RAP _LINED ) oo o �o�wo���o��� ������� s� 68 ' 4 8 " R C P 3 0" R C P 0 2% SLOPE INLET 710 72-4020 _ 72-4020 36 ' 48 " RCP 0 0. 2% SLOPE U) 0 15 30 O N O scale In feet to U_ L a N Alternative 2 Profile O N O N U N O G. L Alternative 2 Profile Figure 6B Consulting Group,Inc. Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study- Draft Report Eden Prairie,MN Job# 31712008 Table 7: Alternative 2 Cost Estimate ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY AVERAGE PRICEI COST 2021.501 MOBILIZATION(5%) LS 1 $ 3,200.00 $ 3,200.00 2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 5,050.00 $ 5,050.00 2104.501 REMOVE 36-INCH CSP CULVERT LF 41 $ 10.00 $ 410.00 2104.501 REMOVE 30-INCH CSP SEWER PIPE LF 52 $ 6.00 $ 312.00 2118.502 AGGREGATE SURFACING CLASS 5 CY 68 $ 35.00 $ 2,380.00 2105.511 COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION CY 195 $ 4.00 $ 780.00 2451.503 GRANULAR BACKFILL(CV) CY 650 $ 15.00 $ 9,750.00 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW(LV) CY 350 $ 13.00 $ 4,550.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT LS 1 $ 2,940.00 $ 2,940.00 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CAT 3 SY 2110 $ 1.20 $ 2,532.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1 $ 920.00 $ 920.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 72-4020 LF 25 $ 380.00 $ 9,500.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 2 $ 551.00 $ 1,102.00 2503.511 30"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LF 6 $ 47.00 $ 282.00 2501.515 30"RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 705.00 $ 705.00 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 30"PIPE EACH 1 $ 649.00 $ 649.00 2503.511 48"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LF 104 $ 83.00 $ 8,632.00 2501.515 48"RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 859.00 $ 859.00 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 48"PIPE EACH 1 $ 1,034.00 $ 1,034.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP,CLASS IV CY 233 $ 51.00 $ 11,883.00 20-PERCENT CONTINGENCY $ 13,490.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $ 80,960.00 Average bid prices obtained from average bid prices for Mn/DOT awarded projects for 2006. Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 17 Alternative 3: Open Channel with Riprap Basin Alternative 3 consists of a stabilized open channel that extends from the pipe outfalls to a riprap basin before discharging to the existing conveyance channel. The vertical distance between the highest outfall and the gully floor is over 18 feet. This is a significant drop that would require a 12 percent channel grade to tie into the existing conveyance channel located approximately 150 feet downstream. Per FHWA HEC-15 design methods, Class 5 riprap is the only flexible lining alternative that would be stable for discharge rates up to the 50-year event of 82 ft3/s. Above the 50-year event, however, a Class 5 riprap lined channel would not be stable. A special, larger riprap could be used (assuming a reduced safety factor) in order for the channel to be stable up to the 100-year event. This solution may be suitable, but cost effectiveness is reduced when special riprap is utilized. Furthermore, the 10-year discharge velocity where the steep channel ties into the natural channel would be greater than 9 ft/s, which is significantly greater than the 6 ft/s that is considered as non-erosive for the in-situ soils. As a result, a 32-foot long by 24-foot wide energy dissipation basin would also be needed at the end of the channel to reduce energy and velocity to that allowable for a natural channel. Considering the need for a special riprap channel liner, a large riprap basin for velocity reduction, and high potential for maintenance, the open channel option is not suitable from a hydraulic and energy dissipation perspective. As such, a cost estimate for this alternative was not prepared. Grassed Swale above Riverview Road Regardless of the previously described alternatives, the swale leading to Riverview Road from the north must be repaired and stabilized. Since it appears that only localized erosion has taken place and that the CMP storm sewer is still in relatively good condition, local repair with topsoil, seeding, and erosion control blanket is all that is needed. The cost of this repair is minor and is included in the cost estimates prepared for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Conclusions and Recommendations The erosion occurring at Study Area 1 is caused by the concentrated discharge of stormwater through a 30-inch CMP storm sewer outfall and 36-inch CMP centerline culvert immediately downstream of Riverview Road. In total, an approximate 31.5 acre watershed drains through Study Area 1 generating high-volume discharges and corresponding velocities that far exceed the erosive limit of the soils encountered at the site. In general, the soils forming the eroded landform and drainage course are sands with varying degrees of silt which are high susceptible to the erosive forces of flowing water. While the channel bottom appears to have stabilized, continued erosion and mass wasting continues to occur to the gully and associated bank slopes. Three alternatives were developed to mitigate the erosion at Study Area 1. The alternatives include: (1) Storm Sewer Drop Structure and (2) Storm Sewer Drop Structure and Open Channel and (3) Open Channel with Riprap Basin. Alternative 1 extends the existing storm sewer to a stable section of the downstream conveyance channel, largely dissipating energy within two drop structures. Alternative 2 conveys stormwater from two drop structures that are connected to the existing storm sewer via a riprap-lined channel to a stable section of the downstream Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 18 conveyance channel. The upstream drop structure and roughness of the riprap-lined channel in combination with a small riprap basin at the discharge point dissipates most of the energy. Alternative 3 conveys stormwater from the existing discharge point to the existing conveyance channel by means of a riprap-lined channel spills into a riprap basin before flowing downstream. All three alternatives are constructible, provide adequate erosion control protection for the range of stormwater discharges expected, and utilize the existing right of way and infrastructure. Alternative 1, however, is expected to require less maintenance than Alternatives 2 or 3 because riprap deteriorates over time due to the frequent freeze/thaw cycles experienced during spring and fall. In addition, displacement of riprap can occur on high-gradient slopes and high discharges. Alternatives 2 and 3 will also result in greater site impacts because the gully sides slopes must be cut back to a minimum of 1:3 in order to be stable. Although feasible, Alternative 3 requires special riprap materials that are even more maintenance intensive. Based on the above-mentioned pros and cons, Alternative 1 is recommended despite a slightly greater estimated initial construction cost. H:AProjects\6205\WR\DOC\STUDY AREA 1TINAL SUBMITTAL\Study Area One Report 03072008.doc Erosion Stabilization Study—Study Area 1 Final Report March 2008 City of Eden Prairie Page 19 Appendix A Geotechnical Report Introduction The City of Eden Prairie in cooperation with the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District commissioned SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to study various sites experiencing significant erosion within the Minnesota River Valley. The purpose of this study is to determine the root cause of the identified erosion problems and develop corrective measures that restore the identified sites and prevent future erosion problems. This report details one of four sites: Study Area 2. Detailed discussions of the site background, site investigation, proposed alternatives and recommendations follow. Background Study Area 2 is located along Riverview Road approximately 920 feet(0.17 miles) east of the roadway intersection with Flying Cloud Drive. The site consists of the area immediately downstream of Riverview Road as shown in Figure 1. This area has been severely eroded due to the concentrated discharge of stormwater from a 30-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm sewer line crossing Riverview Road as shown in Figure 2. The CMP drains an energy dissipation device/drop structure located on the downstream end of a five-foot (wide) by five-foot(rise) box culvert crossing Flying Cloud Drive. The drainage area of this storm sewer line is approximately 9.6 acres and drains a segment of Flying Cloud Drive and portions of an adjacent residential area. In general, the drainage area is characterized by high-gradient, vegetated slopes, an impervious roadway corridor and little to no watershed storage providing attenuation of stormwater runoff. The outlet of the 30-inch CMP storm sewer releases stormwater high on the Riverview Road roadway embankment, approximately 10 feet above the channel bottom. High- velocity discharges have eroded the embankment over time and caused significant down- cutting to occur immediately downstream. The channel profile appears to have equilibrated with the downstream conveyance path, dispersing stormwater discharge as it is conveyed toward Grass Lake. However, the corresponding channel bank slopes have continued to erode due to undercutting of the banks. Nearly-vertical side slopes are present that are held together largely by the root mass of various trees and smaller vegetation. Site Investigation Topographic Survey A topographic survey of Study Area 2 was conducted on October 23, 2006. The topographic survey encompassed not only the eroded embankment area immediately downstream of Riverview Road,but also the upstream infrastructure that conveys stormwater to the discharge point. Survey data was utilized for development of a hydrologic and hydraulic model, and for the design of proposed improvements. 71 1 ,� ' �• S '�-ti X. T r ti +,sport r;', � •.f r f �. �sr•r J �a• I 1' _ •f '� L ' _ •r f . '�Y �'�r•. �Fjyin9 GOuld'�r A. r .• _ ,, {�,?z. :..�.'-. Riverview Rd=. , ., - L tud AreaStudy�Area"1 S y t �+s r� r•K• r Aerial: USGS 2005 N _ - l• E 0 1,000 2,000 �• Feet sota Riper Nlinne ® Study Areas 1 & 2 Location Map Figure 1 Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study-Draft Report �6aoo Eden Prairie, MN .t'�"r_ �'''..• - 2 1. ����_`,� OR K _ � �a.=ram•.. wo MR � I 1 i r ..r 1, �:::�'': ' •:.�.�:`;. _• _. ,�.� �\mil ' ,. .., r`'T iC•. .I��-'�":,1,' �• _ -'���-i. It�r �j Pj - Soil Analysis Gale-Tec Engineering performed soil borings for Study Area 2 on November 20, 2007 at two locations downstream of Riverview Road. The borings were both drilled by hand auger methods and are identified as borings B-3 and B-4. Boring B-3 was located on the west side of the gully, approximately 30 feet south of Riverview Road and approximately two and a half feet from the gully edge, 10 feet above the channel bottom. Soils at this location consisted of approximately two feet of silty sand. The soils were classified by the Unified Soil Classified System(USCS) as an SM soil. Boring B-4 was located at the bottom of the gully, approximately 30 feet south of Riverview Road. The soils in the channel bottom were identified as approximately one foot of silty sand with a little gravel (SM) transitioning to silty clayey sand with a little gravel (SC-SM) at depth. The complete soil investigation report including the boring logs is included in the Appendix. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis An XP-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic model was developed to represent Study Area 2 for the determination of stormwater discharge rates and corresponding velocities for existing conditions. The data obtained from the topographic survey were utilized for the characterization of the stormwater conveyance route while two-foot contour data were utilized for the delineation of the contributing drainage areas. Recent aerial photographs along with the Hennepin County Soil Survey and site soil investigations allowed the characterization of runoff parameters. Type II, 24-hour rainfall events of various return periods were used in combination with the SCS Method of Abstractions for the development of synthetic hydrographs that were then routed through the conveyance system. Table 1 summarizes the results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for various events at the outlet of the 30-inch CMP storm sewer system. Table 1: Existing condition XP-SWMM model results. RETURN FREQUENCY 2-YEAR 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR DISCHARGE RATE (ft /s) 3.0 8.6 14.9 18.8 DISCHARGE VELOCITY (ft/s) 7.8 10.4 12.1 12.8 PIPE FLOW DEPTH (feet) 0.33 0.56 0.75 0.85 The results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis show that the storm sewer system is extremely efficient in delivering stormwater to the outlet located immediately below Riverview Road. However, because of the steep pipe grade, only a fraction of the 30- inch CMP storm sewer is utilized as flow depths range from 0.33 feet to 0.85 feet for corresponding discharges of 3.0 ft3/s (2-year) and 18.8 ft3/s (100-year),respectively. Due to the flow regime within storm sewer, discharge velocities are generally very high as they range from 7.8 ft/s to 12.8 ft/s for the 2-year and 100-year rainfall events, respectively. Upon analysis, it is not surprising that severe erosion has occurred in the past, and that it will continue to occur in the future without some mitigation. Continuing erosion of the channel will soon endanger the Riverview Road embankment. Proposed Alternatives Various alternatives were considered to mitigate the damage created by the 30-inch CMP storm sewer discharge to the Riverview Road roadway embankment and convey stormwater to Grass Lake without subsequent erosion. The alternatives considered for Study Area 2 were evaluated based on constructability, use of existing infrastructure and available right of way, construction cost and effectiveness. Two alternatives were arrived at for further consideration based on these criteria and include: (1) storm sewer drop structure and (2) riprap-lined channel. Each alternative is described in detail along with corresponding cost estimates. Alternative 1: Storm Sewer Drop Structure Alternative 1 consists of adding a drop structure to the outlet of the existing 30-inch CMP storm sewer, extending the outlet of the drop structure to the original toe of the Riverview Road roadway embankment and restoring the Riverview Road roadway embankment to the slope of the adjacent embankment. The outlet pipe from the drop structure would consist of a 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and flared end section apron. A riprap basin is proposed at the outlet of the storm sewer system to further reduce the energy of the stormwater discharge. The riprap basin provides a preformed, riprap-lined scour hole for the stormwater to plunge into before dispersing and flowing overland as shallow concentrated flow to Grass Lake. Compacted fill placed over the storm sewer would be vegetated to prevent erosion due to overland flow originating from the adjacent roadway. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the profile and plan views of the proposed alternatives, respectively. A cost estimate for the construction of Alternative 1 as described previously was developed and summarized in Table 2. Prices were obtained from average bid prices for Mn/DOT-awarded projects during 2006. The total estimated cost of construction for Alternative 1 including a 20-percent contingency is $31,807. The majority of the cost associated with this alternative results from the storm sewer and corresponding drop structure, as well as the required earth work. Alternative 2: Riprap-Lined Channel Alternative 2 consists of restoring the Riverview Road roadway embankment to the oroginal toe and extending a riprap-lined channel from the outlet of the existing 30-inch CMP storm sewer to the bottom of the slope. A galvanized steel apron would be placed on the end of the 30-inch CMP to disperse the stormwater as it enters the riprap-lined channel, which will have a bottom width matching the corresponding apron of five feet, a depth of one foot, and three (horizontal):one (vertical) side slopes. The riprap-lined channel will run the length of the roadway embankment and run at the same slope. Compacted fill will be placed to build up the embankment under the proposed channel. Limited excavation will be required to tie the riprap-lined channel into the existing embankment. A riprap basin will be utilized at the end of the riprap-lined channel to dissipate energy before flowing overland as shallow concentrated flow. Figure 3 and Figure 5 show the profile and plan views of the proposed alternatives, respectively. A cost estimate for the construction of Alternative 2 as described previously was developed and summarized in Table 3. The total estimated cost of construction for Alternative 2 including a 20-percent contingency is $24,264. This alternative best utilizes the site conditions as most components of the design relate to filling in the void created by the erosive action of the stormwater discharge. 740 RIVERVIEW RD . 730 ED 30'' CMP 720 1 0 3 _ 710 44 ' — 30" RCP 60 " STRUCTURE tItennnt ve 1 RIVERVIEW RD . 740 __ __ 1 0 3 730 I 5 ' RIPRAP—PINED SWAEE __ __ EX 30'CN CMP 720 N U_ L O. c0 710 0 N 0 10 20 AItennet ve 2 N � scale In feet N O G. L Alternative 1 and 2 Profiles Figure 3 C....hing Group,Inc. Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study- Draft Report Eden Prairie,MN Job# 121912007 t� O r'7 Z N �3�735 N 73 RIVERVIEW RD. 72 ONNECT T EXISTING STORM SEA OUTLET 72 t� --71 c 7� LO m N RIPRAP BASIN X �O W U_ L n Of O N (O N 0 10 20 U G7 scale In feet .o _a t Alternative I -Storm Sewer Drop Structure Figure 4 Consulting Group,Inc. Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study- Draft Report Eden Prairie,MN Job# 121912007 Table 2: Alternative 1 Cost Estimate. ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY AVERAGE PRICE' COST 2021.501 MOBILIZATION 5% LS - $ 1,260.00 2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS - $ 2,900.00 $ 2,900.00 2105.511 COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION Cy 60 $ 6.50 $ 390.00 2451.503 GRANULAR BACKFILL CV Cy 300 $ 17.00 $ 5,100.00 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW LV Cy 110 $ 21.00 $ 2,310.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT LS - $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CAT 3 Sy 640 $ 2.00 $ 1,280.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1 $ 1,050.00 $ 1,050.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 60-4020 LF 16 $ 320.00 $ 5,120.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 1 $ 630.00 $ 630.00 2503.511 30" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LF 44 $ 54.00 $ 2,376.00 2501.515 30" RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 810.00 $ 810.00 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 30" PIPE EACH 1 $ 740.00 $ 740.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS IV Cy 15 $ 56.00 $ 840.00 20-PERCENT CONTINGENCY $ 5,301.20 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $ 31,807.20 'Prices obtained from average bid prices for Mn/DOT awarded projects for 2006. H:\Projects\6205\WR\EXCEL\STUDY AREA TWO COST ESTIMATES.As t� O r'7 Z 1/~ 735 N RIVERVIEW RD. 72. NAB �m to l� Zp� m MINP X 1 0 N �O W U_ L n Of O O N (O N 0 10 20 U G7 scale In feet .o _a t Alternative 2 - Riprap-lined Channel Figure 5 Consulting Group,lna Eden Prairie Erosion Stabilization Study- Draft Report Eden Prairie,MN Job# 121912007 Table 3: Alternative 2 Cost Estimate. ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY AVERAGE PRICE' COST 2021.501 MOBILIZATION 5% LS - $ 960.00 2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS - $ 2,900.00 $ 2,900.00 2105.511 COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION Cy 50 $ 6.50 $ 325.00 2451.503 GRANULAR BACKFILL CV Cy 250 $ 17.00 $ 4,250.00 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW LV Cy 95 $ 21.00 $ 1,995.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT LS - $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CAT 3 Sy 570 $ 2.00 $ 1,140.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1 $ 1,050.00 $ 1,050.00 2501.515 30" GS PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS V Cy 60 $ 100.00 $ 6,000.00 20-PERCENT CONTINGENCY $ 4,044.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $ 24,264.00 'Average bid prices obtained from average bid prices for Mn/DOT awarded projects for 2006. H:\Projects\6205\WR\EXCEL\STUDY AREA TWO COST ESTIMATES.As Conclusions and Recommendations The erosion occurring at Study Area 2 is caused by the concentrated discharge of stormwater from a 30-inch CMP storm sewer line high on the Riverview Road roadway embankment that drains a 9.6 acre watershed. Stormwater is discharged from the storm sewer line at relatively high velocities and is eroding the downstream drainage course. In general, the soils forming the roadway embankment and drainage course are sands with varying degrees of silt which are highly susceptible to the erosive forces of flowing water. While the channel bottom appears to have stabilized, continued erosion is occurring to the channel bank slopes and the roadway embankment under the storm sewer. Two alternatives were developed to mitigate the erosion at Study Area 2. The alternatives include: (1) Alternative 1: Storm Sewer Drop Structure and (2) Alternative 2: Riprap-lined Channel. Alternative 1 extends the existing storm sewer to the toe of the roadway embankment, largely dissipating energy within a drop structure. Alternative 2 conveys stormwater from the existing outlet to the toe of the embankment via a riprap lined channel. The roughness of the riprap-lined channel relative to the depth of the expected discharges dissipates most of the energy. Both alternatives are constructible, provide adequate erosion control protection for the range of stormwater discharges expected and utilize the existing right of way and infrastructure. Alternative 1 is expected to require less maintenance over Alternative 2 because riprap deteriorates over time due to the frequent freeze/thaw cycles experienced during spring and fall. In addition, displacement of riprap can occur on high-gradient slopes. Based on the need for additional maintenance, Alternative 1 is recommended despite a greater estimated cost of $31,807. H:AProjects\6205\WR\DOC\Study Area Two Report.doc CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Agenda June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: 06-5679 ITEM NO.: VIILH. Leslie Stovring Shoreland Restoration Project/Mitchell Public Works /Environmental Lake Association Requested Action Move to: Approve contract with Fortin Consulting to provide shoreland restoration services for the Mitchell Lake Association in the amount of$13,825. Synopsis The Mitchell Lake Association (MLA) has been working with Fortin Consulting to develop a plan for restoration of a section of Mitchell Lake shoreland through a shoreland restoration grant from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This proposal will allow Fortin Consulting to contract directly with the City to ensure payment on a regular basis through the grant program. No city funds will be expended on this project, although staff time will be needed to process the invoices and provide periodic updates to the DNR on the status of the project. Background Information Mitchell Lake is listed as an Impaired Water for excess nutrients by the State of Minnesota. In 2007 the MLA applied for a grant with the DNR to restore a section of Timberlake Association commons property on the shores of Mitchell Lake as the first step in a proposal to improve the water quality of the lake through a variety of shoreland restoration projects and education measures. The commons property is located on Island Road, between 7998 and 8014 Island Road, and includes approximately 285 feet of lakeshore. Fortin Consulting was contacted to assist MLA in development of a preliminary plan to restore this lakeshore area after the City's Shoreland Restoration Workshop in 2007. The plan will retain a small sand beach while replacing sod with native plants and establishing aquatic plants in the water. A portion of the commons property is already left as natural and this project will tie into this area to extend the natural shoreland habitat. The City will not be responsible for installation or maintenance of the shoreland restoration. The Timberlake Association Maintenance Committee will have primary responsibility for all short term and long term maintenance activities on the Commons Area with assistance from the Mitchell Lake Association as needed. Attachments Professional Services Agreement Rev. 05-14-2008 Standard Agreement for Professional Services This Agreement is made on the 27th day of May, 2008, between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter "City"), whose business address is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, and Fortin Consulting Inc, a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Consultant") whose business address is 215 Hamel Road, Hamel MN 55340. Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of professional services by Consultant for Shoreline Restoration hereinafter referred to as the "Work". The City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work/Proposal. The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services shown in Exhibit "A" in connection with the Work. The terms of this standard agreement shall take precedence over any provisions of the Consultants proposal and/or general conditions. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from 5-25-08 through 7-25-08 the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Consultant on an hourly basis plus expenses in a total amount not to exceed $13,825.00 for the services as described in Exhibit A. A. Any changes in the scope of the work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Consultant shall require prior written approval by an authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for services that do not have prior written authorization. B. Special Consultants may be utilized by the Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by the City. C. If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to strikes, riots, fires, acts of God, governmental actions, actions of a third party, or actions or inactions of City, the time for performance shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 4. City Information. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with the complete information concerning the Scope of the Work and to perform the following services: A. Access to the Area. Depending on the nature of the Work, Consultant may from time to time require access to public and private lands or property. As may be necessary, the City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon 1 Rev. 05-14-2008 public and private lands or property as required for the Consultant to perform such services necessary to complete the Work. B. Consideration of the Consultant's Work. The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Consultant, and shall inform the Consultant of all decisions required of City within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Consultant. C. Standards. The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any standard or criteria, including but not limited to, design and construction standards that may be required in the preparation of the Work for the Project. D. Owner's Representative. A person shall be appointed to act as the City's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City's policy and decisions with respect to the services provided or materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, an itemized invoice for professional services performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City for: A. Progress Payment. For work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Consultant shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an itemized listing and such documentation as reasonably required by the City. Each invoice shall contain the City's project number and a progress summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the contract, current billing, past payments and unexpended balance of the contract. B. Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Consultant shall be paid for any services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such suspension, all as shown on Exhibit A. C. Payments for Special Consultants. The Consultant shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described in Section 313, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. D. Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: "I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." 6. Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant has designated Connie Fortin and Carolyn Dindorf to serve on the Project. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace these designated staff from the Project without the approval of the City. 2 Rev. 05-14-2008 7. Standard of Care. All Work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the standard of care in Hennepin County, Minnesota for professional services of the like kind. 8. Audit Disclosure. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Contract. The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat. 13.01 et seq., the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to the extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the possession of the Consultant. 9. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Consultant has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Consultant, and the City may retain another consultant to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. 10. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the Scope of Work, without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within the ten (10) days of the Consultant's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Consultant fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Consultant has received payment by the City, the Consultant shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1.5 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Consultant shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 11. Independent Consultant. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 12. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. The Consultant further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 3 Rev. 05-14-2008 13. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 14. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Consultant not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 16. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 17. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Consultant shall abide by statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. The Consultant and City, together with their respective agents and employees, agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 13, as amended, and Minnesota Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 13. Any violation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the services to be provided shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 18. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 19. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the Consultant, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said Consultant fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. 20. Insurance. A. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work, Consultant shall procure, maintain and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims for bodily injury or death, or for damage to property, including loss of use, which may arise out of operations by Consultant or by any subcontractor or by anyone employed by any of them or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of liability specified in this Paragraph, or required by law. B. Consultant shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverages and limits of liability on this Project: Worker's Compensation Statutory Limits 4 Rev. 05-14-2008 Employer's Liability $100,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $100,000 disease each employee Comprehensive Liability $1,000,000 property damage per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 Products —Completed Operations Aggregate $10,000 medical expense Comprehensive Automobile Liability $1,000,000 C. Consultant shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this Paragraph at Consultant's sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to do business in the state in Minnesota. A copy of the Consultant's insurance declaration page, Rider and/or Endorsement, as applicable, which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph 20, must be filed with City prior to the start of Consultant's Work. Such documents evidencing Insurance shall be in a form acceptable to City and shall provide satisfactory evidence that Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates shall be provided to City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. City will not be obligated, however, to review such declaration page, Rider, Endorsement or certificates or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Consultant of any deficiencies in such documents and receipt thereof shall not relieve Consultant from, nor be deemed a waiver of, City's right to enforce the terms of Consultant's obligations hereunder. City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for under this paragraph. D. Effect of Consultant's Failure to Provide Insurance. If Consultant fails to provide the specified insurance, then Consultant will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City's officials, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) to the extent necessary to afford the same protection as would have been provided by the specified insurance. Except to the extent prohibited by law, this indemnity applies regardless of any strict liability or negligence attributable to the City (including sole negligence) and regardless of the extent to which the underlying occurrence (i.e., the event giving rise to a claim which would have been covered by the specified insurance) is attributable to the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission (including breach of contract) of Consultant, its subcontractors, agents, employees or delegates. Consultant agrees that this indemnity shall be construed and applied in favor of indemnification. Consultant also agrees that if applicable law limits or precludes any aspect of this indemnity, then the indemnity will be considered limited only to the extent necessary to comply with that applicable law. The stated indemnity continues until all applicable statutes of limitation have run. If a claim arises within the scope of the stated indemnity, the City may require Consultant to: a. Furnish and pay for a surety bond, satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing performance of the indemnity obligation; or b. Furnish a written acceptance of tender of defense and indemnity from Consultant's 5 Rev. 05-14-2008 insurance company. Consultant will take the action required by the City within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice from the City. 21. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of the Agreement ("Information") shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for its purposes and the Consultant also may use the Information for its purposes. Use of the Information for the purposes of the project contemplated by this Agreement ("Project") does not relieve any liability on the part of the Consultant, but any use of the Information by the City or the Consultant beyond the scope of the Project is without liability to the other, and the party using the Information agrees to defend and indemnify the other from any claims or liability resulting therefrom. 22. Dispute Resolution/Mediation. Each dispute, claim or controversy arising from or related to this Service Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or legal or equitable actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the American Arbitration Association and the other party. No arbitration or legal or equitable action may be instituted for a period of 90 days from the filing of the request for mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. Cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in the City of Eden Prairie unless another location is mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a Mediated Settlement Agreement, which Agreement shall be enforceable as a settlement in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 24. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Board of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. The violation of this provision renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. 6 Rev. 05-14-2008 Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Mayor City Manager FIRM NAME By: Connie Fortin Its: President J 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: VIILI. Jay Lotthammer, Director, Change order#1 to RJM Construction for Parks and Recreation improvements at Birch Island Park, Round Lake Baseball Stadium, the Third Sheet of Ice and Community Center Motion Move to: Approve change order#1 to the RJM Construction contract for additional work at Birch Island Park, Round Lake Baseball Stadium, the Third Sheet of Ice and Community Center improvements. Synopsis Change order#1 to the RJM Construction contract is for additional work at Birch Island Park, Round Lake Baseball Stadium, the Third Sheet of Ice and Community Center. This change order relates to items that were discovered or added to the project after the drawings and scope of work were established within the original contract. Background A construction management agreement was entered into with RJM Construction for the improvements at Birch Island Park, Round Lake Baseball Stadium, the Third Sheet of Ice and the Community Center. The original contract was for a total of$14,164,924. Due to changes and unforeseen conditions occurring during the construction period, additional funds of$597,791 (4.2%) are required to complete the project. The following unbudgeted revenue has been received and is available to fund these expenses: $184,529 from watershed district, $20,000 HTPO and approximately $200,000 bond interest. The remaining funds of approximately $193,000 are available in the Park Improvement Fund. It is anticipated that the project will be finalized and brought back to the City Council at one of the September City Council meetings. Attachments RJM Change Order Request Financial Summary as of May 31, 2008 V1 CONSTRUCTION June 10, 2008 Mr.Jay Lotthammer City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Eden Prairie Community Center Request for Project Change Order-June 170i 2008 City Council Meeting Dear Jay, RJM Construction is submitting a request for the City Council to approve a Change Order to our Contract for added project scope items for a total of$597,791 at their June 17,1h meeting. Throughout the project there have been many added work scope items added to the Construction Drawings. As part of this process Delano Erickson Architects along with the City of Eden Prairie and RJM Construction have reviewed and approved these submitted costs. Please find enclosed a summary breakdown of the added work scope items of the project. If you should have any further questions related to this request,please feel free to contact US. Sincerely, rian Recker Vice President Cc: Del Erickson, Delano Erickson Architects 5455 HWY.169 PLYMOUTH,MN 55442 PHONE 763-383-7600 FAX 763-383-7601 www.rjmconstructlon.com ILI"q CONSTRUCTION Eden Prairie Community Center June 10,2008 Summary of Added Project Scope Costs Building Additions to Project Scope $203,826 Finish Upgrades-Carpet, Tile, Paint $ 45,948 Stairwell at Rink H $ 45,628 Electric Power Supplies/Door Hardware $ 39,318 Remodel of Existing Offices $ 4,892 Provide Added Volleyball Equipment $ 8,383 General Misc. Building Changes 59,657 Subtotal $203,826 Sitework Additions to Project Scope $109,914 Road Entry Reconstruction $ 37,949 Holland Pavers at Front Entry $ 14,077 Ball Field Fencing Changes $ 7,955 Musco Ball Field Light Changes $ 18,078 General Misc. Site Changes 31,855 Subtotal $ 109,914 Soil Correction Over Project Allowance $92,242 General Architectural Added Scope Items $56,620 Mechanical and Electrical Added Scope Items $135 189 Summary Total $597,791 5455 HWY.169 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442 PHONE 763-383-7600 FAX 763-383-7601 www.rjmconstruction.com City of Eden Prairie Communty Center/Third Sheet of Ice/Baseball Stadium Financial Summary as of May 31, 2008 Communty Center/Third Sheet of Ice/Baseball Stadium Revenue Referendum 6,650,000 Donations-Community Center 1,059,530 Revenue Bonds 1,600,000 Cash Park Fees Fund Transfer 5,355,000 Capital Improvement Fund Transfer 1,470,940 Other Donations 385,000 Donation Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek 184,529 General Fund Transfer 50,326 Total Revenue 16,755,325 Expense Community Center Building 9,935,573 Contingency 50,326 CIP Start Up Items 765,940 Third Sheet of Ice 3,448,857 Baseball Stadium 1,279,159 Birch Island Improvements 270,714 Amount Remaining RJM Contract 775,151 Amount Remaining Delano Erickson Architects Architect RJM Change Order Total Expense 16,525,720 Difference 229,605 Additional Amounts Spent on Community Center 2008 CIP Replace White Olympia 80,000 2008 CIP Pool Water Treatment 50,000 2008 CIP Rink#2 Perimeter Ice Piping 30,000 2008 CIP Indoor Play Structure 200,000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 07-5708 ITEM NO.: VIILJ. Public Works /Engineering Approve Professional Services Randy Newton Agreement with SEH, Inc. for Construction Phase Services for Reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive Requested Action Move to: Approve Professional Services Agreement with SEH, Inc. for construction phase services for the reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive. Synopsis This Professional Services Agreement will provide construction phase services (staking, inspection, and contract administration) for the reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive. The project is scheduled for construction this summer (2008). The estimated cost for the construction phase services is $110,114.93. Liberty Property Trust, on an assessment basis, is responsible for these and all other costs associated with the project. Background Information The planned improvements to Flying Cloud Drive include constructing Flying Cloud Drive as a 3-lane roadway from south of Shady Oak Road to the south end of the Liberty Plaza campus (near the dog park). The Flying Cloud Drive Improvements also include an 8 foot trail on the east side of Flying Cloud Drive extending to Shady Oak Road. Construction of the project is planned to occur between June and September of this year and will include the closure of Flying Cloud Drive. This project has been designed, plans and specifications have been approved, and the bids for construction were received on June 5, 2008. The contract award is included as a separate item on this Council agenda. Attachments • Professional Services Agreement • Exhibit A— S.E.H. Proposal letter Rev. 05-14-2008 Standard Agreement for Professional Services This Agreement is made on the 17`" day of June , 2008, between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter "City"), whose business address is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, and Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) , a Minnesota consulting firm (hereinafter "Consultant") whose business address is 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343. Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of professional services by Consultant for Reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive Construction Phase Services hereinafter referred to as the "Work". The City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work/Proposal. The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services shown in Exhibit "A" in connection with the Work. The terms of this standard agreement shall take precedence over any provisions of the Consultants proposal and/or general conditions. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from June 17, 2008 through September 25, 2009 , the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Consultant on an hourly basis plus expenses in a total amount not to exceed $ 110,114.93 for the services as described in Exhibit A. A. Any changes in the scope of the work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Consultant shall require prior written approval by an authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for services that do not have prior written authorization. B. Special Consultants may be utilized by the Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by the City. C. If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to strikes, riots, fires, acts of God, governmental actions, actions of a third party, or actions or inactions of City, the time for performance shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 4. City Information. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with the complete information concerning the Scope of the Work and to perform the following services: 1 Rev. 05-14-2008 A. Access to the Area. Depending on the nature of the Work, Consultant may from time to time require access to public and private lands or property. As may be necessary, the City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private lands or property as required for the Consultant to perform such services necessary to complete the Work. B. Consideration of the Consultant's Work. The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Consultant, and shall inform the Consultant of all decisions required of City within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Consultant. C. Standards. The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any standard or criteria, including but not limited to, design and construction standards that may be required in the preparation of the Work for the Project. D. Owner's Representative. A person shall be appointed to act as the City's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City's policy and decisions with respect to the services provided or materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, an itemized invoice for professional services performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City for: A. Progress Payment. For work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Consultant shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an itemized listing and such documentation as reasonably required by the City. Each invoice shall contain the City's project number and a progress summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the contract, current billing, past payments and unexpended balance of the contract. B. Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Consultant shall be paid for any services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such suspension, all as shown on Exhibit A. C. Payments for Special Consultants. The Consultant shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described in Section 313, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. D. Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: "I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." 2 Rev. 05-14-2008 6. Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant has designated Paul J. Pasko III, P.E. and Carter Schulze, P.E. to serve on the Project. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace these designated staff from the Project without the approval of the City. 7. Standard of Care. All Work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the standard of care in Hennepin County, Minnesota for professional services of the like kind. 8. Audit Disclosure. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Contract. The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat. 13.01 et seq., the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to the extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the possession of the Consultant. 9. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Consultant has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Consultant, and the City may retain another consultant to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. 10. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the Scope of Work, without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within the ten (10) days of the Consultant's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Consultant fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Consultant has received payment by the City, the Consultant shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1.5 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Consultant shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 11. Independent Consultant. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 12. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its 3 Rev. 05-14-2008 subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. The Consultant further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 13. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 14. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Consultant not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 16. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 17. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Consultant shall abide by statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. The Consultant and City, together with their respective agents and employees, agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 13, as amended, and Minnesota Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 13. Any violation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the services to be provided shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 18. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 19. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the Consultant, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said Consultant fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. 20. Insurance. A. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work, Consultant shall procure, maintain and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims for bodily injury or death, or for damage to property, including loss of use, which may arise out of operations by Consultant or by any subcontractor or by anyone employed by any of them or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of liability specified in this Paragraph, or required by law. The 4 Rev. 05-14-2008 policy(ies) shall name the City as an additional insured for the services provided under this Agreement and shall provide that the Consultant's coverage shall be primary and noncontributory in the event of a loss. B. Consultant shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverages and limits of liability on this Project: Worker's Compensation Statutory Limits Employer's Liability $500,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 disease each employee Comprehensive Liability $1,000,000 property damage per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 Products —Completed Operations Aggregate $100,000 fire legal liability each occurrence $5,000 medical expense Comprehensive Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit (shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles. Umbrella or Excess Liability $2,000,000 C. The Comprehensive General/Commercial General Liability policy(ies) shall be equivalent in coverage to ISO form CG 0001, and shall include the following: a. Premises and Operations coverage with no explosions, collapse, or underground damage exclusion (XCU). b. Products and Completed Operations Property Damage coverage. Consultant agrees to maintain this coverage for a minimum of two (2) years following completion of its work. C. Personal injury with Employment Exclusion (if any) deleted. d. Broad Form CG0001 0196 Contractual Liability coverage, or its equivalent. e. Broad Form Property Damage coverage, including completed operations, or its equivalent. f. Additional Insured Endorsement(s) on ISO form CG 2010, or its equivalent, naming "the City of Eden Prairie." The additional insured form needs to extend protection for "product and completed operations". g. If the Work to be performed is on an attached community, there shall be no exclusion for attached or condominium projects. h. "Stop gap" coverage for work in those states where Workers' Compensation 5 Rev. 05-14-2008 insurance is provided through a state fund if Employer's liability coverage is not available. i. Incidental Malpractice and Host Liquor Liability insurance applicable to the Consultant's performance under this Agreement. j. Severability of Insureds provision. D. Professional Liability Insurance. The Consultant agrees to provide to the City a certificate evidencing that they have in effect, with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the City, in the insured's capacity as the Consultant, if such legal liability is caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of $2,000,000. Said policy shall not name the City as an insured. E. Consultant shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this Paragraph at Consultant's sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to do business in the state in Minnesota and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-, unless specifically accepted by City in writing. In addition to the requirements stated above, the following applies to the insurance policies required under this Paragraph: a. All polices, except the Professional Liability Insurance policy, shall be written on an "occurrence" form ("claims made" and "modified occurrence" forms are not acceptable); b. All polices, except the Professional Liability Insurance policy, shall be apply on a "per project" basis; C. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker's Compensation Policies, shall contain a waiver of subrogation naming "the City of Eden Prairie"; d. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker's Compensation Policies, shall name "the City of Eden Prairie" as an additional insured; e. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker's Compensation Policies, shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement; and f. All polices shall contain a provision that coverages afforded there under shall not be canceled or non-renewed or restrictive modifications added, without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. A copy of the Consultant's insurance declaration page, Rider and/or Endorsement, as applicable, which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph 20, must be filed with City prior to the start of Consultant's Work. Such documents evidencing Insurance shall be in a form acceptable to City and shall provide satisfactory evidence that Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates shall 6 Rev. 05-14-2008 be provided to City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. City will not be obligated, however, to review such declaration page, Rider, Endorsement or certificates or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Consultant of any deficiencies in such documents and receipt thereof shall not relieve Consultant from, nor be deemed a waiver of, City's right to enforce the terms of Consultant's obligations hereunder. City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for under this paragraph. F. Effect of Consultant's Failure to Provide Insurance. If Consultant fails to provide the specified insurance, then Consultant will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City's officials, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) to the extent necessary to afford the same protection as would have been provided by the specified insurance. Except to the extent prohibited by law, this indemnity applies regardless of any strict liability or negligence attributable to the City (including sole negligence) and regardless of the extent to which the underlying occurrence (i.e., the event giving rise to a claim which would have been covered by the specified insurance) is attributable to the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission (including breach of contract) of Consultant, its subcontractors, agents, employees or delegates. Consultant agrees that this indemnity shall be construed and applied in favor of indemnification. Consultant also agrees that if applicable law limits or precludes any aspect of this indemnity, then the indemnity will be considered limited only to the extent necessary to comply with that applicable law. The stated indemnity continues until all applicable statutes of limitation have run. If a claim arises within the scope of the stated indemnity, the City may require Consultant to: a. Furnish and pay for a surety bond, satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing performance of the indemnity obligation; or b. Furnish a written acceptance of tender of defense and indemnity from Consultant's insurance company. Consultant will take the action required by the City within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice from the City. 21. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of the Agreement ("Information") shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for its purposes and the Consultant also may use the Information for its purposes. Use of the Information for the purposes of the project contemplated by this Agreement ("Project") does not relieve any liability on the part of the Consultant, but any use of the Information by the City or the Consultant beyond the scope of the Project is without liability to the other, and the party using the Information agrees to defend and indemnify the other from any claims or liability resulting therefrom. 22. Dispute Resolution/Mediation. Each dispute, claim or controversy arising from or related to this Service Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or legal or equitable actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the American Arbitration Association and the other party. No arbitration or legal or equitable action may be instituted for a period of 7 Rev. 05-14-2008 90 days from the filing of the request for mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. Cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in the City of Eden Prairie unless another location is mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a Mediated Settlement Agreement, which Agreement shall be enforceable as a settlement in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 24. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Board of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. The violation of this provision renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Mayor City Manager FIRM NAME By: Its: 8 SEH EXHIBIT A June 9,2008 RE: City of Eden Prairie Reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive Construction Phase Services IC No. 07-5708 SEH No EDENP 103286 10.00 Randy Newton City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 Dear Randy: We respectfully submit for your consideration our proposal for construction phase services for the referenced project. For your convenience we subdivide this proposal into sections titled Understanding of Work,Assumptions, Scope of Work, and Proposed Fee. Understanding of Work 1) Stake, inspect,and administer the improvements shown in the construction documents for the referenced project. Assumptions 1) City staff will secure all rights of entry and temporary and permanent easements for the referenced project. Scope of Work The following items are included in our scope of work. 1) This proposal includes time to stake, inspect, and administer the improvements as they are shown in the construction documents for the referenced project. Proposed Fee We enclose with this letter proposal a Task Hour Budget(THB). Please notice that the THB is subdivided into construction periods based on the contractor's schedule.The THB reports that our not-to-exceed fee is$110,114.93.This fee includes both labor and reimbursable expenses. Billing for our services will be on an hourly basis.We will only proceed with additional work following your authorization. The Standard Agreement for Professional Services,City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement, Exhibit A,and the THB,represents the entire understanding between the City of Eden Prairie and the SEH in respect to the project and may only be modified in writing if signed by both parties. If Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle drive, Sure 200, Minnetonka,MN 55343-9301 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 952,912.2601 Fax Randy Newton June 9,2008 Page 2 this letter satisfactorily sets forth the City's understanding of this project,please sign and date moth fetters and return one to me at the address shown on this letterhead. We look forward to providing the City with construction phase services for this project.if you have any questions,please contact me at 952.912.2611 or ppasko@seliine.com. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. Paul J. Pasko III, P.E. Project Manager Accepted this day of ,2008 By the City of Eden Prairie Phil Young, Mayor Scott Neal, City Manager cas Enclosure c: Al Horge, SEH p Inekkdenp1080200 IgenhI0-mmrackonsl phaselcps proposal052909.doc TASKHOURBUDGET SEH CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RECONSTR UCTION OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE CONSTR UCTION PHASE SERVICES(11)(12)(14) June 9,2008 ESTIMATED HOURS CLIENT suRvev ESTIMATED COST SERVICE PR0.IECT PROJECT PROJECT Sce"Y SURVEY CREW INSTRUMENT ADMLY TECH PROTECT TASKS MANAGER ENGINEER ENGINEER COORDINATOR CHIEF MANAGER OPERATOR LO Project Administration. 1.1 Construction Administration(13) 1.1.11 Preconstmction(6)(10) 8 ; 1.1.2 Summer Construction(7) 6 24 8 8 1.1.3 Clean Up(8) 8 2 1.1.4 Final Completion(9) 2 8 1.1.5 As-builts(5) 4 4 4 Subtotal Hours 6 40 12 4 4 4 16 Subtotal Labor Cost $1,156 $6313 $1,312 S427 $428 $280 $1,416 $IM31 '.. 1.2 Construction Observation(RPR)(16)(17) 1.2.1 Preconstmction(1)(6)(10) 120 11.2.21 Summer Construction(2)(7) 400 11.2.31 Clean U (3)(8) 112 1.2.4 Final Completion(4)(9) 32 Subtotal Hours. 664 Subtotal Labor Cost $70,905 $70,905 1.3 Construction Staling(15) 1.3.2 Summer Construction(7) 5 108 108 1.3.3 Clean U (8) 16 16 1.3.4 Final Completion(9) Subtotal Hours. 5 124 124 Subtotal Labor Cost $587 $13,261. $8,691 $22,539 Subtotal Summary 6 40 12 668 5 128 1128 16 Subtotal Summary $1,156' $6,313 SM12 $71,332 $587.. $13,689 ,$8,971 $1,416 $104,776 PROJECT COST SUMMARY 1.0 Project Administration Subtotal Hours 6 40 12 668 5 128 128 16 1,003 Subtotal Labor Cost $1155.74 $6,312.60 $1,311.66 $71 332.38 $587.48 $13,688.64 $8,971.20 $1 416.24 $104,775.93 Subtotal Expenses S 5,339.00 '.. Subtotal $110,114.93 TOTAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL: $110,114.93 PMEIBEde p'AE0200\1GeM110con0 ftC si Pesef[CPS THB 060008.,1slHours-Co NOTES 1 Includes full time construction observation up to 40 hours per week 2 Includes full time construction observation up to 50 hours per week 3 Includes part time construction observation up to 16 hours per week 4 Includes part time construction observation up to 4 hours per week,punchlist tracking,and final payment request 5 Includes final topographic survey of structures,asbuilt drawings on 22"x 34"reproducible mylar and dwg plan sheet files on a CD,service and valve ties on 8 1/2"x 11",and dates and results for utility tests. 6 Preconstmction period begins 6/16/08 and ends 7/3/08(3 weeks long) 7 Summer Construction period begins 7/7/08 and ends 8/29/08(8 weeks long) '.. 8 Clean Up period begins 8/30/08 and ends 10/17/08(7 weeks long) 9 Final Completion period begins 5/4/09 and ends 6/26109(8 weeks long) 10 One Preconstruction meeting during spring 2008.The meeting will occur at Eden Prairie City Center.The prime contractor,sub-contractors,and private utilities will be invited and are strongly encouraged to attend. 1 i There will be no weekly construction progress meetings '.. 12 SEH will prepare up to 1 resident update newsletter per month to be emailed to select residents along the the Reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive Project.The City willprovide SEH with the email addresses. '.. 13 For each Application for Payment(AFP)SEH will use its format the cover sheet,and for tracking monthly quantities on subsequent pages. 14 City will provide one full-time utilty department employee to operate the water main valves on an as needed basis during construction.Only City staff can operate water main valves. 15 Includes staking of construction limits/silt fence,baseline for stationing,2 retaining walls,proposed pond,22 storm sewer structures,4 fire hydrants including watermain trunk pipe,sanitary sewer,B618 1 ,and bituminous trait 16 City will appoint a liaison for the project to offer advice on City policy for dealing with construction situations SEH has not dealt with in the City 17 The City will secure material inspection services.These services will be made available to SEH Page 1 of 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 17, 2008 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 07-5708 ITEM NO.: VIILK. Randy Newton Approve Professional Services Agreement Public Works /Engineering with Braun Intertec Corporation, Inc. for Construction Material Testing Services for Reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive Requested Action Move to: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Braun Intertec Corporation, Inc. for construction material testing services for the reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive. Synopsis This Professional Services Agreement will provide construction material testing services for the reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive. The project is scheduled for construction this summer (2008). The estimated cost for the construction testing services is $12,968. Liberty Property Trust, on an assessment basis, is responsible for these and all other costs associated with the project Background Information The planned improvements to Flying Cloud Drive include constructing Flying Cloud Drive as a 3-lane roadway from south of Shady Oak Road to the south end of the Liberty Plaza campus (near the dog park). The Flying Cloud Drive Improvements also include an 8 foot trail on the east side of Flying Cloud Drive extending to Shady Oak Road. Construction of the project is planned to occur between June and September of this year and will include the closure of Flying Cloud Drive. This project has been designed, plans and specifications have been approved, and the bids for construction were received on June 5, 2008. The contract award is included as a separate item on this Council agenda. Attachments • Professional Services Agreement • Exhibit A—Braun Intertec Proposal letter Rev. 05-14-2008 Standard Agreement for Professional Services This Agreement is made on the 17th day of June , 2008, between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter "City"), whose business address is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, and Braun Intertec Corporation , a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Consultant") whose business address is 11001 Hampshire Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55438. Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of professional services by Consultant for Construction Material Testing Services for the Reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive hereinafter referred to as the "Work". The City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work/Proposal. The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services shown in Exhibit "A" in connection with the Work. The terms of this standard agreement shall take precedence over any provisions of the Consultants proposal and/or general conditions. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from June 17, 2008 through September 25, 2009 , the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Consultant on an hourly basis plus expenses in a total amount not to exceed $ 12,968 for the services as described in Exhibit A. A. Any changes in the scope of the work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Consultant shall require prior written approval by an authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for services that do not have prior written authorization. B. Special Consultants may be utilized by the Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by the City. C. If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to strikes, riots, fires, acts of God, governmental actions, actions of a third party, or actions or inactions of City, the time for performance shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 4. City Information. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with the complete information concerning the Scope of the Work and to perform the following services: 1 Rev. 05-14-2008 A. Access to the Area. Depending on the nature of the Work, Consultant may from time to time require access to public and private lands or property. As may be necessary, the City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private lands or property as required for the Consultant to perform such services necessary to complete the Work. B. Consideration of the Consultant's Work. The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Consultant, and shall inform the Consultant of all decisions required of City within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Consultant. C. Standards. The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any standard or criteria, including but not limited to, design and construction standards that may be required in the preparation of the Work for the Project. D. Owner's Representative. A person shall be appointed to act as the City's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City's policy and decisions with respect to the services provided or materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, an itemized invoice for professional services performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City for: A. Progress Payment. For work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Consultant shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an itemized listing and such documentation as reasonably required by the City. Each invoice shall contain the City's project number and a progress summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the contract, current billing, past payments and unexpended balance of the contract. B. Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Consultant shall be paid for any services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such suspension, all as shown on Exhibit A. C. Payments for Special Consultants. The Consultant shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described in Section 313, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. D. Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: "I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." 2 Rev. 05-14-2008 6. Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant has designated Josh Van Abel to serve on the Project. He shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace these designated staff from the Project without the approval of the City. 7. Standard of Care. All Work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the standard of care in Hennepin County, Minnesota for professional services of the like kind. 8. Audit Disclosure. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Contract. The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat. 13.01 et seq., the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to the extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the possession of the Consultant. 9. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Consultant has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Consultant, and the City may retain another consultant to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. 10. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the Scope of Work, without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within the ten (10) days of the Consultant's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Consultant fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Consultant has received payment by the City, the Consultant shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1.5 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Consultant shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 11. Independent Consultant. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 12. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its 3