Loading...
032309 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2009 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Roll Call Mayor Lizee Bailey Turgeou Woodruff Zerby 7:00 p.m. A. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 minutes 7:00 p.m. A. City Council Work Session Minutes, 3/9/09 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, 3/9/09 Minutes C. City Council Work Session Minutes, 3/16/09 Minutes 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on 5 minutes 7:05 p.m. Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE. Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List B. City Clerk's License List Deputy Clerk's memorandum C. Change Order for the Water Meter Engr's. memo, Replacement Project, City Project 07-04 Resolution 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 10 minutes 7:10 p.m. (No Council action will be taken) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report on Lake Minnetonka Communications 10 minutes 7:20 p.m. Commission activities by Representative Patrick Hodapp CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - MARCH 239 2009 Page 2 of 2 Attachments Esti ate Estimated Time in Start Time Minutes (Clock Time) 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS - Report by Representative 5 minutes 7:30 p.m. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative 5 minutes 7:35 p.m. A. Zoning Text Amendment Planning 20 minutes 7:40 p.m. Applicant: South Tonka Little League Director's Location: Freeman Park Ball Fields memo; Draft Resolution 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Proposal for Professional Design Engineer's 10 minutes 8:00 P.M. Services for Harding Lane memorandum B. Accept Proposal for Professional Design Engineer's 10 minutes 8:10 p.m. Services for Smithtown Lane memorandum 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. CenterPoint / Xcel Franchise Administrator's 10 minutes 8:20 p.m. memorandum B. Southshore Center Administrator's 30 minutes 8:30 p.m. memorandum C. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District update Administrator's 10 minutes 9:00 P.M. by Representative Dick Woodruff memorandum 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 5 minutes 9:10 p.m. 1. City Hall Construction Update B. Mayor and City Council 5 minutes 9:15 p.m. 12. ADJ OURN 1 minute 9:20 p.m. i 1 T 5755 COUib i ,W CLU-' C ® ;C=WC:)D, L. , .,:ESO T°A 55331-8927 ® (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 23 March, 2009 Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #313: This is an informational item a few businesses have completed the license requirements and have been issued a license to provide Lawn Fertilizer and Tree Trimmer service in the City. Agenda Item #3C: On May 29, 2007, the Shorewood City Council awarded the contract for replacement of a portion of the city's water meters and automated system to Northern Water Works. At the July 28, 2008 Council Work Session, staff was directed to pursue continuing the water meter replacement project. Quotes have been received for this work. Northern Water Works Supply has provided the low quote. Since they are the firm that is under contract for phases one and two, staff is recommending Change Order 3 that awards the next phase to this firm in the amount of $90,500. Agenda Item #5A: Representative Patrick Hodapp is scheduled to provide a report on the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission activities. Agenda Item 47A: A Park Commission representative will report on the recent Park Commission meeting and activities. Agenda Item #8A: South Tonka Little League has requested amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow them to display commercial advertising signs on the outfield fences of the two fields they use at Freeman Park. Since this is as much a park issue as a signage/zoning issue, the Park Commission was asked to review and comment on the request. Unanimously, they recommended to the Planning Commission and Council that the request be denied. In addition to concerns about overall signage in the city, they felt that the parks should remain free of commercial advertising. Along with that recommendation they agreed that the City should review its level of maintenance in the parks. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request, which included amendments to six provisions in the current code. They agreed, also unanimously, with the Park Commission that public property should not be used for commercial purposes. Since the application was submitted on 26 January, the Council must take action at the 23 March meeting in order to comply with the 60-day rule. For PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 23 March, 2009 Page 2 of 2 this reason and based upon unanimous recommendations by the Park and Planning Commissions, staff has prepared a draft resolution for your consideration. Agenda Item #9A: Three firms submitted proposals for a feasibility study and surveying for the proposed Harding Lane street project. WSB and Associates, Inc. provided a complete and reasonable quotation for the work. Staff recommends approval of the proposal from WSB and Associates, Inc. and authorize staff to order a soils report. Agenda Item #913: Three firms submitted proposals for a feasibility study and surveying for the proposed Smithtown Lane street project. WSB and Associates, Inc. provided a complete and reasonable quotation for the work. Staff recommends approval of the proposal from WSB and Associates, Inc. and authorize staff to order a soils report. Agenda Item #IOA: CenterPoint and Xcel both requested execution of a franchise agreement and provided draft agreements. Staff is seeking input and direction from the Council regarding the establishment of possible franchise fees. Agenda Item #IOB: Council is being asked to consider two agreements to keep the Southshore community center operational through April 30 while efforts are made to find an organization to manage the center. The LMCC would also like the Council to consider a revised offer to purchase the building. Agenda Item #IOC: Council member Woodruff will present answers to questions raised during his LMCD presentation at the March 9"' meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2009 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUT SHORE CENTER 6:00 P.M. Mayor Liz6e called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Liz6e; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon. Woodruff and Zerby; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. SOUTHSHORE CENTER Administrator Heck explained in mid-February 2009 the friends of the Southshore Center dissolved. The Friends had been responsible for managing the Center's operations prior to dissolving. This placed that responsibility on the five owners of the facility which are the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and "fonl:a llmy (the Cities). "I'lie Cities have individually been discussing what to do with the facility. Durin,11 its February 23, 2009, meeting Council discussed taking a two track approach. Council wanted Staff to determine how to market the facility for sale. Council also wanted to keep the Center operational during March to give the cities time to discuss what they wanted to do with the facility in the long term. Heck then explained the Lake Minnctonka Communications Commission (LMCC) had been approached about possibly purchasing the facility; the LMCC is considering purchasing its current facility. He met with Sally l,~oenecke (LMCC Executive Director), an architect for the LMCC and a contractor to discuss if the facility could be renovated to accommodate the operational needs of the LMCC. The LMCC has submitted a "terms" sheet for the purchase of the facility to the Cities. Heck then explained the Deephaven Council wants to market and sell the Center. The Excelsior Council wants to have the Center continue to operate as a Community Center. The Greenwood Council's preference is to have the Center continue to operate as a Community Center. The Tonka Bay Council is open to possibility of selling the Center, but only after a few of its questions have been answered (e.g., what is the market value of the building and how will it be determined?). He has received over twelve phone calls from residents expressing their desire to have the Center continue to operate as a Community Center. Four of the five cities would have to agree to selling the facility, and the Shorewood Council would have to determine whether or not it wants to exercise the Shorewood Option in the Cooperative Agreement (i.e., this option gives Shorewood the first right of refusal for acquiring the facility). Per the Cooperative Agreement a fair market value would have to be determined. Unfortunately, the Agreement does not explain what process would be used to determine fair market value. #Za CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES Match 9, 2009 Rage 2 of 6 Heck recommended the Center continue to operate as a Community Center for the remainder of 2009. During that time the Cities should look for a partner or partners to manage and operate the facility, provide programming, and increase the use of the facility. If there is no success in finding a suitable partner(s) and/or the Cities can not reach agreement on amendments to the Cooperative Agreement during 2009, then the facility should be put up for sale. Heck stated he had provided the Cities' Councils with information about booked rentals for 2009; names of organizations or people who have rented over the last 12-month period; actual expense and revenue information for 2008; projected expense and revenue information for 2009 2012 (both with and without including the costs to fund capital reserves for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility). If the Cities could agree to some reasonable arrangement with South Shore Senior Partners (SSSP) to operate the facility through 2009, he projected the Cities would have to contribute an approximate total of $3,600 for Center operations for 2009 based on past rental histories. The use of the CeiAter had not been actively marketed over the last few years. Therefore, he thought if tluc Cites actively ❑iarketed the use of the Center the number of rentals could be increased. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought the Greenwood Council did specify a few caveats relating to managing the operations of the Center, yet Administrator Heck had not discussed them. It is her understanding that if a suitable management partner could not be found the Greenwood Council is willing to sell the facility. Administrator Heck explained in a letter drafted earlier in the day Greenwood Mayor Kind stated the agreement between the Friends and SSSP is not valid agreement. Mayor Kind also stated the Greenwood City Council hopes the Center can remain viable as a Conunuunity and Senior Center. The letter did not specify any caveats. He had spoken with the Greenwood City Administrator earlier in the day who indicated the Greenwood Council tivanted there to be a management arrangement with another party to manage the operations of the Center. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) was mentioned as a possibility. He noted he had not spoken with NICE about the possibility of managing the Center, but he had spoken with NICE about expanded programming and that would be contingent on space availability. MCE prefers not to pay rent as it doesn't do so for other facilities. He stated lie received an email from Best & Flanagan LLP (\wtno cloes sonic financial vwork on behalf of the Minnetonka School District) who indicated it was going to talk to the District about whether or not the District had any interest in using the Center. Councilmember Turgeon stated approximately 1 - 1.5 years ago MCC indicated they wanted the Cities to pay it $50,000 $60,000 to manage the Center. She then stated she thought the Friends had entered into an agreement with MCE to provide expanded programming, but she has not seen a copy of that agreement. Administrator Heck stated he was not aware of any discussions related to that, and he has not had the opportunity to talk with MCE. Councilmember Zerby questioned if Council would be interested in building a Community Center today if the Southshore Center did not exist. He stated the agreements the Cities and the Friends entered into when the Center was built are not as comprehensive as they should have been to address the current circumstances. He asked the Councilmembers what they thought the City should do for the senior residents in the South Lake area. He then asked is a Community Center something the City should provide as an amenity to them in some way or fashion, or is it something the City should provide only if there is no ongoing cost to do so. He went on to ask if the City was willing to invest in senior programs in some manner without it being a breakeven situation. CITE' OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Mayor Liz6e stated Council has to decide what the City's philosophy should be with regard to having a Community Center. She asked if Council thought the Center is an asset to the City and its residents. She noted the facility is paid for. She commented the Center serves the South Lake community as a whole, and that it has become known as the Southshore Senior Center because the seniors have been the most active in using the facility. She stated she attended the special Greenwood Council meeting earlier in the day when that Council discussed this topic, and she understood the Council to be interested in the continuing to operate the Center as a Community Center. She asked if Council viewed the Center as an asset which could be considered another park and recreation amenity for seniors and the greater community. The Center was managed well for a long time, but lately it has fallen on hard times and the use of it has not been marketed aggressively. She suggested Council focus on discussing its philosophy regarding a Community Center this evening. She noted there is a meeting of the Southshore Center working group the next day. Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point philosophy ties to budget She commented that Administrator Heck's revenue and expense projections did not factor in the cost to manage the Center. Mayor Liz6e stated she was confident the other councils understood there would be some cost to have someone manage the Center. Mayor Liz6e stated she emphatically wanted Council to discuss philosophy this evening. She wanted it decided prior to the meeting of the Southshore Center working group meeting the next day. She did not' think all the operating issues would be resolved this evening. Councilmember Bailey stated it is not inappropriate for the City to have some sort of Community Center provided it can be done in a cost effective manner. If it required an open ended financial commitment there would likely be apprehension to do so. He e,\pressed concern other options had not been considered for providing opportunities for seniors to gather, and other options would have a more predictable financial impact. He thouglit there were other facilities that could be pursued for conducting senior activities. The Cities built the Center and they also established a partnership with an organization to manage and fund the operations o1' the Center. That organization has since dissolved. Although there were ultimately flaws with that arrangement, it did work for a significant amount of time. The original intent was for the Cities to build a facility anotlier organization would operate. He thought it prudent for Council to discuss if it wants to be in the landlord business if the prior approach to operating the Center will not «rork. I le stated the 15-year old building is likely to have serious structural issues with it in the next 10 20 years. He recommended the Cities at least research alternatives which would not involve them being in the landlord business. Councilmember Zerby stated lie was not aware of other facilities that could be used for activities currently held in the Center. He views the Community Center as a recreational amenity. He stated he did not think the sports 1-kids in City parks pay for themselves. He thought a developer would pay $2 million to acquire Freeman Parl: for a development. He thought the City needed to provide for life cycle recreation; recreation starting with children playing in the sand box to seniors playing bingo. Councilmember Turgeon asked Councilmember Zerby if the City should own the Center by itself if the other Cities pulled out. Zerby responded that because the City has at least 50 percent of the South Lake area population he would consider that. Zerby stated the City's ball fields are used by individuals residing outside of the City. Turgeon stated she understood Zerby to say he would be willing to have the City pay the operational and long-term maintenance costs to keep the Center operational for one user group. Zerby stated over 60 people or organizations have used the Center in the last 12 months. Mayor Liz6e stated the Center is located in the City, the Cities entered into a Cooperative Agreement when they built the Center and the City has the first right of refusal if the Cities decide to sell the Center. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Councilmember Woodruff stated the Cities decided to invest $622,000 to build the Center in 1996 and entered into an agreement with the Friends to manage and operate the Center and provide programming services at no cost to the Cities. That worked for a number of years until Federal, State and other agencies grant funding disappeared. Late 2006 the City contributed $6,500 toward operating expenses of the Center; the City had never envisioned it would have that expense. In 2007 the City was asked to contribute $14,000 towards expenses, but chose to contribute only $7,500. During 2008 budget discussions the Friends asked the City to contribute more than $21,000 in 2008 towards expenses. The other Cities contributed a combined amount that was approximately the same. The funds for expenses were in addition to the finds generated by the Friends through fundraising efforts, rentals, etc. Woodruff then stated Administrator Heck's projection for 2009 is actually $4,200 and not $3,600. If a contribution to a capital reserve fund were included in the projections the 2009 cost to the Cities will be significantly higher. On February 11, 2009, the Friends submitted a letter to the Cities that it had dissolved and had transferred its assets to SSSP. During the February 23, 2009, Council meeting he requested the Cities be provided with a business plan for operating the Center and he stated he supported the City being involved in operating the Center durin- March while the Cities decided on the long-term future of the Center. SSSP has indicated it wants to rent the Center for 8.5 hours a day Monday - Friday for a monthly cost of $600. He has no clue who belongs to SSSI', NN hat SSSP's financial situation is, what SSSP is going to use the Center for, or how SSSP is going to Chance whatever it's going to do. He questioned how he could trust SSSP was going to do anything. Ile stated, from his vantage point, there is no plan for delivering services to seniors if the Center remains open. MCE has not made a commitment to providing services to the seniors. Woodruff went on to state the Friends had a $59,000 miscellaneous expense in 2008 and he understood that a substantial amount of that expense was for programming. n siinilar amount is not included in the projections for 2009 - 2012. Ile questioned how that expense will be fimded in 2009. He expressed he was totally disenchanted with tluis situation. Woodruff explained in nuLIust 2008 the Friends informed the Cities that it wanted to amend its current lease agreement with the Cities. from nMIust 2008 through December 2008 the Cities squabbled about how the lease should be amended. The Cities then began squabbling about how to amend the Cooperative Agreement between the Cities. The. only purpose of the Agreement was to get the building built. The agreement does not specify anything about how the Cities would work together to operate the Center should the need arise. The City volunteered to run the Center during March 2009, and there is no guarantee that the City will be reimbursed by the Cities for 50 percent of the costs to do so. The Cities have not been able to agree on iamendments to the Agreement, nor have they agreed to an interim agreement for operating the Center on the short term. He expressed he was absolutely disappointed. SSSP has no business Plan. The Cities cannot agree on what to do going forward and he does not think that is going to change. I le stated this is a nonsensical situation. In 1996, building the Center and entering into an agreement with the Friends to manage and operate the Center was a good idea and it was a good idea for a while, but over the last 3 - 5 years it has become less and less of a good idea to the point that it is now dysfunctional. He was unsure if it ever could work and he has not yet been provided with a plan showing how it could work. He again expressed he was very, very disappointed. Councilmember Zerby stated this is the fifth regular Council meeting he has attended as a Councilmember. Therefore, he has not had an opportunity to have heard discussion about many of the questions asked this evening. He commented crafting the joint powers agreement for police services took more than one year; it is difficult to reach agreement among cities. He also commented things do changed. He questioned how the facility Could ever be replaced if it was sold. He thought the current problems could be resolved if given a fair chance. He recommended Council decide on a program that CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 5 of 6 will work for the City's residents. He expressed confidence that a suitable partner can be found to operate the Center. Mayor Liz6e stated she thought the other Cities likely had similar questions to some of those asked this evening. The dissolution of the Friends organization and the creation of the SSSP organization have resulted in some unanswered questions. For example, who belongs to SSSP and does SSSP have a business plan for use of the Center? The Cities need their questions answered. Councilmember Turgeon stated the cook at the Center makes $40 per hour. People were charged $3 per lunch. Therefore, the Friends must have subsidized part of that cost. Mayor Liz6e stated the Friends had stated it was subsidizing lunch because it wanted to improve the menu offerings. Turgeon stated the Friends Board had discussed the Friends attempt to recoup the cost for lunch, but chose not to. Mayor Liz6e again asked the Councilmembers if they thought the Center is an asset for the community, and if they were willing to continue the program and find a suitable management partner to help make the Center successful. When the building was built the Cities all agreed they did not want to manage the facility, and the Cities have reaffirmed that during discussions over the last 2 years. She asked Council if it was willing to pursue finding a suitable partner to manage the Center. Councilmember Turgeon stated the Cities have been discussing the Center's operations, management of and funding since 2006. Therefore, she is willing to put the facility, up for sale at this time. There are other facilities in the community that can be used for providing services to seniors; Mount Calvary and St. Johns both have large facilities the City could rent and the seniors could play bridge in City Hall on Thursdays. Councilmember Bailey stated the Cities should take atwo track approach where they would consider the sale of the facility at the same time they look for a management partner who can produce a viable business plan for operating the Center. He recommended the Cities aggressively pursue the serious offer from the LMCC, and if the offer proves attractive to the Cities and a viable alternative is not found for operating and managing the Center then he would be willing to sell the building. Councilmember Zerby stated lie does not want to sell the building. He thought some of this current situation has been preordained. He stated during a July 24, 2006, Council work session Councilmember Turgeon expressed interest in getting rid of the Center (per the minutes of that meeting). During that same meeting Turgeon stated the Long Lake Community Center had recently been closed. From his vantage point there appears to have been opposition to operating the Center for some time. The way the joint powers agreement between the Cities is crafted makes it unfavorable for the Cities to support it; it is not ad valorem based. The Center is a unique amenity the community has, and it would be very difficult to replace. Turgeon stated she took offense with Zerby's comments because she has put in significant number of hours at the Center, and from her vantage point she has not done anything to keep the Center from functioning. Councilmember Woodruff stated during a December 2008 Council meeting the City Attorney (at that time) explained the Cities purposely did not want to enter into a joint powers agreement for building the Center, and chose to enter into a Cooperative Agreement. He commented the Cooperative Agreement was a "half-way agreement" which only addressed construction of the facility. He stated the Cities have been trying to amend the Cooperative Agreement since late 2008 to address the operations of the Center. His read on what has happened with the other Cities' councils is they are saying "if they" would take care of trying to figure out how to make this work, then "they" could go ahead and do that and "we'll" go along with making a contribution. He expressed "there ain't no they" and as far as he is concerned Shorewood is not the "they". He stated he is willing to have the Center operate until the end of March. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORD SESSION MEE'T'ING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Mayor Lizee asked Director Nielsen what the property zoning is of the land the Center is on, what allowed the building to be constructed on the property, who owns the parking lot, what the allowable uses for the property are, and what process would have to be followed if the building were to be sold. She stated there would have to be a commercial appraisal done of the facility before it could be sold. Nielsen explained the property is zoned R-2A, Single and Two Family Residential. Public buildings and government regulated buildings are allowed by conditional use permit within residential districts. The Center and the LMCC both fall into those uses. The Center owns an extrernely tiny parcel of property; in effect a line was drawn around the building and canopy and the City deeded that parcel over. The Center has very tittle of its own parking. If another use came in it would have to go'through the conditional use permit process which includes holding a public hearing. The City would have to enter into some type of long-term parking arrangement or lease. In response to a question from Councilmember Zerby, Director Nielsen explaioed the property does have frontage on County Road 19. Currently the access is off of Country Club Road over the City owned property. Tina Brandhorst 27225 Smithtown Road, stated she has been a resident of the City for over 30 years. She commented she usually does not get involved in these types of things,. and she has never been on the Friends Board. She stated she has volunteered at the Center on a very limited basis, and she is reaching the age where she would like to become more involved. She expressed disappointment that she may not have that opportunity. She stated it would be very unfortunate to lose the Center as a resource; once it's gone it's gone. If a future Council determined a Community Center would be of value there would be no place to construct it. There are parks and recreation facilities for children and youth. She had not heard Council discuss the costs for providing ice rinks and bal I parks. The building is already bought and paid for. It's only a matter of how it will be utilized. I lie argwnent should not be how it can be sold; it should be how it can be utilized. She thought it would be a really big mistake to sell the building. 3. ADJOURN Turgeou moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of March 9, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. Motion passed -5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARL 9, 2009 MEETING 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTIIS ORE CENTER 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Tietjen; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton: Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Laudini Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, February 23, 2009 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of February 23, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 23, 2009 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2009, as presented. iTMotion passed 5/0. C. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 2, 2009 Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of March 2, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List, checks numbered 48018-48110, totaling $288,140.68. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 2 of 14 B. Adopting SOLUTION NO. 9-013, "A Resolution Appointing Brian Heck, City Ad inistrator/Clerk, as the Data Practices Responsible Authority." C. Special Event Permit for Knewtson Health Group 5K Run (This was moved to Item I O.F under General/new Business.) D. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Amendment (This was moved to Item I O.G under General/new Business.) E. Phone and Data Services Agreement F. Park Consultant Services Contract Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS There was no report because there had not beeina Park Commission meeting since the last City Council regular meeting. A meeting is scheduled for March 10, 2009. 8. PLANNING Commissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 3, 2009, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He elaborated on the discussion that occurred with regard to South Tonka Little League's (STLL's) request for text amendments to the City's Zoning Code that would allow it to display commercial advertising signs on the ball-field fences of the two fields in Freeman Park. He noted the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend the request be denied and it recommended Council consider having the City find more of the maintenance of and improvements to the two ball fields. In response to a question from Mayor Liz6e, Director Nielsen explained the applicant is charged a fee to process requests to cover staff time, publishing costs, etc. The applicant is not charged by the number of text amendments that would be required. The application fee was $600, but because there has been a lot of staff time involved in dealing with this request STLL was asked to deposit additional money. He commented that the mailing costs to notify surrounding property owners was over $100. He stated when an applicant signs an application they sign an agreement that they will pay the City's costs. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Water Tower Change Order Director Brown stated the meeting packet included a proposed change order for the SE Area Water Tower Rehabilitation project for an amount of $4,951.13. He noted this is the first change order for the project. The change order involved the need to install temporary heaters in the Tower to help the epoxy coating cure in the cold weather. The change order represents a 1.3 percent increase to the contract. Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution approving the change order and authorizing the final acceptance of the project subject to the final documentation being submitted. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO 09-015, "A Resolution Approving Change Order I for the S.E. Area Water Tower Rehabilitation Project and Accepting Final Improvements, City Project No. 05-04." Motion passed 5/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Southshore Center Administrator Heck explained in mid-February 2009 the Friends of the Southshore Community Center (the Friends) dissolved. The Friends had been responsible for managing the operations of the Southshore Center (the center) prior to dissolving. This placed that responsibility on the five owners of the facility which are the Cities of Deephw en.. [?xcelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay (the Cities). The Cities have individually been discussing v~ li tt to do with the facility since that time. Heck stated Council had again discussed this topic during its work session immediately preceding this meeting, and he had a few points lie wanted to make with regard to questions asked or comments made during that work session. He explained that to date the Cities have not had the opportunity to meet and discuss the two options Council discussed during its February 23rd meeting. Council wanted to keep the Center operational during March to give the Cities time to discuss what they wanted to do with the facility in the long term, and it wanted Staff to determine how to market the facility for sale. The expense and revenue projections he prepared for 2009 - 2012 do not include $60,000 for management of the Center because he does not know what it will cost for another organization to manage the Center. The $59,000 miscellaneous expense incurred by the Friends in 2008 was for Senior Community Services (SCS) staff; SCS had full time person managing programming. A representative from Community Rec Resources has indicated that organization could manage programming services for substantially less then $60,000. Heck then explained South Shore Senior Partners (SSSP) is running senior programs similar to the way the Friends had done so in the past. He has had preliminary conversations about reworking an agreement with SSSP, but to date he has not be directed to do so. A letter fi-orn the City to SSSP regarding the invalid rental agreement with the Cities indicated the City was open to negotiating a different arrangement with SSSP if it was still interested in renting space. Greenwood and Tonka Bay indicated SHOREWO D CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 4 of 14 similar positions in their respective letters to SSSP. He has had preliminary conversations with Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) and with the church that is currently renting the facility about possibly managing the Center. Neither Council nor any of the other four Cities have given him direction to take the lead to negotiate a contract with other potential management organizations, develop a business plan for the continued operation of the Center, get a commercial appraisal for the Center or anything else related to the future of the Center. He commented that per the Cooperative Agreement between the Cities, Shorewood would have to provide access to the facility. Heck stated his personal opinion is rushing to sell the facility may not be in the best interest of the community and it may no be the best public policy. He commented the Cities have had sufficient time to discuss financing of the facility when the Friends organization was still in existence. The entire operation of the Center changed significantly when the Friends dissolved. The Cities' councils have not had the opportunity to discuss continued operations of the Center, providing senior services at other locations or the potential sale of the facility. Mayor Lizee stated a meeting of the SOnthshore Center working group is scheduled to meet on March 10, 2009, to discuss the future of the Center. The group consists of the Cities' administrators or managers and one elected official from each city. Administrator Heck stated the City has three options to consider. 'I lie first is to determine a way to continue operations at the Center. The second is to market the facility for sale on the open market including consideration of selling it to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (the LMCC has expressed interest in purchasing the facility). Lastly, the City can withdraw from the Cooperative Agreement and leave the future of the Center to the other four Cities to address. Councilmember Zerby stated it's been approximately 30 days since the Cities received notification from the Friends that it dissolved. He thou,-Ilht it \oould not be prudent to rush a sale of the facility. He commented Council had chosen to wait to consider selling the City-owned property until March 2009 (if the City-owned house could not be rented) with the hope market conditions would improve. He questioned what the reason is to liquidate the :facility so rapidly when a rapid sale approach was not considered for the City-owned property. Vic thought it prudent to take time to solicit public input about the future of the Center. In response to a comment from Councilmember Bailey, Administrator Heck stated it is his understanding the LMCC needs the Cities to decide if they want to sell the LMCC the facility by month-end. Bailey stated he supports having continued discussion, but a deadline for completing discussions needs to be determined (whether that be six months, one year, or one month). He did not want the timeline to be open ended. He thought the possibility of the LMCC purchasing the facility would be one of the most attractive proposals the Cities would receive (it meets the City's zoning requirements) should the Cities decide to sell it. He thought it would be a mistake to let the LMCC's proposal expire while the Cities discuss a possible sale of the facility. Councilmember Woodruff stated that fact that SSSP is operating the Center similar to the way the Friends did does not constitute a plan. He does not know if SSSP will stop that next week. He stated the $59,000 spent for SCS services in 2008 could be a placeholder for 2009. Including that placeholder and $15,000 for reserves would result in an approximate $80,000 deficit for 2009 rather than the approximate $19,000 identified in the projections. The City's share of that deficit would be approximately $38,000, and that is a substantial amount of money for the City and the other four Cities' shares would be substantial as well. The $4,000 deficit in the projections, not including reserves, is not a valid number to consider because a reserve find has to be created. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 5 of 14 Councilmember Zerby stated a $60,000 placeholder for the cost to manage the Center is a guess. He commented $38,000 would be less than what the City has spent to resurface its termis courts and do some other park improvements, and that assumes a $60,000 expense for management services which he does not agree with. Options for providing management services have not been researched. He noted the City has more than $100,000 allocated in 2009 for park improvements. Councilmember Turgeon stated she is willing to consider options for management services. If a suitable organization can be found to operate the Center then she wants that and a business plan for operating the Center completed by March 31, 2009. If that does not happen, she wants to pursue a buyer for the facility. Based on feedback from Director- Nielsen, a Montessori school and a church would be allowable uses for the property; an office building would not be. She commented she listened to a discussion by the Excelsior Council, and that Council thought the facility could be worth $1.15 million. She thought that amount was unrealistic because of the restricted uses for the property, there is no parking and there are easement issues. She noted the Shorewood Option in the Cooperative Agreement stipulates the City would have the first right of refusal to purchase the facility if the Cities decide to sell it. She wants all Cities' to agree to a final option by March 31 S` Mayor Liz6e stated it would be wonderful to have the Cities to agree to a path for moving forward by March 31s`, but it is difficult enough to get five people to agree let alone 25 people. The financing discussions that had occurred over the last two years are no lodger the focus because of the dissolution of the Friends. During the Council work session just prior to this meeting she asked the Councilmembers about their thoughts regarding options for management scrviccs. She commented a commercial appraisal would have to be done for the facility before it could he sold. She stated the LMCC terms sheet indicates the LMCC is willing to pay $360,000 for the facility mzcr a10-year period using a lease to purchase arrangement, and it must have a decision from the Cities by March 31". From her perspective the LMCC's hurry-up approach has the feel of a hard-sell approach where the deal must be closed immediately or the deal is off the table. She does not want the City to rush into anything. She stated the LMCC indicated it would need to acquire additional land for an attached garage. If the Cities' were to consider selling to the LMCC. it v, III take lon-or than one month to even reach agreement. She suggested the first step down the markct-for-sale path should be to get a commercial appraisal done of the facility. The Southshore Center working group is scheduled to meet the next day to discuss options which include continued operations of the Center and selling the facility. She stated Administrator Heck has the skills to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) from the Cities for management services, and to work with SSSP to prepare some type of agreement. Someone has to take the initiative to find out what's available to the Cities in this market. This could be discussed at the meeting of the working group tomorrow. Councilmember Woodruff asked Attorney Tietjen if the City has the right to exercise the Shorewood Option because the Friends dissolved. Tietjen stated the Cooperative Agreement specifies upon termination of the lease term one of the three things that can occur is the City exercising the Shorewood Option. Woodruff stated Council could decide to buy the Center during this meeting. Doing so would solve Councilmember Zerby's concern that the Center would disappear, as well as avoid the potential situation of the Cities not being able to agree to what the future of the Center should be. The City can buy the Center for $311,000 per the Cooperative Agreement (the amount of money the other four Cities collectively contributed to construct the facility), and the Agreement also specifies what the City would have to do if it sold the facility within a specified window. If the City were to exercise the Shorewood Option there is no obligation to obtain an appraisal. If the City chose to buy the facility, the City Council could then decide what it wants to do with the Center. SI OREWOOD CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 6 of 14 Councilmember Zerby stated obtaining an appraisal would be to the taxpayers' benefit to be able to sell the facility for the highest amount possible. He questioned if the facility could be used for the Excelsior Library. He also thought there could be other possible uses for the facility than just the LMCC. He stated he did not understand what the reason is for LMCC's sense of urgency with regard to purchasing the facility. He then stated lie could support a 6-month time period to complete addressing the long-term future of the Center, noting Councilmember Bailey had suggested a 6-month time period. He wanted a list of tasks that must be completed in that time period to be identified. He thought having a deadline of March 31" is unrealistic as this Council has just one regular meeting prior to that date and there is a lot of work that has to done by someone. Mayor Lizee noted Hennepin County Library is not interested in having the Excelsior Library relocated to outside of Excelsior. Administrator Heck stated the Cooperative Agreement stipulates the facility may be sold to a third party at the fair market value. How the fair market value would be determined is not specified. Mayor Lizee stated LMCC Chair/Spring Park representative Tom Scanlon, LMCC Executive Director Sally Koenecke, and the City's representative on the LMCC Pat 1 lodapp were present this evening. Mr. Scanlon stated the LMCC has been in discussions for the last six months about where it should operate out of, and it considered 20 - 30 different options. After reviewing the options, it was decided that LMCC representatives would approach its member cities about purchasing the facility it currently leases. The LMCC has not yet signed any agreement with the owner about the purchase of the facility. He commented all of this was done before LMCC representatives became aware that the Center could be available for purchase. LMCC staff has since looked at the Center to determine if it can satisfy the LMCC's needs, noting the ceiling will have to be raised. K4riovation would cost approximately $150,000. Mr. Scanlon provided a little history about the LMCC, and he noted its revenues come from cable television franchise and PEG fees. Ile stated the ],MCC is fiscally sound. He explained the LMCC planned to make a decision regarding the purcliasQ of the facility it currently leases by month-end. The LMCC's lease expired a munbcr of months ago. The LMCC has received extensions from the property owner to remain in the facility on a month-tt?-month basis while the LMCC negotiated purchase terms, and he did not think the LMCC could g6X an additional extension. He commented the LMCC's attorney has indicated there are some State Statutes that will influence a LMCC facility purchase. In response to a question from Councilmember Zerby, Mr. Scanlon stated the purchase price for the facility it leases is $319,000. In response to another question, Mr. Scanlon stated the LMCC has to have completed a contract for deed purchase agreement by month-end or it has 90 days from the end of March to move out of the lease facility. Mr. Scanlon stated that once the LMCC decides to purchase a facility it has to come before all seventeen LMCC member cities to gain majority approval to purchase a facility. Councilmember Woodruff stated he also represents the City on the LMCC. Tile LMCC has already been granted another lease extension to allow it time to consider the purchase of the Center, and there are no assurances the landlord will grant any more extensions. He then stated the Center is a much more appropriate facility for the LMCC; the existing leased facility would be a five year solution while the Center would be longer term solution. The LMCC has to make a decision about what it wants to do. He noted the LMCC has already delayed some budgeted capital improvements requiring installation of equipment until it makes a decision about where to locate its operations. Mr. Scanlon explained if the LMCC purchased the other facility it would have equity in it in five years that would help when identifying a longer-term solution for the LMCC. The Center is a solution the SHOREWOOD CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Rage 7 of 14 LMCC would like to have in the long-term; therefore, it makes more sense to pursue it now. It would be regretful if the LMCC purchased the lease facility and then in 3 - 6 months the Cities decide they want to sell the Center. Councihnember Bailey stated he could appreciate the LMCC's situation, but he did not understand why the LMCC's March 31st date could not be extended to April 30t". He thought it would be foolish for the LMCC to give the Cities a deadline that is clearly not doable. He also thought it would also be to the LMCC's detriment to look back six months from now and think it should have given the Cities an extra month. Mayor Liz6e stated she did not appreciate the feeling of pressure from the LMCC. It's the LMCC's problem to find an appropriate space for its operations. She hoped the Cities would consider the long-term future of the Center, and not react to short term issues or opportunities. She explained that in the 1980s the Minnetonka School District was experiencing a shrinking population and discussed selling West Junior High School. It did not do so; it leased the building out instead. In a few years the population size increased, and the District tools possession of the School. The School was eventually remodeled and expanded. She stated the Cities had the foresight marry years ago to take the time and effort to agree to building the Center. The Center is paid for and it is a wonderful asset to the community. The Cities need more time to consider the future of the Center, and they need to consider future needs of the community. Councilmember Bailey stated there are potentially form of the five Cities willing to sell the facility. He encouraged the LMCC to extend the decision date, and he t110 ght the LMCC would be within its rights to extend the date to April 30`x'. Mr. Scanlon stated the LMCC's timeframe is limited and lie wanted to be open and direct about that. He then stated he did not ]snow if extending the date vaould be possible. Councilmember Zerby stated he did not thinl: a 30-day extension would be unreasonable. Mr. Scanlon stated it may come down to emotions with the property owner; the owner thought he was close to an agreement to sell his propert} Derby stated the LMCC's offer seems too low. He explained if the mortgage rates for a ten year period \a cre backed out of the $360,000 offer, the purchase price would be approximately $290,000. Mr. Scanlon stated the $360,000 amount was stated to start discussions. Ms. Koenecke stated the LMCC is not a commercial business. It is a government agency and it provides a community service. Mayor Liz6e asked for direction from Council. Woodruff moved authorizing the execution of the Shorewood Option to purchase the Southshore Center. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the motion passes then Staff should be directed to determine how to make that work. The amenity would remain in the City under the City's control. It would be available to the other communities. Acquiring the facility would get the City out of the situation where 25 council members have to agree to things. Turgeon seconded. Councihnember Zerby stated he is not in favor of doing this. The Center serves the community as a whole and he wanted the opportunity to discuss this with the other four Cities' councils. There is a meeting of SHOD WOOD CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 8 of 14 the Southshore Center working group scheduled for the next day and the group should have the opportunity to discuss the future of the Center. He did not think it would be to the City's benefit to take the Center on as its total responsibility. He thought it would be unfair to the other Cities to not allow them the opportunity to discuss the long-term future of the Center and its importance to the community as a whole. In response to a suggestion from Councilmember Turgeon, Councihnember Woodruff stated he was not willing to amend his motion. Councihnember Bailey asked Councilmember Woodruff how he proposed the City would pay for the Center. Woodruff stated the City had approximately $890,000 in its Liquor Fund at the end of 2008 and if everyone thinks the facility is such a great asset to the community he can't think of a better use for some of the Liquor Fund then to acquire the facility. Director Burton stated if the Parks Capital hnprovement Program wants to consider this purchase as a recreational opportunity, then the City's Sewer Fund could make an internal loan for it. Woodruff stated the City has the financial wherewithal to fiord the $311,000 purchase in a day or two. Mayor Liz6e stated this idea is an interesting one, but this facilit. is for the five-city community. The Cities are meeting tomorrow and should have the opportunity to discuss this. She then stated she could not support the motion. Councilmember Zerby stated it is his understanding that the Council had agreed to hold a public hearing on the use of the Liquor Fund when it decided to sell the City's liquor operations, noting he was not a member of the Council at that time. To acquire the facility when there are so many outstanding questions about the cost to operate and maintain the Center does not make sense. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the Councilmcmbers think the Center is such an asset he challenged them to "put your money where your mouth is". Motion failed 2/3 with Bailey, Liz6e and Zerby dissenting. In response to a comment by Nlayor 1,1z.ec, Councilmember Zerby stated the absolute earliest there would be enough information to determine a direction would be April 30`x'. One of the things that would have to be completed by then would be a new/amended Cooperative Agreement between the Cities. Another would be a lease between a new management services provider and the Cities. A five-year business plan should also be completed by then. If that cannot be completed by then, then he would be interested in discussing the City acquiring the facility as a resource for the community. Councilmember Tu geon stated she perceived this is a stall tactic for each city to use, and the timetable should be shortened. Mayor Liz6e stated the April 30`x' deadline is too aggressive. It could easily take six months to complete the tasks. She noted one of the City's Councils meets monthly. Currently there is no one to manage the facility. SSSP has indicated it is doing that but there is no written agreement. There are renters for the Center, and there are ongoing programming services being provided at the Center. Councihnember Turgeon stated no one knows who the SSSP is, and it has not paid any rent as of yet. Mayor Liz6e stated SSSP has indicated they will pay $600 per month for rent. Director Burton was asked to research if SSSP has paid any rent. SI- OREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEE'T'ING MINUTES Match 9, 2049 Rage 9 of 14 Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point every day the current situation remains as is the City is spending money on the Center but has no a surances from the other four Cities that it will be reimbursed. He commented that during the recent Excelsior Council meeting that Council indicated Shorewood's legal counsel can do the necessary legal work. He stated in a different meeting he expressed his willingness for the City to fund the Center's operational costs for March if need be, but he does not want the City to do that for April. The agreement for paying for operational costs could be relatively informal, but there needs to be some agreement. When asked what the deal should be, Woodruff stated the Cities should split the operational costs (including a reasonable rate for Staff tinge) evenly during this interim period. Councilmember Zerby questioned why the costs would not be split on an ad valorem basis. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City would pay one half of the cost and yet have only one vote, and that made no sense to him. In response to a comment from Mayor Lizee, Councilmember Woodruff and Administrator Heck stated the Cooperative Agreement does not address how operational costs for the Center should be funded. It could be possible the costs for operating the Center could be distributed similarly to how the construction costs were distributed, but that has not been determined. Heck stated distributing the costs equally on an interim basis does have merit. Woodruff stated all Council is discussing is evenly splitting operating costs in the interim, noting the Cities do not know what the monthly opcrating costs are. Administrator Heck asked Council how long the interim; period should be. He suggested Council provide some direction on what it would like accomplished during that period. He and Mayor Lizee could discuss this with the other Cities during the meeting of the. Southshorc Carter working group. He also stated they could relay that this Council wants everyone to share equally in the operational costs during this interim. He noted the City's attorney cannot handle a potential sale of the facility to the LMCC due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Zerby stated Council has discussed the possibility of splitting the interim operational costs equally among the Cities. lie questioned what the other four Cities' reactions have been to that. Administrator Heck explained that tN pe ol' split has been made for the funding long-term maintenance costs prior to the Friends dissolving. The other Cities have expressed concern about that proposal. This proposal is for the interim operating costs only. Councilmember Woodruff stated during the interim period a business plan must be prepared, the financing for the Center has to be determined (including how it's split), and a suitable management services provider has to be found. He then stated he was not willing for this interim period to be open ended. Mayor Lizee asked how long Administrator Heck thought it would take to complete the items identified. Councilmember Woodruff stated he did not think it was just Heck's responsibility; the other four Cities should be involved in this. Lizee stated it is Heck's job to work with the other Cities' representatives. She then stated Council's expectations have to be reasonable based on the time allowed. Administrator Heck questioned if it made sense to work on a long-range plan to manage the facility if the facility is going to be sold. He stated it would be difficult to talk with people about renting and managing the facility if the facility is going to be sold in 3 - 6 months. Councilmember Zerby suggested lie and Councilmember Tuugeon work with Administrator Heck to accomplish the interim objectives, noting he and Turgeon have opposing views on the Center's future. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 10 of 14 Administrator Heck stated the time needed to complete the interim tasks will depend on the willingness of the Cities' councils to negotiate. Absent that willingness it will be unlikely the situation will change. If it Council's direction that it wants some type of business plan for the long-term operation of the facility within 60 days then that message will be conveyed to the working group at its meeting tomorrow. Heck stated April 30`x' or May 31" deadlines are both aggressive dates to complete all of the tasks identified. He then stated he will also convey if the business plan and necessary agreements cannot be completed by a to-be-determined deadline then Council wants the facility put up for sale. Councilmember Zerby stated he could support an April 30`x' deadline, noting it will take a lot of staff time to pull this together. Councilmember Woodruff stated he could support an April 30`x' deadline, and he wanted assurances the City would be reimbursed for four-fifths of its costs including Staff time. The other Cities need to understand this matter is urgent and must be addressed accordingly. Councilmember Bailey stated he wanted a commercial appraisal done on the facility during this interim tinieframe. He suggested substantive negotiations be entered into with the LMCC. He could support extending the deadline to at least April 30"'. In response to a comment from Mayor Lizee, Councilmember Woodruff stated Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Hodapp have heard the Council's discussion and they can convey that to° the LMCC Executive Committee at its March 12`x' meeting. That Commitfee can then decide )fit wants to ask for an extension. Attorney Tietjen stated if the Cities successfully negotiate how to split long-term operating costs of the facility the Cooperative Agreement must be amended or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) must be agreed to. Any amendment to the Cooperative Agreement must be agreed to by four out of the five Cities. Councilmember Woodruff stated amending the Agreement would be complex, and he suggested entering into a MOU for this interim period. Councilmember Bailey questioned what happens if the City is turned down on its proposal for evenly splitting the operational costs in the interim. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council has to decide if it wants to execute the Shorewood Option to purchase the facility. Administrator Heck stated he thought the other Cities would be willing to split the costs, although lie could not speak on their behalf. Bailey stated if the other Cities will not agree then the City has to pursue other options. Councilmember Zerby stated he wanted to know what the City's exposure would be to buy the facility. B. 2009 Deer Management Program Director Nielsen explained the City contracted with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct a deer management program in the City in 2007 and 2008. The harvesting was done over four weekends each year. MBRB harvested 26 deer in 2007 and 23 in 2008. In 2007 an aerial survey done by the Three Rivers Park District showed there were 121 deer in the survey area. The 2008 survey showed 74 deer in the same area and a February 2009 survey showed 64 deer. He noted the surveys were a snapshot taken on a single day. He explained the City issued a special deer removal permit for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) for the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 seasons. During the first season 11 deer were removed from the MCC property and in the second season 8 deer were removed. SHOREWOOD CITY Ct)UNCIL, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Rage I I of 14 Nielsen stated Council had been provided with all of the written correspondence the City had received from residents regarding this program over the last year. Residents who called the City were encouraged to put their views about the program in writing. Nielsen stated Staff is seeking Council's direction as to whether or not it wants to have another harvest done in the City during 2009. Councilmember Turgeon suggested the program be suspended for 2009, and that another survey be conducted in 2010. She thought removing one-half of the herd was relatively good, although she did not know where some of the deer relocated to. Councilmember Woodruff did not think a clear set of goals for the program had been identified. He suggested the program be suspended for 2009, and that another survey be conducted in 2010. He also suggested MCC not be granted a special deer removal permit for the 2009/2010 season. Councilmember Zerby questioned if the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) had any guidelines for what a reasonable urban deer population should be. Director Nielsen stated the MN DNR basically believes each community should determine what it wants to have as its goal. A ratio of 25 deer per square mile had been mentioned. In response to another question. Nielsen stated the only special deer removal permit the City has issued was to the MCC. Nielsen suited for the 2008 harvest, a few residential properties were included in the harvest. Councilmember Zerby stated he could support suspendirn- the program for 2009. Councilmember Bailey stated MBRB has indicated the deer population level can return to pre-harvest levels within 1 - 2 years of no harvesting. He questioned what would be required to maintain the current level. Director Nielsen explained MBRII had provided the City with a number of options for maintaining existing levels, such as reducing the number of weelends the harvest occurs. Nielsen commented that residents in one of the areas harvested have noticed a reduction in the deer population. Bailey clarified the goal is not to eliminate all of the deer in the City, but the City does not want to return to a population where the City will again receive lots of coiliplaints. He wondered if it would not be better to continue with the program at a lower level. Mayor Lizee stated she would be in favor of reducing the number of days the harvesting occurred. She did not want to suspend the program entirely in 2009. She thought the MCC should have the opportunity to again request a special deer removal permit. Deer crossing roads can create hazardous situations. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought there should be an objective identified for the program. One could be to harvest up to a specific number of deer. Another could be to harvest enough to reduce the most recent aerial survey population to a certain number. He agreed the intent is not to eliminate all deer. He stated lie would be more inclined to limit the number of deer harvested than he would to reduce the number of harvesting days. Director Nielsen stated the majority of the deer harvested happens in the first two weekends. Councilmember Zerby suggested the goal could be to limit the number of deer harvested to one-half of what was harvested in 2008. Mayor Lizee questioned if the numbers being discussed were to please residents. She commented based on the number of deer in her backyard it seems as if the deer are giving birth to twins. SHOREWOOD CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 12 of 14 Woodruff moved, Turgeou seconded, suspending the City's deer removal program for 2009 and rejecting a potential request from the Minnetonka Country Club for a special deer removal permit for the 2009/2010 season. Motion passed 3/2 with Dailey and Liz& dissenting. There was Council consensus to have an aerial survey done in 2010. Director Nielsen stated Metro Bowhunters Resource Base has been absolutely professional during the 2007 and 2008 deer harvests; they made a concerted effort to do the harvest correctly while providing a service to the City. He thanked the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department for being prepared to provide assistance if needed, and the Public Works Department for its help. C. City Hall Signage Administrator Heck stated during its January 12, 2009, work session Council discussed outdoor signage for City Hall. He explained the design for City Hall calls for a shadow box style sign mounted on top of the archway extension on the main entrance. During that meeting Council discussed the need for a sign on the building or possibly having a monument sign instead. Heck indicated a Council member suggested mounting raised letters on the stone. He explained there are a fcw issues with mounting a sign on the stone. The first is part of the sign would not be visible from Country Club Road because of the bump out in the Council Chambers. The second is there is currentlti no lighting to illuminate the sign, although it could be added for additional cost. Also, a decision would limle to be made regarding what to do with the gap on top of the archway. He asked Council if they wantcd the sign per the original design. Mayor Liz& stated the original proposed sign with plasma-cut lettering is a strong design element of the renovated City Hall. The look of lettering mounted on the wilding would look pretty lame. The proposed sign design finishes the look. Installin~, the proposed sign does not preclude the need for a monument sign, but that can be addressed as part of the landscaping and parking lot discussions. She recommended the sign for City Hall be as originally agreed to as part of the design of City Hall; it would be located above the stone wall. Councilmember Woodruff stated is initiated the discussion about different types of signs during the January 12`x' and locating the sign on the stone wall is also his suggestion. He still does not like the sign. The renovation will be completed soon and there is a need for a sign on City Hall; therefore, he was willing to make a motion approving the sign. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the sign as originally designed using the same font as the font used on City letter head. Motion passed 5/0. D. City Owned Property 5795 Country Club Road Administrator Heck stated two families had toured the City-owned house. The family who toured the house today (it was their second time) wants to sign a one-year lease to rent the house effective April 1. He indicated the couple is willing to do a two-year lease and a potential option to buy. He asked Council to give him direction to contact the City's property manager to work with the family to secure a lease similar to the City's past lease. The house is currently marketed at a rental rate of $1,500 per month. There was Council consensus to have Administrator Heck contract the City's property manager and prepare a lease agreement for Council to review at its next regular meeting. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MELTING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 13 of 14 E. Report on Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Activities by Representatives Dick Woodruff and Lisa Whalen Councilmember Woodruff, the City's representative on the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), discussed his report on recent LMCD activities (as detailed in his report dated March 9, 2009, which was included in the meeting packet for this meeting). The highlights of the report are as follows. The LMCD relocated to Shorewood. The LMCD's Save-The- Lake Fund has assets of approximately $220,000 as of January 31, 2009. The LMCD Exotic Species Task Force met in February to review a proposal to treat three Lake Minnetonka bays for Eurasian watermilfoil. The LMCD, Mound and Shorewood have committed to funding for Phelps Bay, and it's anticipated Minnetrista and the MN DNR will also. A third strategic planning meeting is scheduled for March 18`x'. There will be an additional 26 green/red buoy lights added in 2009. The buoys are owned by the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol, but the LMCD will pay for the lights. The LMCD started chloride monitoring of Lake Minnetonka in 2008 and will continue that in 2009. The LMCD does not advocate restricted access or user fees for Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD intends to more actively enforce its restrictions for number of water craft and appropriate ownership of water craft at docks during 2009. He reviewed his participation with the LMCD in 2009 indicating there have been two meetings and he has attended all of them. Councilmember Zerby stated a $100 fine or 90 days in jail [or violations seemed low. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had been corrected about the $100 anu>ffllt. The fine amount is governed by State Statute and it is now $1,000; the LMCD's bylaws have not been updated. Councilmember Zerby stated during the February 2009, Council regular meeting Councilmember Woodruff stated the LMCD was going to consider a request from Bayside Grille Catering for a law change that would allow Bayside Grille Catcrin- to sell on sale alcoholic beverages on the ice. He wondered if there is update on this item;. AVoodruff stated this has not been revolved yet. Mayor Liz6e stated based on Councilmcinhur,Woodruff s report the LMCD's Save-The-Lake Fund assets are approximately $220,000. The 1,MCD reserves 25 percent of those funds for grants. She asked Woodruff to find out what the rest of the funds are used for. With regard to regulation enforcement, the LMCD had discussed this for a few years but it did not have the necessary funds to conduct the enforcement and to prosecute. She asked Woodruff to find out how much money has been budgeted for 2009 to perform those activities. She stated Woodruff reported the LMCD does not advocate restricted access or user fees. The 1991 LMCD Lake Management Plan states the LMCD advocates launch fees to pay for inspections. She asked Woodruff to address this with the LMCD Board. Liz6e recessed the meeting at 9:11 P.M. Liz6e reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. F. Special Event Permit for Knewtson Health Group 5K Run This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruffs request. Councilmember Woodruff stated the last statement Staff report was missing a word that could result in the recommendation being interpreted correctly. He wanted to ensure the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department would review the permit and make appropriate recommendations. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2009 Page 14 of 14 Woodruff moved, Z,erby seconded, approving a Special Event Permit for Kne tson Health Group 5K Run as corrected. Motion passed 5/0. G. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Amendment This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember Woodruff stated in an email to Staff he had asked if the proposed amendment to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) will result in additional staff time and costs, and if so are they budgeted for in the 2009 budget. The response back from Staff indicates Engineer Landini will have to spend an additional 50 hours per year on new impaired water related activities and capital expenditures for those activities will be includes in future Capital Improvement Programs. Landini is currently allocated for approximately 100 hours toward storm water related activities; there may not be enough hours for new impaired water activities. Woodruff commented this is another unfunded mandate. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-014, "A Resolution Amending the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan." Motion passed 510. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. City Hall Construction Update Administrator Heck stated the renovation of City l lall is nearing completion. He suggested Council determine when it would like to have an open house. I-lc anticipated the City Council meeting scheduled for April 13`x' will be held in the new Council Chambers. Other Staff Reports Engineer Landini stated lie alwided a slioreline stabilization seminar put on by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. B. Mayor and City Council Nothing additional to report. 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March 9, 2009, at 9:25 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OIL'S SHORE' WOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, ARCH 16, 2009 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTHS ORE CENTER 5:30 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the.meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Liz6e; Councihnembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff, and Zerby; Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. 20 YEAR ROAD PLAN Director Brown stated during its March 2, 2009, work scission Council discussed the 20-Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP). The PMP reflects roadways vaith a 2008"PASER pavement rating of less than 5, which equates to approximately 8.5 miles of roadway, which are targeted for reconstruction over the next 20 years. The estimated cost to do so is approximately $35.2 million. During that meeting Staff discussed the concept of considering.paLcmcnt reclamation rather than reconstruction for some of those roads to reduce the cost. Council directed Staff to provide the following additional information for review and discussion at this wort: session: a color graphic depicting the 2008 pavement inventory; a decision flow chart to use in determining if the PMP roadways are candidates for reconstruction or reclamation; a revised PMP showing Staff's initial suggestions about which roadways should be reconstructed and which should be reclaimed (including revised costs); and various road assessment policies of surrounding communities. The information was included in the meeting packet for this evening. He thanked Engineer Landini for his efforts in preparing the requested information. Councilmember Woodruff and Councilmember Zerby requested the colors on the graphic be made a little easier to distinguish. Woodruff requested that the graphic be put on the City's website with a description of what the different colors mean, and stated he thought the graphic was great. In response to a comment from Councilmember Bailey, Director Brown stated when a roadway is reconstructed it receives a rating of 10 and generally the rating is reduced to a 9 the following year. Brown stated when roadways are rated in the 4 range their deterioration becomes more rapid; those with a higher rating have a much slower rate of deterioration. Director Brown reviewed the decision flow chart. He noted that at the end of the decision process one of the results is to "consider" a reclamation process, not necessarily a decision to do so. He stated one key decision point is if there is adequate right-of-way, noting that to determine this takes a great deal of work. It requires an owners and encumbrances report; the report identifies who owns and property and what rights-of-way they have. The time it takes to receive a report for a roadway after it's been ordered varies based in part on the number of properties abutting the roadway. Engineer Landini noted the cost for the encumbrances report ranges from $75 - $85 per property. Brown stated a decision point should be added to ask if the City can acquire the adequate right-of-way if it doesn't exist. Councilmember Woodruff #ac CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 2009 Page 2 of 6 suggested if the answer to that decision point is no it should flow into the significant drainage decision point. Brown then explained when a roadway is overlaid it is milled out in front of driveways and 1.5 - 2 inches of asphalt is put down over the roadway. When a roadway is reclaimed the existing pavement is ground up and it becomes essentially subsoil, and then 2.5 - 3 inches of asphalt is put over the ground up pavement. This process consumes more material. When roadways are new they have a crown in the center and slop gradually to the edges. Most of the City's roadways are flat because of the number of overlays. During reclamation a crown is reestablished on the roadway. Roadway reclamation may strengthen a roadway, but it won't address deep substrate issues. A decision point should be added to the flow chart for substrate issues. Soil impacts the dynamics of what occurs with roadways. Brown went on to explain the cost to reconstruct all roadways in the PMP is approximated to be $35.2 million. The cost to reclaim a large number of the roadways and reconstruct the others is approximated to be $13.6 million. Councilmember Woodruff commented the revised PMP indicates Vine Hill Road will be reconstructed, yet during the March 2"d work session Staff indicated the City of Minnetonka does not have the resources to reconstruct Vine Hill Road and is seeking an estlinate to mill and overlay it. Brown stated he hoped Vine Hill Road could be reclaimed, and if so the revised PMP cost would be even lower. Brown then stated he did not think reclaiming all of the roadways in the PMP is a viable option. Based on a comment from Woodruff, Brown stated Staff will review the cost estimates in the reclaim only projections. Brown stated he continued to believe reconstruction of roadways is the best cost benefit for the City over the long-term, but the costs to reclaim some of the roadways ma_ymake the PMP costs more palatable. Brown explained a reclaimed road should have a service life of 15 - 18 years. An overlaid road should have a service life of approximately 10 years. A reconstructed roadway should have a service life of 30 - 35 years if it's properly maintained. Mayor Liz& stated if the outcome of evaluatin,1 a roadway indicates a roadway could be considered for reclamation, it would still be prudent to evaluate that roadway based on its own unique properties and issues. She cited Harding Lane as an e.vamplc of a roadway with serious storm water issues that cannot be solved with reclamation. Director Brown stated Harding Lane is burdened by subsurface water flow. He thought if a layer of sand could be placed under a newly constructed roadway surface it would serve as a large drainage conduit. A key component of either reconstruction or reclamation is the management of the subsurface water. He explained that with the reclamation of Strawberry Lane the reclaimed asphalt was ground very coarse and that helped with drainage. Councilmember Turgeon stated she attended a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) meeting on March 12, 2009, during which Rule N and abstraction of storm water was discussed. She questioned what the impact would be on the City's roadway projects costs if the MCWD adopted what is known as Rule N. Engineer Landini explained the MCWD is going to propose Rule N which will require the City to install a system that would abstract (i.e., remove) the first one-half inch of each rainfall as part of each roadway project; the storm water would not be released down stream. That rainwater would have to be stored in tanks, or underground infiltration under reconstructed roadways, or in a big regional storage location, or rain gardens in residential properties, etc. None of these are planned or budgeted for. Councilmember Turgeon stated the MCWD discussion focused a lot on roadway reconstruction projects, which would require reservoirs be installed. She referred to the system installed under the CUB Foods parking lot as an example of what would have to be done. Director Brown stated that type of system CITY OF SF OREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 2009 Page 3 of 6 would be the macro system. He then stated he thought the approached used on Strawberry Lane could be suffice to accomplish the required result. As part of that approach a drain tube was installed, engineering fabric was then put in, and then a substantial amount of rock was placed over that. That system can store a lot of water. There may be times where a storm water pipe may have to be installed. He did not envision the City would have to go to the extreme CUB Foods did. Councilmember Zerby questioned if the City should consider adjusting its hard cover requirements. Councilmember Turgeon stated the MCWD considers grass as hardcover. Councilmember Woodruff questioned what would trigger the City having to adhere to Rule N should the MCWD adopt it. Engineer Landini explained the City would have to disturb something to trigger it. Councilmember Turgeon explained there would have to be development, redevelopment, commercial development or linear projects. Any of those types of projects on at least a one-half acre lot would require abstraction. Woodruff questioned if a seal coating project or a mill and overlay project would trigger the need for abstraction. Engineer Landini stated the MCWD has not decided what types of projects trigger the requirement because the MCWD has not drafter the abstraction rule yet. Landini stated he did not think a seal coat project would trigger it because nothing is being disturbed; a seal coat project does not require a permit from the MCWD. In 2008 a mill and overlay project required the City obtain a construction NPDES permit. That may not the case in 2009 because the NPDES rules have been changed. It is likely abstraction would be triggered by a reclamation or reconstruction project. The triggering event will depend on how the MCWD writes tl)c abstraction rule. Woodruff asked what Staff thought the additional cost would be for a reclamation project if the City had to abstract one-half inch of rainwater. Landini stated that would depend on how wick Ille reclaimed road would be. Director Brown noted when the City began the process ol'updating its Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan the MCWD wanted the City to rcduee its storm water runoff to that which existed twenty plus years ago independent of disturbing any surface. He stated staying abreast of storm water regulations is very time consuming as they are continually changing. Councilmember Turgeon stated at the MCWD meeting there was discussion about exempting linear projects from the rule. Councilmember Bailey stated the revised PMP does not factor in those roads currently rated 5 that will deteriorate to less than a 5 rating over the 20-year period. Factoring them in could increase the 20-year PMP costs significantly. Director Brown stated Staff needs to have a few years of experience with managing and revising this plan before it can somewhat accurately factor that in, noting the costs are underestimated. Bailey stated he was not implying the City should not move forward with the PMP. Brown stated the PMP will have to be reviewed and updated annually to reflect more recent information. He also stated situations may occur where part of a roadway is reclaimed and another part is reconstructed. In response to a comment by Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown stated storm water improvements and sewer improvements done as part of a road reconstruction project are funded out of the respective funds. Those improvements are not included in the PMP costs. Administrator Heck stated for Smithtown Lane there are reclamation costs in 2009 and again in 2024. He asked if that was for another reclamation effort, to which Engineer Landini responded year. He noted the reconstruction/reclamation costs are missing nine years of amortization. Director Brown stated he thought the service life of a reclaimed roadway could be extended to possibly 18 years if water and subsurface soils are managed appropriately. CITY OF SHORFWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Councilmember Turgeon stated the estimated cost to reconstruct Amlee Road/Manitou Lane/Glen Load is approximately $1.4 million and the cost to reclaim the roads is estimated to be $480,500. She thought the property owners along those roadways would probably find the reclamation solution more appealing. A reclamation approach would probably resolve many of the issues, and it would be nice to have the potholes fixed. She thanked Staff for coming up with an alternative. Discussion turned to road assessment policies. Director Brown stated the meeting packet included a draft roadway upgrade assessment policy for the City written in 2006. He had thought it addressed more details than it actually does. The policy states assessment will be based on a unit basis, but does not define what a unit is. The policy states that 35 percent of the cost to upgrade a 24-foot-wide roadway surface would be considered for assessment. He thought the policy was in very draft form and needs a fair amount of work. He stated the packet also included assessment policies for the Cities of Golden Valley and Victoria, as well as responses from the Cities of Chanhassen and Orono regarding their lack of policies. Many communities find roadway improvements out of their general fund (i.e., out of their general tax levy). Councilmember Woodruff asked if there was any history about Councils discussing the 2006 draft policy. Director Brown explained he had brought the topic of asscssin,- for roadway improvements before Councils three different times. The general consensus was always to fund them out of the General Fund. Councilmember Turgeon stated that although State Statutes al low for a city to assess for improvements, it is difficult to determine the benefit a property owner would receive from a roadway improvement when other individuals obtain benefit from roadway improvements. Councilmember Woodruff stated he has personally stru1111cd with whether or not a special assessment process if fair. He questioned how Golden Valley and Victoria have or are able to defend their policies if challenged by property owners. Bascd on discussions he has had with assessors they have difficulty determining the value of roadway inrprovemcnts to a particular property. Director Brown stated he th0u1111t a 33 )5 percent assessment would standup in court. Cities are starting to lower their assessment rates to make it more difficult for property owners to challenge them in court and win. There are courts cases that substantiate that. It appears as if it is difficult for property owners to successfully challenge a 25 percent rate. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if assessments were more applicable in growing communities where there is a lot of commercial and industrial development occurring (the developments are assessed for the construction of roadways). Director Brown stated new developments in commercial areas generate tax revenues that flow directly into road funds. He then stated Tonka Bay funds its roadway improvements out of its general fund, and that is likely the same for most residential communities. More fully developed commercial communities tend to have a more formalized assessment policy in part because it's easier to accept assessments on commercial properties in a public hearing process than it is for residential properties. Administrator Heck stated assessments are based on anticipated traffic flow to reach a retail establishment. Councilmember Woodruff stated whether or not the City chooses to assess or use General Fund funds, it will still have to issue bonds to obtain funds. He questioned if there would be any benefit to back up some amount of bonding with special assessments versus General Fund monies. Director Burton stated there are some fiscal advantages. She stated Staff tried to schedule the City's bond consultant to attend this meeting but he was unavailable; he will be scheduled for a future meeting. She commented small cities often routinely assess for improvements because they do not have the tax capacity to fund them out of their general funds. CITY OF SI OREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Councihnember Woodruff stated he leans toward funding roadway improvements out of the General Fund given the City has to bond anyway. If the City ends up in litigation over an assessment challenge it disturbs the execution of the PMP. The General Fund approach is more straight forward, even though it requires a referendum. He asked if lease revenue bonds were available for roadway improvements, to which Director Burton responded no. He would like a street improvement district approach if it were available. Councilmember Zerby stated the roads on the east end of the City are not in the PMP, yet they could be taxed through the general levy tax for improvements to roadways in other parts of the Cities if the General Fetid approach is used. He suggested property owners be assessed for some portion of the improvement costs. Director Burton stated a minimum percent must be assessed to qualify for Chapter 429. Mayor Lizee stated funding comes down to philosophy; what does a properly owner pay for living in a civil society. There is public safety, there are utilities, there are paved roads, etc. Councilmember Zerby stated when roads are constructed as part of a development the developer pays the cost; that cost is factored into the cost of the property. In effect the roadway is donated to the City when the development is completed. The property owner has an investment in that road, and at some point they should continue to have some stewardship in the maintenance of the road. Mayor Lizee stated most of the City's roadways were constructed when the City sewer system was install in the mid 1970s. Councilmember Turgeon stated her property abuts a roadway build in 1957, and she has no investment in the roadway as she did not owrn the property back then. Lizee stated when Turgeon took ownership of that when she purchase her property. Turgeon stated over the years property owners tax dollars have gone toward maintaining roadways. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City has established a precedent for funding roadway improvements. The City has always funded them out of the General Fund. He cited the example of the Shady Island Bridge replaccmciit being funded out of the General Fund with some county funding, yet it basically benefited the residents on Sliady Island. He stated he continues to like the General Fund approach for funding roadway improvements. Councihnember Turgeon stated she favored funding roadway improvements out of the General Fund. Councilmember Bailey stated from a philosophical perspective he is more attune with the special assessment approach, but he is unsure if it will realistically work. He does not like the thought of property owners thinking they can have veto power over roadway improvements. He expressed if the City chose the assessment approach improvements may never be completed. He stated he wanted improvements to get done. He expressed hesitancy about assessing for improvements in these dire economic times because of how property owners would likely react. He somewhat favored a bonding referendum being placed on the 2010 election ballot because it would make the residents support for or against roadway improvements very visible. Councilmember Woodruff concurred with Bailey's last statement. Bailey expressed concern that if the City were to assess for some portion of the improvement costs and put the bonding referendum on the ballot residents may vote against the referendum because they were against assessments and not necessarily bonding. Director Brown stated the City of Minnetonka did an excellent job of marketing the need for an increase in its general tax fund levy for roadway improvements to its residents. CITE' OF SHOREWOOD WORD SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Administrator Heck stated the City of Excelsior dedicated a certain percent of its general fund tax levy to roadway improvements, and the remainder of the levy had to cover the rest of the needs. The PMP provides an estimated cost for road repairs for the next 20 years; therefore, the amount the City has to levy to cover the cost is known for planning purposes. If roadway improvements is a priority, than that cost is the first thing that should be funded out of the levy. There was ensuing discussion about the frequency for issuing bonds. Director Burton noted the bonds have to be substantially used within two year time period. Director Brown stated the next thing that has to be done with regard to the PMP is to determine what financing approach Council wants to use. The City's bond consultant will review bonding options with Council at a future meting. In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Heck explained a street improvement district process is based on a 5-year plan and the costs are spread out equally and included on residents' utility bills. The utility revenues are used to pay the bonds. He commented feedback he has received indicates that at the State Legislature the people who have been resistant to this in the past are becoming more receptive to it. The business communities are quite resistant, and lie did not understand why. Council thanked Staff for all of its work. Mayor Lizee stated the City of Minnetonka's request for authorization to establish street improvement districts was defeated by a vote of 4 to 2 in a local governmcnt committee; there were a number of business groups testifying against it. A similar request from the City of Sleepy Eye was defeated by a vote of 3 to 3, noting Sleepy Eye wanted to bring this Forward as a referendum. Councilmember Turgeon stated she read that because of the proposed budget cuts to the courts by Governor Pawlenty office, some cities are exploring options for prosecuting traffic tickets themselves to recover some potential lost revenue. Administrator Fleck explained the League of Minnesota Cities has submitted a bill that would require consistent fines across the State, it would limit the types of violations cities could enforce, and it would improve due process. 4. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of March 16, 2009, at 6:55 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 03/23/2009 Council Meeting Prepared by: Date: , Michelle T. Nguyen, Sr. Accounting Clerk Reviewed by: Date: - l"KIBonnie Burton, Finange Director Approved by: Brian Heck, City Administrator F Date: App o Check Vendor Name Description Check Daft, 48126 48126 48127 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48128 48130 48131 48132 48133 48134 48135 48135 48135 48137 48138 48139 48139 48140 48140 48142 48143 48145 48146 48146 48147 48147 48148 48148 48149 48150 48152 48154 48156 48156 48157 48158 48159 48160 48160 48160 48162 ICMA RETIREMENT TRU ICMA RETIREMENT TRU MINN NCPERS GROUP LI PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA PERA WELLS FARGO HEALTH ADAM'S PEST CONTROL AFSCME DELTA DENTAL ANDERSON, KRISTI B. BIFFS, INC. CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTERPOINT ENERGY COMMUNITY REC RESO COMPLETE HELICOPTE COSTCO MEMBERSHIP COSTCO MEMBERSHIP CULLIGAN BOTTLED WA CULLIGAN BOTTLED WA G & K SERVICES GOVERNMENT TRAININ HENN CTY INFO TECHN JANI-KING OF MINNESO JANI-KING OF MINNESO KINKO'S KINKO'S LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA LK MTKA CONSERVATIO LOCAL LINK MAMA METRO SALES, INC. OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT PAZANDAK, JOSEPH PITNEY BOWES CREDIT SAM'S CLUB SO LK MTKA POLICE DE SO LK MTKA POLICE DE SO LK MTKA POLICE DE SUN NEWSPAPERS , _ r P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRE P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRE MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE IN P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA P/R DEDUCTS-HSA QUARTERLY SVC APR UNION DENTAL PRE SHWD PARK MTG 03/10 FEB 11 TO MAR10 GAS GAS GAS MAR MEETING DEER COUNT FLIGHT ON 2009 MEMBERSHIP RENE 2009 MEMBERSHIP RENE SOLAR SALT DRINKING WATER P.W SVC APR 11/09 BRAD NIELSE FEB 800MHZ FEE MAR C.H. SVC MAR P.W. SVC 5920 BLDR BRIDGE LN 5920 BLDR BRIDGE LN SEIPP INSURANCE DEDU WORK COMP AUDIT PRE 1 ST QTR LEVY PYMT APR WEBLINK METRO AREA MGMT ASS BLACK & WHITE METER GEN SUPPLIES GEN SUPPLIES MILEAGE 3/2-3/13 QUARTERY SVC GEN SUPPLIES APR OPERATING BUDGE FEB HENN CTY PROCES FEB 800MHZ SVC ENGINEERING CITY OF S 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 ivo ce 02 200903 02P20090 06 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 P 200903 16 200903 494896 APR-09 MAR -10-0 W376379- 800001501 800001501 800001501 5-2009 1202 111766511 111766511 101X2057 114099504 FEB-09-P 2009LAND 29028906 MIN03090 MIN03090 077000336 077000408 11067132- 15178 1 ST-09 292146199 2463 319175 466372389 467319729 200903190 5440954- 003064 APR09-OB FEB09-HE FEB09-US 1165298 Amount $1,609.60 $219.70 $32.00 $309.50 $3,040.81 $19.64 $411.14 $290.39 $133.88 $139.13 $501.94 $204.97 $225.29 $436.61 $362.99 $1.76 $305.00 $67.86 $357.00 $200.00 $1,012.54 $472.32 $923.70 $1,239.89 $1,935.00 $684.00 $50.00 $40.00 $33.50 $12.04 $163.31 $55.00 $32.00 $299.63 $260.79 $72.16 $33.68 $240.00 $5,607.00 $7,870.19 $131.80 $23.00 $449.00 $31.47 $12.45 $58.85 $329.25 $147.50 $78,246.00 $75.00 $16.00 $595.00 Tillin hy, March 19, 2009 rage ! of'2 Check # ' le° 1Vine escr` Check Dale # r-r-i. 48163 T CHIES SERVER APPL INSTALLA 03/24/2009 224756 $350.39 48165 MISC. VENDOR VIDEO SERVICE OF AME 03/24/2009 VIDEO SE $47.90 48167 XCEL ENERGY 5700 CTY RD 19 03/24/2009 514536813 $212.67 48167 XCEL ENERGY 5700 CTY RD 19 03/24/2009 514536813 $30.44 TOTAL F OR 101 GEjVERAL F(i1VI} $110,662.68 48166 WILLIAM J TOMLINSON SS CENTER-WEBHOST-J 03/24/2009 10398 $66.00 48167 XCEL ENERGY SS CENTER-ELEC-5735 C 03/24/2009 262613133 $144.96 TOTAL F OR 401 P117ILIC FACIL]TIE'VOFFICE EQUIIPAI $210.96 48111 WILLIAMS TOWING 2000 PONTIAC SUNFIRE 03/10/2009 128989-R $252.95 TOTAL F OR 403 EQtJIPNIENT REPL ACEMENT $252.95 48136 COLLABORATIVE DESIG FEB CH PROJ 03/24/2009 090181 $2,073.67 48151 LUND-MARTIN CONSTRU P.V.#6. CH PROJECT 03/24/2009 P.V.#6 $111,102.00 TOTAL F OR 410 CITY BLDG PROJE CT $113,175.67 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $283.05 48135 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS 03/24/2009 800001501 $274.78 48135 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS 03/24/2009 800001501 $167.11 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $224.46 48144 HAWKINS, INC. CHLORINE 03/24/2009 1280899 R $75.00 48155 MINNETONKA-CITY OF MINNETONKA WA 03/24/2009 022709 $54.99 48155 MINNETONKA-CITY OF MINNETONKA WA 03/24/2009 022709 $44.39 48155 MINNETONKA-CITY OF MINNETONKA WA 03/24/2009 022709 $44.39 48161 SPRINT FEB 13 - MAR 12 SVC 03/2412009 588283312 $105.00 TOTAL F OR 601 P" TER 11TILITY $1,273.17 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $90.24 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $224.46 48153 METRO COUNCIL ENVM APR WASTEWATER SVC 03/24/2009 000089392 $48,017.98 48161 SPRINT FEB 13 - MAR 12 SVC 03/24/2009 588283312 $105.01 TOTAL FOR 611 SANITIRYSEFVER (1TILITY $48,437.69 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $112.24 48164 VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTA FEB RECYCLING SVC 03/24/2009 G5000089 $6,990.00 TOTAL FOR 621 RECYCLING (!TILI TY $7,102.24 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $10.41 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $112.24 TOTAL FOR 631 STORMIVA TER MA NAGEMENT 11TILIT $122.65 TOTAL CHFCKS $281,238.01 f1mrsd(y, Marctr 19, 2009 rage 2 of'2 1O m I ff r `heck # Vendor Name Description Cheek Date # Amount 48111 WILLIAMS TOWING 2000 PONTIAC SUNFIRE SE-43 03/10/2009 128989-R $252.95 TOTAL FOR WILLL411S TOff'Ll`G $252.95 48126 ICMA RETIREMENT TRU P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED CO 03/17/2009 02 200903 $1,609.60 48126 ICMA RETIREMENT TRU P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED CO 03/17/2009 02P20090 $219.70 TOTAL FOR IC.11A RETIREMENT TRI;;ST-302131-457 $1,829.30 48127 MINN NCPERS GROUP LI MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS 03/17/2009 06 200903 $32.00 TOTAL FOR jlll Nl ,N,C'PE- RS GRO(7' LIFE IAA $32.00 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $90.24 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $10.41 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $283.05 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $290.39 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $1.76 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $133.88 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/1712009 P 200903 $139.13 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $501.94 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $225.29 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $436.61 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $362.99 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $19.64 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $411.14 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $3,040.81 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $309.50 48128 PERA P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 03/17/2009 P 200903 $204.97 TOTAL FOR PERA $6,461.75 48130 WELLS FARGO HEALTH P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 03/17/2009 16 200903 $305.00 TOTAL. FOR WELLS FARGO IIEALTII BF.NF.FITSVC' $305.00 48131 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL QUARTERLY SVC 03/24/2009 494896 $67.86 TOTAL FOR ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC $67.86 48132 AFSCME DELTA DENTAL APR UNION DENTAL PREM 03/24/2009 APR-09 $357.00 TOTAL FOR AFSCME DELTA DENTAL $357.00 48133 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. SHWD PARK MTG 03/10 03/24/2009 MAR -10-0 $200.00 TOTAL FOR ANDERSOA'KRISTI B. $200.00 48134 RIFFS, INC. FEB 11 TO MAR10 03/24/2009 W376379- $1,012.54 TOTAL FOR BIFFS, INC: $1,012.54 48135 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS 03/24/2009 800001501 $923.70 48135 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS 03/24/2009 800001501 $472.32 48135 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS 03/24/2009 800001501 $274.78 48135 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS 03/24/2009 800001501 $167.11 48135 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS 03/24/2009 800001501 $1,239.89 TOTAL FOR C'ENTI,RI'OI:VT F';,N'ERG3' $3,077.80 48136 COLLABORATIVE DESIG FEB CH PROD 03/24/2009 090181 $2,073.67 TOTAL FOR COLLABORATIVE- DESIGN' GROUP, INC. $2,073.67 48137 COMMUNITY REC RESO MAR MEETING 03/24/2009 5-2009 $1,935.00 TOTAL, FOR COAI,4ILtNITYRECRE.S'OCRCES $1,935.00 48138 COMPLETE HELICOPTE DEER COUNT FLIGHT ON 2/3/0 03/24/2009 1202 $684.00 TOTAL FOR COMPLETE HELICOPTERS, INC: $684.00 48139 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP 2009 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 03/24/2009 111766511 $50.00 48139 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP 2009 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 03/24/2009 111766511 $40.00 TOTAL FOR COSTCO MEMBERSHIP $90.00 48140 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WA SOLAR SALT 03/24/2009 101X2057 $33.50 Thursd(gy, llarch 19, 2009 Page L of 3 - _ # t'ettdor - lante escrint ` ti,'E ltt'4 k e # Amount 48140 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WA DRINKING WATER 03/24/2009 114099504 $12.04 T07 v _ _ c iLLIGANBOTTLED U ATER 545.54 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $224.46 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $112.24 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $112.24 48141 DOCUMENT RESOURCE UB LASER BILLING 03/24/2009 0218258 $224.46 TOTAL FOR DOCUA ENT RESOURCES $673.40 48142 G & K SERVICES P.W SVC 03/24/2009 FEB-09-P $163.31 TOTAL FOR G & KSERFICES $163.31 48143 GOVERNMENT TRAININ APR 11/09 BRAD NIELSEN WS 03/24/2009 2009LAND $55.00 TOTAL FOR GOVERAIjVENT TRALVIAIG SERVICES $55.00 48144 HAWKINS, INC. CHLORINE 03/24/2009 1280899 R $75.00 TOT/1L FOR H,IY6'KIN.S, INC'. $75.00 48145 HENN CTY INFO TECHN FEB 80OMHZ FEE 03/24/2009 29028906 $32.00 TOTAL FOR HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT $32.00 48146 JANI-KING OF MINNESO MAR C.H. SVC 03/24/2009 MIN03090 $299.63 48146 JANI-KING OF MINNESO MAR P.W. SVC 03/24/2009 MIN03090 $260.79 TOTAL FOR .L-1NI-KING OF MINNESOT A, INC. $560.42 48147 KINKO'S 5920 BLDR BRIDGE LN 03/24/2009 077000336 $72.16 48147 KINKO'S 5920 BLDR BRIDGE LN 03/24/2009 077000408 $33.68 TOTAL FOR KINKO'S $105.84 48148 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA SEIPP INSURANCE DEDUCTIB 03/24/2009 11067132- $240.00 48148 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA WORK COMP AUDIT PREM 03/24/2009 15178 $5,607.00 TOTAL FOR LEAGUE OFSOTA CITIES INS TRUST $5,847.00 48149 LK MTKA CONSERVATIO 1ST QTR LEVY PYMT 03/24/2009 1ST-09 $7,870.19 TOTAL FOR LK MTKA CONSERV4TION DIST $7,870.19 48150 LOCAL LINK APR WEBLINK 03/24/2009 292146199 $131.80 TOTAL FOR LOCAL LINK $131.80 48151 LUND-MARTIN CONSTRU P.V.#6. CH PROJECT 03/24/2009 P.V.#6 $111,102.00 TOTAL FOR LUND-11:ARTI:N CONSTRUCTION; INC. $111,102.00 48152 MAMA METRO AREA MGMT ASSN. MT 03/24/2009 2463 $23.00 TOTAL FOR 11L4AIA $23.00 48153 METRO COUNCIL ENVM APR WASTEWATER SVC 03/24/2009 000089392 $48,017.98 TOTAL FOR :1IETRO COUNCIL F.Ni',VT(WASTEIVATER) $48,017.98 48154 METRO SALES, INC. BLACK & WHITE METER 03/24/2009 319175 $449.00 TOTAL FOR METRO SALES, LVC. $449.00 48155 MINNETONKA-CITY OF MINNETONKA WA 03/24/2009 022709 $44.39 48155 MINNETONKA-CITY OF MINNETONKA WA 03/24/2009 022709 $44.39 48155 MINNETONKA-CITY OF MINNETONKA WA 03/24/2009 022709 $54.99 TOTAL FOR rltl~',~'1sTOi~7(,1-C'ITYOF $143.77 48156 OFFICE DEPOT GEN SUPPLIES 03/24/2009 466372389 $31.47 48156 OFFICE DEPOT GEN SUPPLIES 03/24/2009 467319729 $12.45 TOTAL FOR OFFICE DEPOT $43.92 48157 PAZANDAK, JOSEPH MILEAGE 3/2-3/13 03/24/2009 200903190 $58.85 TOTAL FOR IllZANDAK. 10SEPH $58.85 48158 PITNEY BOWES CREDIT QUARTERY SVC 03/24/2009 5440954- $329.25 TOTAL FOR PIT AWY BOWES CREDIT C ORI' $329.25 48159 SAM'S CLUB GEN SUPPLIES 03/24/2009 003064 $147.50 TOTAL FOR SAM S CLUB $147.50 48160 SO LK MTKA POLICE DE APR OPERATING BUDGET EXP 03/24/2009 APR09-OB $78,246.00 48160 SO LK MTKA POLICE DE FEB HENN CTY PROCESS FEE 03/24/2009 FEB09-HE $75.00 48160 SO LK MTKA POLICE DE FEB 80OMHZ SVC 03/24/2009 FEB09-US $16.00 Thurs(hy, 4irrrch 19, 2009 Page 2 of 3 # fit) r Na €,z ,,v "P 4Fi Ch e,k F 101 FOR SCI LA TAs ' P( : D P7 $78,337.00 48161 SPRINT FEB 13 - MAR 12 SVC 03/24/2009 588283312 $105.00 48161 SPRINT FEB 13 - MAR 12 SVC 03/24/2009 588283312 $105.01 TOTAL FOR SPRIAIT $210.01 48162 SUN NEWSPAP ERS ENGINEERING CITY OF SHWD 03/24/2009 1165298 $595.00 TOTAL FOR SL'r ' rVI tf SP.ARE'RS $595.00 48163 TECHIES SERVER APPL INSTALLATION 03/24/2009 224756 $350.39 TOTAL FOR TECMIFS $350.39 48164 VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTA FEB RECYCLING SVC 03/24/2009 G5000089 $6,990.00 TOTAL FOR t EOLIA E,Vi,7ROA.,,VIENT 11, SERI'l('FS $6,990.00 48165 MISC. VENDOR VIDEO SERVICE OF AMERICA: 03/24/2009 VIDEO SE $47.90 TOTAL FOR MIS(: Vf-N OR $47.90 48166 WILLIAM J TOM LINSON SS CENTER-WEBHOST-JAN TH 03/24/2009 10398 $66.00 TOTAL FOR T37LLIAM,T TOMLLVSOV $66.00 48167 XCEL ENERGY SS CENTER-ELEC-5735 CTRY 03/24/2009 262613133 $144.96 48167 XCEL ENERGY 5700 CTY RD 19 03/24/2009 514536813 $212.67 48167 XCEL ENERGY 5700 CTY RD 19 03/24/2009 514536813 $30.44 TOTAL FOR XC'F,L E:'N'ERGI $388.07 TOTAL CHECKS $281,238.01 Thtdr: di( 1-, l larch 19, 2009 Page 3 o.1 3 PAYROLL APPROVALS For 03/23/2009 Council Meeting Prepared by: Date: Michelle T. Nguyen, Sr. Accounting Clerk _ Reviewed by:r Date: Bonnie Burton, Fits-ce Director Approved by: B, rian Heck, City Administrator Date: , Pay- - 031191-', ;'heck 3---t .~T s Firs N e /off Check Aint Cho 48112 BAILEY JEFFERY V $0.00 03/17/2009 48113 BARNES CHET D $99.51 03/17/2009 999999 BROWN LAWRENCE A $2,623.66 03/17/2009 999999 BURTON BONNIE M $2,590.34 03/17/2009 999999 DAVIS CHARLES S $1,342.60 03/17/2009 48114 DAVITCH JOSHUA R $86.34 03/17/2009 999999 DENNEN PATRICIA L $1,420.78 03/17/2009 48115 GIESEN JON L $64.18 03/17/2009 999999 GROUT TWILA R $1,466.42 03/17/2009 999999 HECK BRIAN W $2,648.52 03/17/2009 48116 HELGESEN PATRICIA R $1,507.10 03/17/2009 999999 HELLING PAMELA J $1,354.83 03/17/2009 48117 HITT WILLIAM N $57.26 03/17/2009 48118 KIRSCHT ADAM J $167.77 03/17/2009 999999 LANDINI JAMES A $1,524.19 03/17/2009 48119 LAUGHLIN JEREMIAH C $147.76 03/17/2009 999999 LIZEE CHRISTINE G $332.90 03/17/2009 999999 LUGOWSKI JOSEPH P $1,703.36 03/17/2009 999999 MASON BRADLEY J $1,469.21 03/17/2009 48120 MCDONALD JUSTIN M $90.27 03/17/2009 999999 MOORE JULIE K $984.85 03/17/2009 48121 NELSON TODD M $169.00 03/17/2009 999999 NGUYEN MICHELLE T $1,523.57 03/17/2009 999999 NIELSEN BRADLEY J $1,930.76 03/17/2009 999999 PANCHYSITYN JEAN M $1,923.31 03/17/2009 999999 PAZANDAK JOSEPH E $1,947.99 03/17/2009 48122 POUNDER CHRISTOPHER J $1,569.93 03/17/2009 48123 PRICCO NICHOLAS R $68.34 03/17/2009 999999 RADCLIFFE-KAPUS MICHAEL L $114.29 03/17/2009 999999 RANDALL DANIEL J $1,936.93 03/17/2009 999999 STARK BRUCE H $1,407.70 03/17/2009 999999 TOWER TERRY R $1,342.52 03/17/2009 48124 TUMA BRYCE P $82.19 03/17/2009 999999 TURGEON LAURA $230.87 03/17/2009 48125 WALSH TYLER R $92.81 03/17/2009 999999 WHETSTON JOAN M $154.92 03/17/2009 999999 WOODRUFF RICHARD F $230.87 03/17/2009 999999 ZERBY MICHAEL S $230.87 03/17/2009 Total oj'ChCcks $36,638.72 Thurralay, ,liaarch 19, 2069 Page I of I 575- COW, X --LUB ',',O-L; ® - -I0R'LVV00C}, (MINNESOTA 55331-8927 - (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us - cityhali@ci.shcrewood.mn.us DATE: March 19, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk U CC: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk RE: License Approvals For Council information, the Lawn Fertilizer Applicator and Tree Trimmer license requests listed below have been received at the City and reviewed for completeness. As all license fees and requirements have been met, licenses have been issued to the Licensees listed. City of Shorewood - 2009 License Approvals City License No. Licensee Address City LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATOR LICENSES 09-39 Professional Turf, Inc. 7780 215"' St. W. Lakeville 09-42 Guaranteed Spray Inc. 7605 Equitable Dr. #100 Eden Prairie 09-43 Rainbow Lawncare 11571 K-Tel Drive Minnetonka 09-44 Tru Green Chemlawn 6010 Culligan Way Minnetonka TREE ' 'RIMMER LICENSES 09-38 Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 4501 103`d Ct. NE, Ste. Blaine 180 09-40 Arbor Craft, Inc. 10197 Karston Ave. NE Albertville PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r ~f 5755606! R'r' CI=lica V-ii_ AD L dOr-,Lv~OOD, MINNESOTA 55331-€3927 4 (952) 474-3236 F, ; (952) 474-0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, Acting City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer DATE: March 19, 2009 RE: Proposed Change Order for the Water Meter Replacement Project City Project 07-04 On May 29, 2007, the Shorewood City Council awarded the contract for replacement of a portion of the city's water meters and automated system to Northern Water Works. At the July 28, 2008 Council Work Session staff was directed to pursue continuing the water meter replacement project. The 2009 Goal list also includes performing the water meter replacement project as a first quarter project. Currently 70% of the system has been replaced. Change order 3 will replace the last 30% of the system, with the exception of the large meters. The previous City Council had provided direction that the large meters were not to be replaced, due to the limited number and costs involved with these types of meters. It is projected that this next phase will take less than six months to complete. The remainder of the system has been budgeted at 125,000 for 2009 within the City Water Fund. Quotes were obtained for the subject work and are shown in Table 1 below. Unit Extended Firm Description Unit Quote -Quantity Amount Northern Water 5/8" x Neptune E- Works Supply coder R900i each $207.00 307 $63,549.00 Labor to Schedule & Install each $48.00 307 $14,736.00 Subtotal $78,285.00 Neptune Technology 5/8" x Neptune E- Corporation coder R900i each $235.00 307 $72,145.00 Labor to Schedule & Install each $65.00 307 $19,955.00 Subtotal $92,100.00 Table PRINTED ON ED PAPER 4 yE Mayor and City Council Water Meter Replacement Phase 3 March 19, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The low quote provided for the work estimated appears to be Northern Water Works Supply. Since they are the firm that has completed Phases one and two, staff is suggesting that Phase three also be completed by Change Order. The final amount that will be charged to the City is based upon the actual member of meters completed, on the unit pricing provided. Staff is recommending a contingency amount be added to the contract to allow follow up with several meters that did not get changed out under phases one and two for various reasons. Failure to change out any meters on the west side of Shorewood were not issues caused by the Contractor. Typically, these were issues of "snow birds," lack of access or other issues. The City was only charged on the members actually changed out. Staff would again like to attempt to change out meters that were omitted under phases one and two. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Change Order be approved not to exceed $90,500 including taxes. Attachment 1 is a Resolution and a copy of the proposed Change Order 3. The total proposed change to the contract is $90,500. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a resolution that approves Change Order 3 for the Water Meter Replacement Project. CITE' OF S OREWO RESOLUTION NO. 9- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER 3 FOR THE RADIO READ WATER METER PROJECT, CITE' PROJECT NO. 07-04 WHEREAS, on May 29, 2007, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract for construction with Northern Water Works Supply for the Radio Read Meter, Software Installation and Appurtenances Project, City Project No. 07-04; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared Change Order 3, attached hereto as Exhibit A, for revisions to the original contract; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said Change Order and found it to be cost effective for the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shorewood to approve Change Order Number 3 with Northern Water Works Supply, that incorporates services outlined in Change Order 3, attached hereto as Exhibit A. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 23rd day of March, 2009. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk RADIO READ WATER METER PROJECT 3/19/09 CITY PROJECT NO. 07-04 CITY OF SHOREWOOD OWNER: CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 CONTRACTOR: NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY 1694 91ST AVE NE BLAINE, MN 55449 YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Increase the quantity of installed 5/8" x 3/4" Neptune E-Coder R900i water meters to approximatley 307 meters, in addition to previous change orders. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER INCLUDES ALL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK ELEMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: $255,295.38 ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME: 12/30/2007 PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: $31,730.17 NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NONE CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: $287,025.55 CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: 12/30/2007 NET INCREASE/DECREASE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: $90,500.00 NET INCREASE OF CHANGE ORDER: 12/15/2009 CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS: $377,525.55 CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS 12/15/2009 RECOMMENDED BY: JAMES LANDINI, PE, CITY ENGINEER DATE APPROVED BY: CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE CONTRACTOR APPROVED BY: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE DATE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE C:0ocuments and SettingsljeanlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files1OLK7C1Copy of Change Order 3CO 1 CITY OF S O WOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 3 MARCH 2009 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL SOUTI " COMMUNITY CENTS 735 COUNTRY CL ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Arnst, Hutchins, Ruoff and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Zerby Absent: Commissioners Gagne and Geng APPROVAL OF MINUTES 17 February 2009 Hutchins moved, Vilett seconded, Approving the Planning; Commission Meeting Minutes of 17 February 2009 as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIGN REGULATIONS Applicant: South.Tonka Little League Location: Freeman Park Chair Schmitt opened the Public I [caring at 7:00 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a March 23, 2009, Regular City Council meeting agenda for fiirther review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated South Tonka Little League (STLL) has requested amendments to the City's Zoning Code that would allow it to display commercial advertising signs on the ball-field fences of the two fields in Freeman Park used by STLL for little league games. He explained the applicant's request proposes to display as many as 15 signs on each of the two fields. He reviewed a site location map showing the location of the two fields, and photo mock-ups submitted by the applicant showing where the signs could be placed on the fences. He explained the signs would be heavy-duty banners, measuring approximately 3.5 feet high and 7 feet wide. The sign space would be sold to SLLL sponsors and the revenue would go to STLL for "scholarships" for families needing assistance with the fees and for expenses. Nielsen explained this request initially appeared before the Park Commission at its 9 December 2008 meeting, noting the Commission voted unanimously against changing the current code. The applicant decided to submit a formal application for the code amendments in late January 2009. The Park Commission discussed the formal application during its 10 February 2009 meeting, and the Commission again voted unanimously against changing the current code. He noted the Commission was sympathetic to STLL's budget issues. He stated the Commission did agree to look at how much field maintenance is done by the City versus STLL. There appeared to be consensus that the City might be able to increase its CITY C_ _ CtGII PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING March --J Rage 2 of 7 level of maintenance funding, freeing up STLL money for scholarships. He clarified that the Planning Commission is charged with holding public hearings on proposed Code amendments and making recommendations to the City Council. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained changes would be required to City Code Section 1201.02 Definitions relating to signs, as well as to provisions in Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. He reviewed which provisions of Section 1201.03 Subd.l I of the City Code would have to be amended. ® b.(2)(d) prohibits banners except for temporary (10 days at a time, 2 times per year) business signs. i b.(2)(f) prohibits signs on. trees, fences or utility poles. ® c.(3) restricts signs on public property to governmental signs. • e.(4) limits banners to temporary business signs (maximum 10 days). Y d.(1)(c) lists billboards and advertising signs as nonconforming signs. The City has had a long history of phasing out billboards. The proposed signs differ little from billboards, that is, off-site advertising signs. Over the years the City has managed, through its development regulations, to eradicate five of seven billboards that existed over the past 30 years. • e.(1) lists signs allowed in residential zoning districts. Advertising signs are not allowed in residential districts. Freeman Park is zoned sinole-family residential. Nielsen stated Staff asked the City Attorney to provide a legal opinion on the requested amendments. The Attorney indicated if the City proceeds in making the requested amendments; the ordinance should be crafted to clearly distinguish ball-park signs from other types of outdoor advertising signs. Nielsen noted the City had received numerous emails from STLL members in support of the request. Nielsen stated Staff is looking for dircction from the Planning Commission. He asked if the Commission would like Staff to draft amendments to the City Code. Nielsen stated Kyle Heitkamp, representing STLL, was present this evening and Park Commission Chair Norman was also present. Mr. Heitkamp stated STLL has a very good working relationship with the City, and on behalf of the STLL he did not want anything to jeopardize it. STLL is very proud of its facilities, and it spends a lot of money each year maintaining its facilities. STLL is seeking an exception to allow temporary signage on the ball-field fences at two ball fields in Freeman Park. He explained the proposed signs would be 3.5 feet high by 7 feet wide, they would be constructed of industrial mesh fabric and they would be the color of the fence. He stated he thought this request would be a win-win for the City and STLL. He commented that based on feedback from potential sponsors he thought STLL could receive $20,000 for the advertising signs. Mr. Heitkamp explained why STLL was making its request. The main reason is STLL wants every child in the area who wants to play little league to have the opportunity to do so. It wants to keep its fees low and offer scholarships to children whose families need help paying the fees. A representative of Diamond Club approached STLL about the idea of advertising sponsorships. This representative from Diamond Club worked with the City of Minnetonka to have Minnetonka's ordinance changed to allow this type of signage at two ball fields. In 2008 STLL received $8,500 from sponsors and it was difficult to get that much. Every city that abuts the City allows advertising signs. The St. Bonifacius ordinance does not allow them, but its Council decided to allow them. Victoria allows signage. Chanhasssen developed a signage CITE' OF SHOREW OD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 3 March 2009 Page 3 of 7 agreement. Minnetonka amended its ordinance to allow advertising signage in certain parks. Mound and Lipper Tonka also allow signage. Six of the eight cities the City Engineer spoke with allow the signage. The proposed signage would be up approximately three months each calendar year. Mr. Heitkamp stated the sponsorship revenues will be used for scholarships and field maintenance. He noted STLL's requests for scholarships have increased substantially; this is also occurring with most other leagues. He stated STLL's fees are some of the lowest around and it would like to keep them that way. He explained that in 2008 STLL spent approximately $13,700 on field improvements, equipment and maintenance. Also, $6,700 was spent for the grounds crew; those hours are in addition to all of the volunteer hours. The only people that get paid are youth umpires and youth ground crews. STLL allocated $17,500 for field improvements in 2009. He stated the Park Commission indicated that maybe the City could pay for some of the maintenance and improvement expenses. STLL and others thought the signage would be a better idea because the taxpayers would not have to fund that cost. Mr. Heitkamp explained the City received approximately 50 emails from parents of STILL players who live outside of and inside of the City before Director Nielsen asked STLL to have people to stop sending him emails. Residents in the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood, located to the west of the ball fields, have been supportive of the signage. He had met with the President of the Shorewood Ponds Home Association twice and the President did not express any issue with having signage. He commented the signage would be put up after the foliage came out and taken down before it was gone. Mr. Heitkamp reviewed the questions and highlighted the answers provided in a memorandum from the City Attorney written in response to Staff questions (per a memorandunifrom Kennedy & Graven dated 23 February 2009). 1. Can the City distinguish between park fence advertising signs and other types of outdoor advertising signs, including billboards? Would the amendments jeopardize the City's position on other commercial signage, particularly outdoor advertising? Approving the amendments would not jeopardize the City's position generally on commercial signage as long as the city has a rationale basis -or distinguishing between certain types of signs. 2. Can the City limit the amendments to only allow signs in Freeman Park? Should the amendments be extended to include other City parks? Allowing advertising signs only in Freeman Park could open the door for challenges based on the argument that all public property within the City should be similarly available. Because the City is regulating commercial speech rather than noncommercial speech, a challenge nevertheless might be less likely to succeed, especially if the City has a sound, content-neutral basis for allowing signs in one park versus another. 3. If the City allows advertising in the ball fields for STLL, would it be difficult to deny similar treatment to other groups (e.g., hockey, football)? The City could regulate off- premise sign based solely on some other neutral factor (e.g., location). This approach would address any concerns that the City was showing preferential treatment to a certain group and would make a challenge less likely to succeed. Mr. Heitkamp stated only people coming to the Park would see the signage. He questioned if approval of signage could be granted on an annual basis and it could be up for a specific timeframe. This request could be unique because STLL pays for much of the improvements and maintenance in addition to paying for usage fees. He noted representatives of other sports organizations using the City's ball fields indicated they were not interested in pursuing signage measures. He stated he would be willing to review STLL's budget line item by line item if the Planning Commission wanted him to. CITY OF SH RE OOD PL. r : 0MMISSION MEETEING 3 March 2009 Page 4 of 7 In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Heitkamp explained each sign will cost approximately $500 and the estimate is to have 26 sponsored signs. In response to second question, Mr. Heitkamp stated there were less than five scholarship requests in 2008, and there have already been eight in 2009 noting the peak time for receiving scholarship requests does not happen for a while. He anticipates SILL will award $3,000 - $4,000 in scholarships in 2009. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Bob Edmondson, 19585 Shady Hills Road, stated he ran for a City Council seat in the 2008 general election but failed to secure a seat noting he was narrowly defeated. He applied for a seat on the Planning Commission in February 2008 and was narrowly defeated for that. He has been appointed to the Park Commission. His intent this evening was to introduce himself to the Planning Commission, and to congratulate Commissioner Arnst who was recently appointed to the Commission. He was looking forward to a vigorous attitude in these stringent and unusual economic times that are the worst financial times in 50 years. He anticipated the Park Commission would be fiscally smart. He looked forward to working with the Planning Commission on up coming issues. Frank Kuzma a resident of the City of Chanhassen, stated he is with Diamond Club and he initiated this entire discussion with Mr. Heitkamp. Diamond Club is an umbrella organization that brings various sports organizations together. He noted he had worked with the City of Minnetonka on its amendment to its signage ordinance. He explained potential sponsors approached Diamond Club about possibly doing sponsorships in the South Tonka area with STLL. He thanked the Planning Commission for considering this request. Doug Dahl President of the Shorewood Ponds I lomc Association, stated the Association is pleased to support STLL in its efforts to remain self sustaining. The advertising signage will in no way diminish the entertainment provided by STLL little league games. Gayle Luke, 25725 Park Lane, stated she probably lives closest to the south ball field and the parking lot. She likes the openness of Freeman Park. She expressed concern that if this request is approved then what would prevent additional signage from beffl put up in the Park. She stated she will be disappointed if the Park takes on more of a commercial look. Park Commission Chair Norman stated the Park Commission has met with Mr. Heitkamp, and the Commission unanimously recommended the request be denied. If the City amended its Zoning Code to allow advertising signage in Freeman Park the Commission was concerned that it would set a precedent, and it would undo the City's past efforts to reduce signage in the City. The Commission also felt strongly that commercial messages should be kept out of public space. The Commission directed City Staff to work with STLL to determine where the City should be paying for certain maintenance and improvement costs. Mark Tuseth, Excelsior, stated it's his understanding that the purpose of sponsorship advertising signage is to generate funds so more children can participate in the STLL programs. He then stated the proposed signs would be temporary. STLL wants to raise additional monies to help reduce its expenses and provide more scholarships. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Heitkamp explained STLL spent approximately $13,700 on field maintenance in 2008 with most of it being for the ball fields in Freeman Park. It includes CITY OF SHORE WOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 3 March 2009 Page 5 of 7 normal field maintenance to new equipment for things such as mowing and dragging the infield. In response to another question, . Heitkamp stated he and the Park Commission did not discuss any specific amount of money the City could possible contribute to field upkeep. Mr. Heitkamp stated a representative from STLL met with the City Administrator to discuss repairs for batting cages. The repairs could cost up to $20,000. STLL had thought the City had previously budgeted for the repairs, but the City Administrator informed STLL there are no funds allocated for that. Many of the necessary repairs to the cages would resolve safety issues, and improvements along side of the cages would extend the life of fence. Commissioner Vilett stated she thought there is a distinction between billboard signage and the type of signage STLL was proposing. She then stated if the City Attorney thought this request could be granted without setting precedent then she could support the request, noting that would be contingent on how the amendments were worded. Commissioner Ruoff stated he understood the City Attorney to indicate there could be a possibility of establishing precedent if the amendments were not carefully worded. I le questioned how likely it would be for other sports organizations to request this type of advertising signage if this request were to be approved. Director Nielsen explained hockey is played at Badger Park and at Cathcart Park, football is played at Badger Park, soccer is played at Freeman Park, and softball is played in Freeman Park. Park Chair Norman stated there is overflow soccer and lacrosse played at Manor Park. Commissioner Hutchins questioned what the City's exposure would be for other organized sports activities to make similar requests. Director Nielsen stated it would be difficult for the City to turn down another organization; it would be easier for the City to limit signage to a specific park than a specific organization. Commissioner Hutchins stated the City I?ngineer's report listed what neighboring cities did with regard to allowing signage in their parks. lie questioned if the signage is allowed as variances to ordinances. Director Nielsen stated the City of Minnetmika allows signage at its high school complex and at Bennett Field, yet its ordinance specifically states signage is not allowed on ball-field fences. Another city's ordinance states it's not allowed but the City actually allows it. Another city has a formal agreement it uses. Commissioner Hutchins asked Director Nielsen if he had identified what the rationale would be for granting this request. Director Nielsen stated Mr. Heitkamp indicated distinctions could be made. The signage would not be visible fi-om the road, part of the sponsorship money would be used to pay for ball field maintenance, and Freeman Park is a community park versus a neighborhood park. There could be a requirement that the display would be temporary. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Heitkamp stated the signage would cover approximately 33 percent of the outfield fence and 15 percent of the total perimeter. Commissioner Arnst stated that when she served on the Park Commission from 1997 - 2004 there had been 2 - 3 similar requests which were considered by various Commissioners. The Commissions never thought it was an appropriate venue for advertising signage. The Commissions tried to balance the intense usage of the City's parks with the intense beauty of the surroundings; the ability to see through ball-field fences needed to be preserved. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 3 March 2009 Rage 6 of 7 Commissioner Ruoff stated he is a parent of children participating in STLL programs, and STLL's fees are lower than other organizations' fees. There is parent involvement with cleanup of the fields and maintenance of fields; parents have established a partnership with STLL. If the amendments could be crafted to limit the number of signs allowed and limit them to specific fields then he could support the request. He understood it may be difficult to limit it to only softball, but thought it was possible. Chair Schmitt stated he has mixed thoughts about this request. He appreciates STLL's need for additional funding. He thought the City should be responsible for providing adequate maintenance of the two ball fields. Making the necessary amendments would cost the City a significant amount of time and effort. The current discussion is about crafting amendments that would be creative enough to allow this specific request. It would set a precedent. When a similar request comes along another creative amendment can be crafted to allow the new request. He recommended the Park Commission identify funds to help with maintenance of the two fields and determine where the funds would come from to repair the batting cages. He stated businesses will pay for advertising signage because there is a financial benefit to them. The proposed signage would also be a financial benefit to STLL. Therefore; government property would be used to create advertisement for financial gain and he did not think it would be appropriate to establish that precedent. He has a difficult time supporting this request. The fact other Commissions had recommended denial of similar requests does carry some weight, but he is not one to do something because it has historically been done that way. Approving this request could make it difficult to keep commercial messages out of public properties. He expressed disappointment that STLL is doing part of the City's job by doing maintenance on the two ball fields. He thought the Planning Commission should strongly recommend Council address the issue. Chair Schmitt clarified the Planning Commission is a recommending body only; it does not make the decisions. This request will come before Council durin- its March 23, 2009, meeting and the Council will make the decision. Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, recommending; denial of South Tonka Little League's request for amendments to the City's Zoning Code that would allow it to display commercial advertising signs on the ball field fences of the tvvo fields in Freeman Park used by STLL. Commissioner Vilett suggested the motion be amended to include the request for Council to consider having the City fund some of the maintenance of and improvements to the two ball fields. Without objection from the maker or seconded, the motion was amended to include the Planning Commission requests the City Council consider having the City fund some of the maintenance of and improvements to the two ball fields. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:54 P.M. 2. SELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2009 Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, recommending the nomination of Scott Schmitt to the position of Planning Commission Chair. Motion passed 5/0. Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, recommending the nomination of Bob Gagne to the position of Planning Commission Vice-Chair. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 3 March 2009 Page 7 of 7 3. SELECT LIAISON TO CITY COUNCIL Council Liaisons were selected as followed: March 2009 Commissioner Hutchins April 2009 Commissioner Geng May 2009 Commissioner Ruoff June 2009 Commissioner Arnst July 2009 Commissioner Schmitt 4. DISCUSS MEETING CALENDAR Director Nielsen stated there will not be a Planning Commission meeting on March 17, 2009, because he will be on vacation. He stated the meeting could be rescheduled for March 24°i if the Commission wanted it to be. He noted the Commission is ahead of schedule on reviewing the Planning District Area Plans, and as of yet there are no planning items for discussion for the April 7"' meeting. The Commission agreed that a meeting on March 24 would not be necessary. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA No agenda was drafted. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the 23 February 2009 Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. Commissioner Vilett stated she wanted to attend the Sensible Land Use Coalition program titled Foreclosures Part I which is scheduled for March 25, 2009. • Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the. Planning Commission Meeting of 3 March 2009 at 8:05 P.M. Motion passed 5/0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder '3 e >W. ®5755 COUNTmY CLUB ROAD ~ SHOREWOGLr, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ® (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0125 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityhaII@d.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 February 2009 RE: South Tonka Little League - Request for Zoning Code Amendments to Allow Advertising Signs on Ball Field Fences FILE NO. 405(09.01) BACKGROUND Representatives of the South Tonka Little League (SILL) have requested amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow them to display commercial advertising signs on the ball field fences of the two fields used by Little League in Freeman Park (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The fields in question are shown on Exhibit B (Freeman Park Site Plan). The applicant's request is explained in Exhibit C. As indicated, they propose to display as many as 15 signs on each of the two fields they use. The signs would be heavy-duty banners, measuring approximately 3.5' high and 7' wide. The applicant did not have actual photos of what is being proposed, but has prepared mock-up illustrations to provide a sense of how the signs might appear (see Exhibit C-2). The sign space would be sold to Little League sponsors and the revenue would go to STLL for "scholarships" (for families that need assistance with the fees) and field maintenance. This request initially appeared before the Park Commission as an informal inquiry in December of 2008. Exhibit D contains the material the Commission reviewed as part of that inquiry. At its 9 December 2008 meeting, the Commission voted unanimously against changing the current codes (see Exhibit E). In late January the applicant decided to submit a formal application for the code amendments. The matter was referred back to the Park Commission with some additional STLL budget information (Exhibit F) at their 01% %06 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #8 A. Memorandum RE: SILL Request for Zoning Code Text Amendments 26 February 2009 10 February 2009 meeting. Again, they voted unanimously to recommend against changing the current code. They were not, however, unsympathetic to STLL's budget issues. As part of their motion (see Exhibit G), the Commission agreed to look at how much field maintenance is done by the City versus the League. There appeared to be consensus that the City might be able to increase its level of maintenance, freeing up SILL money for scholarships. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION A. Code Amendments Required. Shorewood's regulations pertaining to signs are found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. of the City Code (a copy of which appears as Attachment E of Exhibit D). There are also definitions relative to signs in Section 1201.02 of the Code. Not including definitions, following are the provisions of Subd. 11. that would have to be amended: b.(2)(d) prohibits banners except for temporary (10 days at a time) business signs. • b.(2)(f) prohibits signs on trees, fences or utility poles. • c.(3) restricts signs on public property to governmental signs. c.(4) limits banners to temporary business signs (maximum 10 days). d. 1 c lists billboards and advertising signs as nonconforming signs. This is perhaps the most significant revision that would have to occur. The City has had a long history of phasing out billboards. In essence, the proposed signs differ little from billboards, that is, off-site advertising signs. Over the years the City has managed, through its development regulations, to eradicate five of seven billboards that existed over the past 30 years. Thousands of dollars were spent in getting the billboard on County Road 19, at the :LRT Trail, removed. In this light it was extremely important to obtain a legal opinion from the City Attorney, stating that the amendments necessary to allow signs in the signs in the parks will in no way jeopardize the City's approach to prohibiting billboards. The Attorney's comments are discussed further on in this report. e. 1 lists signs allowed in residential zoning districts. Advertising signs are not allowed in residential districts. Freeman Park is zoned single-family residential. B. Planning/Legal Issues. Staff requested that the City Attorney address several concerns relative to the proposed code amendments. These are found in Exhibit -2- Memorandum ICE: STLL Request for Zoning Code Text Amendments 26 February 2009 H, attached. The City Attorney has responded under separate cover (see Memorandum from Kennedy & Graven, dated 23 February 2009). The Attorney's comments no doubt will generate considerable discussion relative to this request. As a result, staff will be seeking direction from the Planning Commission as to how to proceed with the application. It should be noted that SILL requested its membership show their support for the application. Numerous e-mails were received and have been consolidated under separate cover. Cc: Brian Heck Mary Tietjen I risti Anderson Jeremy Norman Kyle Heitkamp -3- N 0 250 500 ~I SMITHTOWN RD r, 1,000 TI Fet SMITHTOWN LA I .4 MANN LA HARDINOAVIE I LI. Freeman Park 0 -71 I ~m rr - - ^oa _ ~ l 1 O II- SHOREWOOD OAKS OAK LEAF TR ~ Iw 7ARK _1 ` T-_`_--- % Toll ~(-Z'SQ~ ~.r.~ ~J- 1~~ 1 ~ y9y, I slnhll . _ - - I ' S 1~ ~..r'. ' - ~~.!r • ~ ~ t , F..f~ ga },n<.~~ I _~~~ill~~1 1. A- yrC v l /'Johh.lll If~11 ipov Tom' t~+ c ! annd V•II• Wooded rea I~~~'(u~.~I(r )yl.1'1 1 l 7"n~ '1 / I I . - - 9onbH1 I`P cli' ~(v• 1 ~ ~.l Il, i.!''` } \n / 11 .-:H- it O .r. - 1 rf 5d S T Ilr y ~ r ~ a7 \ a 'n I; Wetland u - _ `I. ` 7- r(Y 1•~ fi. y7.\-~ I~~ I .~1' ~L li•~',.,i- II_- I ~ 1 Ct~ J S1~yp ~A~~j yI. r I ~r r, -uo - - - I .Ma. s,.w...•.a.... ' / e•M RU ~(n .r 7 J,/~ , , ~ ,O `11 f y~,t. U - _ JIB tl w.. ~ d x , ~ ~ ~ - III ~ r7l r.ddna 1 l ' I 1' l o To I. Higl,w ~ ll•lhl>_ ail '..u ~i,li ~j rb~th u O p m o o a o q 0 ;u 3 _0 =41 cn cn cn cn co cp o cn cn 0 v o v? fD' 0 O CD Cn co - N cn' -1 c ° - co cN> 0 CD rr ,..r O Sir CD rO a) o w r- CD c CD c n 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 ° 0- - cn C, 0 0 c$ y r Cl) v (D CD a CD CD a U) in (n m o o w cu c D 5' c m o' o m Co U) =r cD N CO O N m co p w w O ---I CL CD =3 CL 0 CD =r =r (j) CD m co Ca- 10 r- 0 0 --1 CD r°° co (j) O r S>> CD :3 n o. m r o o a w C7 N Qcb' o o ~ m~' ~,3 x'3 cg rcDc I a) O Er ° o cn =3 con CD v-3 @ Cr ET c c ~ o ° CD v o cn o _ m =:r o 0 3 N ~ CD a ~ CD ~ ~ ~ S w ~ ~ w @ (nn. ~ ~ o < CD ~ m Co SO. m m = N' S N co =r 'r o m S cn cn' m m S = o (n CD - ° N . • m w ~ =r =3 n CD N `G (o' S C7 N Co vim, w co n S CD CD D o C caw 3 cD c m con - w CD CCD, ( (o 0) CA CD < CD U:) ° w o s o 3 N "v 3 m a~ CD CD- N CD c 2 N CD in > v, cn ~p~ v_, m cn wC~ (D w ° L •3 CD n(= 5* = CND co pp~~ ? ? = fi=r = Do N ' CD N S M O c p 0 2 w 3 o°i co ui m C6. CU CU L ccn CO L~ U:) c m m a n CD v,' C 1 =3 S < m .Z s m co N S CD m x _ CD o o FD7 =n •2 m R ° CD CD Cl) vn B n N CD CD CO m w? w co 3 CD m 3 N 3 O ma D CD =r w, n e w CD c c m <cn-0 m o m =Dr c _ N S O CD U) C m c cn `T' CZ O Z = cn O o- (~D N N Q. CD 0 w u N m a O CD N ~ C7 2. , O 3 W _ CD C~ o' N rn c S ? co a Cn CD c 3 3 -10 - p 0 O r CD m n w o m r u ni C? 3 0 o o n O O O cn Cr n N M N v tug c~ 3 a o o cn 3- 0 3 _ :(7 to S CD n w - ► O v' S c! `S. c CD 0 0 (D 3 O cn o m o< o~ CO (C) 2 cn a o z n°i c7i w n : S w c ° 3 < ° S w N 3 m m CD S N S c CD w , - n CT BCD X CD m •n' CD < 3 < w :3. 3' ° m w cc_n c m$ o _ o S° w CD 0 T ;:w 0 C U) -0 .0 CD CD CD CCDD N cn ~ c c o ° 3 CD N CD m .°N. 2 o o m ~ ~ w =r l< 0 m CND N < N N c N O ~ Cn CD < = CD CD a) 2y: y m O (D cl) :3 O N Q m d a CCDD CAD a = cn 2; CD w O X C" CD m n ° S 3 M. :3 PD 0 CD J► CD Cn O Co' CD n CCD N c w O a° 'J `G _ (D N 7 cn CD = N Co p cn 0 a Co CD 3 cID cn 0) r cr N Cn C N w r~.y , N O O = o C to ~ (n (n (n d Cn CND O Cn = CD S CD CD N N w 0 d CD CD C CD cn -4- • • P V, II ~w- M1 M M lo' 1 t n w 40 ri FYI From: Nelson, Dave [rnailto:DAVID. NELSON@minnetonka.k12.mn. us] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1.10 PM To: Kuzma, Frank Subject: Advertising Frank The Tonka Football Association (TFA) has no plans to advertise at Badger Field or at any park in Shorewood. Sincerely, Dave Nelson Head Football Coach Minnetonka High School FYI - Football to follow. From: Morgansharonm@aol.com [mailto:Morgansharonm@aol.com] tt : Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:10 PM To: Kuzma, Frank Subje : Signs at Shorewood's Outdoor Rinks Frank, Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association has no desire to advertise or hang signs at any of Shorewood's outdoor rinks. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks Sharon Morgan MYNA President A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See 1 C 115 C`'j 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood; Minnesota 55331 @ 952-474-3236 ~ L ~ Fax: 952-474-0 128 ® www.ei.shorewood.mn.Lis - cityhall,c eLshorewood.mn.Ls To: Park Commission From: James Landim - City Engineer Uj Date: December 5, 2008 Re: Agenda Item 5 - Review Sign Ordinance At the last park meeting Mr. Frank Kuzma from South Tonka Little League met with the Park Commission regarding sponsorships and advertising on one of the ball fields at Freeman Park. The Park Commission asked if they could see a copy of South Tonka Little Leagues budget, attached is a copy for your review (attachment A). The Park Connnission asked staff to research other cities ordinances and report back the findings. Staff asked the following cities if they allowed signage / advertising on their baseball field fences. City of Plymouth - Their city's sign ordinance prohibits signs attached to fences, including field fences. City of Woodburv - They currently do not allow advertising on their fences. City of Edina - They allow sponsor panels and other forms of advertising on scoreboards at their parks. The sponsor panels and other advertising on the scoreboards need to be integral to the scoreboard and constructed of the same materials as the scoreboard. City of St. Bonifacius - Their ordinance does not allow them, however their Council decided to allow them and they are reviewed at the time of the field use application. City of Victoria - They currently allow signage on their baseball fields, but do not have any documentation. City of Chanhassen - They developed a sign agreement in 2005 (attachment B) with a local athletic association to allow advertising on their outfield fences at selected park locations. This agreement was never finalized. City of Maple Grove - The city has written guidelines for advertising /sponsorships (attachment C). The sponsor has to submit a written proposal to the board and if acceptable the city will draft an agreement and submit to the board for their approval. The areas that are considered for advertising / sponsorship are the outfield fences, hockey boards and scoreboards: City of Minnetonka - Attached is the city's ordinance on scoreboards and outdoor advertising for your review (attachment D). Also attached is a copy of the City's sign ordinance (attachment E). A memo will be forthcoming from Planning Director, Brad Nielsen outlining the city's ordinance. After review and discussion please advise how the Park Commission would like staff to proceed. Exhibit D PARK COMM. PACKET Dated 5 December 2008 12/31200 SO UTH, 'I 0111 031V~ ihrnugh '9130/2009 Using Ll..:dgti. ::7 Page 'i 10/1/2008 9/3012009 Category Description !actual B udget Difference 1lst r$q`jt Babe Ruth Income 1,775.75 1,800.00 Concession Stand - Revenue 744.94 18,000.00 East Tonka Little League 0.00 500.00 Fall Bali Registration 110.00 24.000.00 Foundations & Fundraising 0.00 5,000.00 Interest Inc 0.00 150.00 Miller Night Collections 0.00 500.00 Other inc 0.00 0.00 C.00 Sponsorships 100.00 20,000.00 Spring Registration- 0.00 72,000.00 € i3 T AL INCOME 2,730,70 141,9%00 EXPENSES Accounting & Legal 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Bad Debt - Bad Checks 0.00 100.00 100.00 Bank Charge 25.10 250.00 224.90 Building Insurance 0.00 750.00 750.00 Clinics - Speakers 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 Computer Support 59.24 200.00 140.75 Concession Stand Maintenance 0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Concession Stand Supplies 189.47 10,000.00 9,810.53 Equipment 0.00 6,000.00 5,000.00 Fail Ball Umpires 2,875.00 3,000.00 25.00 Fail Ball Uniforms 46.50 4,000.00 3,953.50 Field Improvements 0.00 10,000,00 10,000.00 Field Maintainance 815.07 7,500.00 6,684.93 Grounds Crew 1,900.17 6,000.00 4,099.83 Little League Fees & Insurance 150.00 3,500.00 3,350.00 Miller Night Expenses 0,00 500.00 500.00 Miscellaneous - Supplies 43.61 500.00 456.39 Mtka Baseball - Diamond Club 0.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 Online Registration Costs 75.90 4,000.00 3,924.10 PR & A11/eb Site 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Recognition Event 1,650.84 10,000.00 8,349.16 Refunds 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Registration Costs 107.00 '1,000.00 893.00 Rent (Meeting Rooms, etc.) 0.00 400.00 400.00 Scholarships .0.00 250.00 250.00 Shorewood Fees 0.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Sponsor Signage 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 Spring Trophies 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Spring Umpires 0-00 10,000.00 10,000.00 Spring Uniforms 0.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 Tonka Dome Commitment 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 Tonka Dome Rental Fees 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 Tournaments 0.00 3,000,00 3,000.00 Utilities 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 11,037.90 15-0-,9--1-' 00 139,9 t2,10 0 IE6LL TOT:!. 692,80 lJ _e 1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AND THE CI ANHASSEN ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF DEDICATED ADVERTISING SIGNAGE AND SCOREBOARD SIGNAGE 1. Field and scoreboard signage shall be placed on the outfield and/or f6ul fences of ball fields #1, 42, and #3 at Lake Ann Park and ball field #1 Bandimere Park by CAA. 2. For each advertisement sign, the City shall receive a $200 payment for the first year, and $200 in payment every subsequent year. Additionally, the City will receive $400 in payment for each sign on a scoreboard and $400 in payment every subsequent year. 3, Signs shall be of uniform size and color scheme, 4. Only commercial signage; excluding alcohol, tobacco and sexually-oriented businesses; is allowed. 5. Signs shall be allowed to be in place from April through October. 6. Sponsorship, promotion, and management of the program shall be the sole responsibility of the CAA. 7. The signs shall be maintained during the season and stored during the off-season by the CAA. 8. Any damage to the park property caused by the sign program shall be paid for by the CAA. 9. Payments shall be made to the City on July 1 and November I of each year. 10. This agreement expires on December 31, 2008 and is renewable upon consent by each party. 11. If this agreement is not renewed, the Chanhassen Athletic Association will no longer be held responsible for subsequent payments to the City. 12. All money collected shall be appropriated for capital improvements to City ball fields including construction of scoreboards, dugouts, and additional lighting standards, Improvements will only be initiated when sufficient funds have been collected and with input from the CAA. CHANHASSEN ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION By President By Administrator Date CITY OF CHANHASSEN By Tom Furlong, Mayor By. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Date General Overview The Board recognizes that the users of the parks, recreation programs and the Community Center are the same persons many businesses would like to target as their advertising audience. The Board, on a limited basis, will consider revenue resources beyond the general fund and participation fees, providing it does not compromise the recreational experience of the visitor. The Board will consider marketing/advertising sponsorship opportunities if the product /service being marketed is compatible with the Board's mission. Tobacco or alcohol products and establishments whose primary product sold is tobacco or alcohol will not be considered for sponsorships. Special note. Restaurants selling food and alcohol are eligible for marketing sponsorships ® The Board will consider marketing/advertising sponsorships for the enhancement or operation of the City's recreation programs and facilities. ® Associations and organizations will be permitted to use City property with marketing/advertising sponsors only on an event or single tournament basis. (See Temporary Sponsorship Guideline). ® Each marketing sponsorship will follow these guidelines, but will have unique characteristics and revenue opportunities; therefore each agreement that is entered into will need to be approved by the Board. ffi This guideline is written for on-going and existing facilities. Should a capital campaign program become established, it should have its own fundraising plans. ® This guideline may be expanded to consider additional display areas should the current revenue resources become limited. n Definitions Marketing/Advertising Sponsorship - Cash, products and services offered by sponsors with the clear expectation that an obligation is created. Typically the obligation would be for the right to display their logo and/or marketing materials for an extended length of time. Temporary Sponsorships - Cash, products and services offered by businesses for a special event in partnership with the Board or offered to another organization using City property for an event. With this sponsorship, there is a clear expectation that their logo will be on promotional material and visible at, ti-, event for a limited time. Special note: There is a different guideline written to address temporary sponsorships. Gifts and Donations - Gifts are unrestricted cash to be used as the Park Board wishes. Donations are restricted cash, product or in-kind services to be used in a specific way. Special note: There is a different guideline written to address gifts and donations. ® Grant - Non-proprietary financial support for a specific project. Grants are awarded based on competitive applications. Grants usually require specific criteria and may involve external audits and detailed financial reports. Special note: There will be a different guideline written to address grant applications. Implementation of Marketing/ Advertising Sponsorships ® Should a potential sponsor or marketing agency seek a relationship with the Parks and Recreation Board, they will be asked to submit a written proposal outlining the considerations listed herein. ® Staff will draft an agreement with input from the City Attorney. a Staff will submit the agreement to the Board for formal approval. Considerations for Marketing/Advertising Sponsorship 1. Is the product/service being marketed compatible with the Board's mission? 2. Is tobacco or alcohol the primary product sold by the potential sponsors? 3. Does the size of the display seem appropriate for the intended space? 4. Are the materials for the display of quality material, sturdy, unobtrusive and compatible with the surroundings? 5. Who will repair and maintain the display? 6. What is the length of the partnership agreement and how can it be terminated early? 7. Will this agreement be for exclusive rights and not allow other like businesses to have displays? 8. What is the commission fee or anticipated revenue for the Board? 9. Who will monitor/manage/enforce the partnership agreement to assure all expectations are being met? 10. Does the display comply with the City Signage Code (Chapter 24)? 11. Besides a display, what other avenues will this sponsor be able to use to promote their business? For examples flyers, TV monitors. Note: The display is the presentation of the sponsor's logo, ad text, or picture of product specifically designed to fit within the area identified. Should the sponsor be interested in an exhibit such as a booth to pass out sample product or promotional material, the specific area and timeframe should be addressed in the ag; eenruf~i. it is recommended to follow the temporary sponsorship guidelines for this option. Areas of the Community Center that will be considered for Sponsorships- 1. Ice Arena dasherboards 2. Zamboni 3. Ice Arena - general wall and surface space 4. Ice Arena scoreboard 5. Exclusive private product agreements - such as the current Coke agreement. 6. Existing TV monitors at the front desk and in the Maze Lobby area. Areas of the park and trail system that will be considered for Sponsorships- 1. Outfield fences of ballfields 2. Hockey boards of outdoor rinks 3. Scoreboards at athletic facilities ~ ( - L~21,11) r14A)x1-. ORDINANCE .2006-1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY DE SECTION 300.30 REGARDING SCOREBOARDS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING THE CIT`r OF MINNETONIeA O°vAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 300.30, Subdivision 2(22) is amended as follows: 22. "Outdoor advertising sign" - any sign whiGh that is located outdoors and whiGh that advertises a product, business, service, event, or any other matter whisk that is not available, or does not take place, on the same premises as the sign. An outdoor advertising sign does not include a sign that is not understandable or readable by tE?' naked eve of an ordinary person with 20/20 vision from property other than where the sign is located such as from adjacent property or a.public street. Section 2. Section 300.30, Subdivision 2 (31) is repealed: GPCnnn r r~ n 31 o~ ~ _ X . r i nr age nnv fnr Ress , supporting the aGti Vity e or etherwise-,OG GHrring a t the display Section 3. Section 300.30, Subdivision 2, is amended by the addition of a new paragraph that reads as follows and that is inserted alphabetically, with subsequent paragraphs renumbered consecutively: "Scoreboard" - a sign associated with an athletic field that includes information and/or statistics pertinent to an on-site game or activity and also includes any sponsor or identification panels. The ke-n language is deleted; the single-underlined language is inserted. ORDINANCE NO. 2006-16 Section 4. City Code Section 300.30, Subdivision 3 (a)(4)(b)(2) is amended as follows: 2. scoreboards: a)---one scoreboard per playing field is allowed if it does not exceed 410 square feet in size except that a playing field with structured seating capacity for greater than 2000 people may have one or more scoreboards and the total area of the scoreboard or scoreboards cannot exceed 1000 square feet in size; and anc4 Section 5. City Code Section 300.30, Subdivision 3 (a)(4)(b)(3) is amended as follows: 3. athletic field fence panels: a) athletic field fence panels which contain outdoor advertising signs as defined in this ordinance are prohibited; and b) an advertising fence panel which directly faces the infield and was legally established prior to the effective date of this ordinance is considered a legal nonconforming use which may not be altered, enlarged or replaced by another nonconforming sign except the message may be changed. Section 6. A violation of this ordinance is subject to the penalties and provisions of Chapter XI II of the city code. The striGkeR language is deleted; the single-underlined language is inserted. ORDINANCE NO. 2006-16 a e 3 Section 7. This ordinance is effective immediately. Adopted by the city council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on September 11, 2006. Janis A. Callison, Mayor ATTEST: Laura L. Ronbeck, Acting City Clerk ACTION ON THIS ORDINANCE: Date of introduction: Date of adoption: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Ordinance adopted. Date of publication: January 3, 2005 September 11, 2006 Schneider Allendorf Allendorf, Callison, Ellingson, Schneider, Thomas, Wiersum Wagner The s kc+ language is deleted; the single-underlined language is inserted. ORDINANCE NO. 2006-16 Fade 4 I certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the city council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on September 11, 2006. Laura L. Ronbeck, Acting City Clerk Date: The etr+eke-R language is deleted; the single-underlined language is inserted. 20-A.f'3 1 1-1 0 0 issuance, the Q e o'~:~ nHv s+^i C,~. to I1~- e I .~cer''~1 ~ o ~ Appea~is ~a%fd may app rre` t-~ly~~- and Ad;ust L errs Under the Tules and p oceduTes as set, fo sh fl § 2 ! 0 of this chapter. d. Requard'menis jor conditio.nal Luse. All transm`ssirjn pipelines (i.e. pip-lines gno,, required for local distributing network) and overhead transmission, and substation lines in excess of 33 KV shall be a conditional use in all districts subject to the following proceduzal requirements: 4`t> prior to the installation of any of the pr cvious essential services, the ow ne-T of the services shall isle with the Zoning AdT hnil'stratori , all raps and other pertinent information as deemed necessary for the City Council to Tcvie,,,'j the proposed project; (2) The Zoning Adrriiriistrator shall transmift the map and accompanying information to the City Council for its review regarding the pr'oject's relationship to the Comprehensive darn and parts thereof. A part of this review shall be a written report from the City Engineer; The City Council shall hold the necessary public headings as prescribed by this chapter for conditional rises; (4) gn considering the applications for the placement of essential services, as regulated by this subdivision, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the city staff and the effect of the proposer-1l project upon the health, safety and general welfare of the city, existing and anticipated and the effect of the proposed project upon the fCompreheTisive plan. a. Purpose, This subdivision is established to protect and prorniote health, safety, general welfare and order within the City of Shorewood through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial set of standards, reculatlons and procedures governing the type, numbers, size, structure, location, height, lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or symbols serving as a visual co iumicatiosa media to persons situated within or upon public rights-of-way or properties. The provisions Uu unb ~§Uu uva3;urnn "4,- Snnae Ili v odv~owee s - d - n orderly com, munication by reduchng coT7Nsion and hazards resulting iTom unnecessaTy and/or indiscriminate use of co u nication facilities. b, perms. ed and prohibited Tagus. (jy Permitted sagas. The following signs are allovs✓ed without a persist, bwf. shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this chanter: 201 ict 1 -61 '2M ' 1 20 L . y &'1 o e v ood ° Zoning *"li d uihdn ~ll~so7n1 R y ~~at17n ~ i ~a) Public sign s; (b) Address spg (e) Jntegrah signs; (d) Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of persons responsible for the sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. Signs shall be permitted on each lot for a perlod of 100 days prior to and ten days after an election. The city shall have t'he right to remove and destroy unsightly signs or remove signs after the ten day limit and assess a fee as provided from time to time by ordlnanoe. Campaign signs shall not be located closer than ten feet from any street surface and shall not be placed in front of any property without the consent of the property owner; (e) Holiday signs, displayed for a period not to exceed 30 days and no larger than 32 square feet in area; Construction signs. The signs shall be confined to the sate of the construction, alteration or repair and shall be removed within two years of the date of issuance of the first building peymv,t or v hk n. the particular project is completed, whichever is soon)k°u° a determined by the City Building Official or his or hez: agent'0-,ic sign shall be perrnatted for each major street the project abuts. ?"Io sign may exceed 50 square feet; Real estate sale or rental signs. Signs mast be removed within 14 days after sale or rental of property. Signs may not measure More than six square feet in Residential Districts, nor more than 20 square feet in all other districts. "here shaahh be only one sign per premises. Corner properties, however, may contain two signs, one per frontage. Lakeshore hots may contain two shies, one in the front and one facing the lake; (h) Informational/directional signs shall not be larger than three square feet and shall conform to the location provisions of the speciflc district; (l) owner-occupant signs. One residential name sign, not to exceed two square feet in area, identifying only the naLme of the oviner or° occupant of a residential building. (2) Prohibited .signs. The following signs are specifically prohibited by this chapter: 2 20 1 -62 ~v (,07 J (a) Any sip, whr_o? obstructs avae `%Estoin o drivers or pe ess-,l ,?is vi detracts frorin the visibility of airy offic a' tra'^rrie-eon ?rol ev;ce, (p) Any sign which contains or I itates an official traffic 5 grd 0- 51g?1a1, except for a3riva'te, Firs-prernises directional signs; (c) Any sign which moves, rotates; has any moving parts or gives the ill isioZ3 of motion, except for, time and tempera moire irtfor.Tnation. Moving message type si gns may be per +ted as ag1 !exception v hl "n t Sear messages consist Primarily of Tne-vis, public and the like of a nonadvertising natu e, (d) Except for holiday signs and exceptions provided in provys,oT-lc,(4) below, any sign which contains or consists of banners, penrlianit;s, ril hots, sttream, ens, strings of 'fagh ot?lbs, Spiinnei`S or ,;imR~ ar devices; (e) Portable signs (except as provided in provision c.(4) below), Signs which are attached in any rnian-ner to trees, fences, uai'lity poles or other permanent sluippo-fts, (g) No sign shall be illuininated with airy flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated, except -`or time and tP , s < ! alie information, All displays shall he shielded to preverx" any "ligInt to be directed at on-corning traffic in the brilliance as ac irnpa the vision of any driver. No device stall be illuminated ins a."riiais3er as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. No light shall be directed onto a lake so as to interfere with navigation thereon Roof signs. ('11, Window signs -where the total area of s d a signs e;uce f - or lire total glass area of the window space as viewed ion the s'rT--,, to a rnaxirn uin of 20 square feet. c. General Provisions. (i) All signs shall coi~~ly with the Miri esota: State Building Code as rnay be attended. (2) When electrical signs are installed, , the instal tlo , s'-all be sub ect to the State Building Code as nn ay be amended. 1201-v3 2007 S-? 1 201 ? r,✓y,: Zon L11i T Sub, l`Ile T iC]I, t`l 201 .03 gn. T t n 7'J o_ any to o~erty `.j No po (.iv_ of any si s al Ue OCa Le~d Yv' sL 1_~~ line. No signs other than gover mental signs and Political ca=, iarn sib s as nrovzc~ee± n b. (1)(d) of this subdivision shall be erected or tes p placed within any street fight-of-way or upon'pub?,ic lands or easements or rights-oz-way. Any reauthorized signs 'located in public ukght-of-way or on mblic property shall be considered abandoned and are subject to 41-h-nediate removal and disoosai without notice. The teh norary use of signs, searchlights, banners, pennants and s mi'-!a r devices shall require a permit. The pennd'+_ shall be valid -_Foy ten consecutive days. The permit shall be pmminenfly Displayed during the, period of validity. Only two ternporary permits may be granted for any property within any 12-month period. T ernporar y signs shall not e,'ceed 32 square feet in area. Any new business that has a~plied for its per inanent business sign may, at the same ti :ne, apply Lo:, a tem-porar-y business sign to be displayed for no longer than 30 ;lays, or until the permanent sign has been erected, whichever comes first. The temporary bossiness sign shall be professionally prepared and shall be no larger than the approved permanent sign. (5) No sign or sign str>rictum shall protrude over 21 public right-of-way. (6) All signs which require a permit shall display, in a conspicuous rna-faner, the owner's narne, permit number and date the sign was erected. All height restrictions on signs small include height of sign structicire ar?d be measured from lot grade. (o) In the ease of a two-faced, freestanding sign, where the two faces of the sign are parallel and face in opposite directions, only one face shail be used in computing the allowable area of the sign. (9) Any sign now or hereafier existing which no longer advertises or identifies a business conducted, service rendered or product sold on the plern ises shall be removed by the o n-er , agent or person having the beneficial use or control of the building or strucr`uure upon wh;.ch the sign may be foun i within 60 days from the date of vacancy. (10) The regulations contained herein shall not apply to traffic signs or the f fag separate ernblema, or insignia of a na'non, political unit, school or religions groin, or integral sighs. There shall be no more than one United States flag and no ore than three other non-coign-nercial nags. Nor shall these regulations pertain to a sign inside a building, provided the sign is at least= three feet in back of the inside o1- the exterior wall and is readable from the inside of the building. 1201-64 2006S-1 1 jv1 I lze SLiVjec' to review a no (I All sighs recLiirin,g a permit fr odds the City/ sha11 approval by the Zoning Adm istrato? . Noncor2forlriing Signs. (1) he following are noncot forrrii-.-Ig signs: (a) Prohibited signs; (u) All other signs not. prohib" ed that d0 n0 cl -tfVu J r i 't the ,,ro-\/iSi i nl$ ons of this chapter; (c) Billboards and advertising signs (except as provided in prow°_+sion e,.(3)(J) of this suodivision). (y) Except- as provided hi paragraph (5) belov/, all noncon_roTrning and prohibited signs created by this chapter except those signs exen Jted by state statutes (M.S. § 462.357, subd. 1c) shall be removed or brought into cor-iforrnity with this chapter within the following time periods: (a) Any sign in violation or prohibited signs: SIX Months from the date or the enactment of this chapter, (b) All other nonconforming sighs: upon approval of any "Mii';d-,-ng permit, sign permit, or other zoning action. (3) A nonconforming sign r-nay not be: (a) Changed to another noncoriforr- ing sign; (b) Structurally altered except to bring i-n-to compliance with the provisions of this chapter: (c) Expanded; (d,) reestablished after its removal; I P°utabflshe dG? te_ ram gP o-F or ' n, 50 % of cost except to bring into compliance. (4) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as relieving t1he Ovds cr or user of a legal nonconforming sign or owner of the property on which hi_b tRe legal norsconfor r?ing sigh is locaiec from i the p= ovisions of this subcI Bion regarding safety, maintenance and repair of signs contained in subdivisio-n 1201-a5 2006-1 5 `JC 'it(i, - t~~+~,.illi"ig an SI.IlU•G15 A, n i2~l.J i ill ~ ,,intnii ~y~n L a 11c; provided, however, that any repain'iirig, cleaning and other noTma Maii-itenance of eV~aiT Of tsie sigr, or sign stT;tCti -re St a'13±. not, ` ac Sigh structure or COPY an arty way which makes li niore ?-oncor?`0='ci's_ Of ii?e sign shall lose its legal szo iconto-Iig status. (J) 1° 1otwithstanding provisionS tO the COLTiytr ary W;tbiri this subdivisi.ori, c nOilconfOriairig off site dire C$lflr?al signs [OCate01 0+=uO.iC S-` ✓ J' may continue anon a finding by the City Council than. (a) The sign is TeasoriaNy necessary to 7lovide diT-eC6on to t a business v> h,ch is advertised by t]-he si4:Dgun,; (b) The sign (or a substantially si-nilar DredecessOr) has bee i at 1,e ?.ovation for at least 20 years; (c) n he sign has not represented a sa-Fety hazard or an obstruction to orda_nary ioadWay r ainteriance activities. (6) The Coupcil may condition the permission upon the owner of the establishment entering into an agreerri,ei?t With the city addressing tters, including liability, indeminnity of the 6ty, CircumstaASces calling for removal g-D permit fees and of the si f{ other -miatters deemed appropriate by the city. (y) to lieu of permitting the existing sign. to remain at its existing RC➢ c: tv l_'", e. City Coaincil may authorize the location of a substitute sign J the existing- location or a different location. C. lsti ICi` Y2glrl tjoj7s. The following sign standards by zoning- district 7erta?3n, to signs which require application and permit. (1) R-JA thro~fgh R-3B ,widen-tia.i Districts. ( ) Ares identiflccOon Signs (rtl0i'+.LtMM' h)pf Only. OT?,° SiG`i "aCi71 each bordering street shall be altowef'a for each developme_Tit of 20 or snore snits. The sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in area, nor shall the sign stirunti e exceed on-c-haNof the allowable copy area. The signs shall be erected Only at the dedicated street entry-_ ce, eclat i-ot i_n the public night-O Woly, TRILly Ue TIdurtcfly ilu-i nnatt and shall not e.tceed a height or eiglLt fee:; above grade. Institution sibns. Cne freestanding sign not to exceed 20 square feet ha area. The freestanding sign may be indirectly illumi-nated and shall not exceed a height of eight feet above grade. i eestai2ding signs located adjacent to i =teTrnnediate or rm:nor 1201-660 2006 IS-1 Z-D v~ ood Coi`=,~;irehens pie rani z 1 7tP ,oie a,-P al streets, as identified ~ lays, may be inteimalily fl~t. t__ add--tio__, one viafl- sign i-nay be all.ovved by condit?o-iia use DerI.it, si 'Diect to e ?.e rv ~ovv'r, c: (a) The total area of Sags age9 ;nca ni g ° vva,l Sign; shaj o exceed 5 % of the uild?r?g silho e-I.- e as vrevved fro'Tn-, he street; (ai) the waH sign may be indirectly iglu inated. (c) Pai'li identiffi otion clans. One sags fwcl Lb each bordering St_re,et . .C T] t) C ilia The s*.gn shall not exceed 2'0 square feet in area nor e'g t P height. The signs may be andrrectly ally urinated, (d) St!bdivision plot signs. No more than 'tvvo 'tesn~~C3r? y signs advertising a nevv s ubdlvlsion plat, provided each sign does not exceed 32 sgyare feet in area, identifying only the plat an whIchi they are locate 1, are no ral uminated and are erected only at dedicated street entrances to the plat. The sages shall he removecl if construction of subdivision hnprovennents is not in progress on the plat withi'i3 60 days following the date of the sign erection ox as soon as 80% of the lots are developed and so?-.1. (2) FI-C esidei-ltiollComrnercial. S1,ribject to other conditions of this chapter, the following signs shall be allowed in the '-C District: (a) Signs are regulated in e.(1) above, (b) Business signs in the R-C Districts shall he subject to the requ;rements of 1201.19 Subd. 'O. d. of this code. 12,01-6 2 (1) 07 S-2 R ep'?. % onli g and S~~.1,~0'dHv,,sl, o ? Reg'- A-i E . v3 (3) %-1 and C-2 Commerciol Districts, Subject ?o other condlitio,s of t??s eS~ap?e± the Ot_o\t ig~ an i t'° and str G?S. f i OF signs sha'H' be allowed C-1-1 C- (a) Bilsiness signs. (i.) he maximum numbei of signs for any principal buildinig shall be three except by conditional use as provided -!n, (c) below. The maximum total area for all s,gs shah be e4e1 Il'➢ed by tasC_Elli 10% of tale gloss si1,h,0?let e area o' the front of the building. Where the principal b u;,,dhag -is sn, a corner lot and thus fees two public streets, both. sines may be counted. ( J) For purposes of dell;; :pissing -9:u'.?e gross area of the silhouette of the princi-pal ouldin-, the silhouette shall be dds_ue~ as that area within an outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(s). (iii) Each lot will be allowed only one freestanding stars e-xcep,. as provided in (c) below. (b) Advertising signs. Advertising signs are allowed, provided thc- nismber and size of the sags shall be subtracted from the al.lo nurnber and size of allowable business siaris provided in (s+.) above. In no ease shall the area of advertising signs exceed 25% of th total allowable sags area. (c) Conditional uses. In the ease of a shODPirsg Center 0r where t here are two or -more business uses, a conditional use permit may be grunted to the entire shopping censer in accordance with an overall site and signage plan indicating the slzze, location and lyeig of a suns. A rriaxirn i- of 0% of the gross area of the- building silhouea shall apply to -t e principal build ng where ac~'r`l~r e al'lowa'ble sign area is distributed au-nong the several businesses. h the case of applyi ig this conditional use per~sit 0 a slrsop~~iF, center, the shopping ce±_ter a ay have two frees'tanding signs pder?t.a= Ping the shoopi-n ? Oe nte,r 1201-00 2007 S-2 Repl. +D ZonnhL Revufla fi'~-DnS l 01 .03 (a} a reesto ndino signs. F eestar~,dMu Signs s-la l not exceeG 20 !~eet 0 1) herght or S'0 square -feet in area. The total area of the s-ICM structure soak not exceed one-mairn of the allowable copy a-Cea. (e) Window signs, The total area oa window srgrns shall riot exceed ld% of the total area of windows as viewed frorn the street. Window sigr_s with lettering exceeding 3.5 inches in height shall be debited against the total number and area of signs allowed for the P-Topc-Etv .11 Menu boards, One menu board sign per restaurant use with a drive-up facility rimy be allowed in conjunction with a conditional use permit. The menu board shall not exceed 32 square feet ihn aTea, nor amore than eight feet in height, and may be in addition to the fnreestandrrng sign on the property. 1.etteFh g Size on, 'he Mel-Du board shall not exceed two inches in height. (4) Signs permitted in the PUD, Planned Unit Developnient District. (a) Signs permitted hn h UDs shall be as approved by the City Council `oT each development and shall be consistent with the requirenr ents for the district most closely associated with each use in the -PD. (b) For PVDs containing 20 acres or more of land, the city mE.-y a'1.Ow larger construction signs than those allowed in b.(1)(f) of this subdivision. In determining the size and allowable area of S ign s in a PUD, the city shall take into consideration the functional classification and designated speed limit of adjacent roads and ?potential impact on adjoining residential areas. In no case shall the total allowable area of construction signs exceed three square feet for each acre of land within the PUD. The total area of the sign shah not exceed 100 square feet and no individual sign shall exceed 80 square feet. f. Per nit issuance; fees. (1) No sign shall be erected in the City of Shorewood untill a pern 7 to do so has 'Li.. r__ xJhlJ _ J... _-0 Ci--_ 1J t_a,v_ a_-d by o of the wilding Official_ (signs simulated in b.(1) above shall be exempt f? oI this requirement). NO perrn_it shall be granted unii_l the necessary fee has been paid and until the Building Official, or' staff representative, 1_as made a preliminary inspection of the sign before installation and has ascertained that the sign and method or installation comply whir a1- 1201-69 2006 S-J-j 2.'0 1 .0v lending and SllbdW,sion, Rtrpflail 1ii5 i-20 1 .UJ _ rra requirements o; tl1,s chapter. The Buiadilig O=iicia may require that detailed plans amid specilGcations be submitted with the apphc""! IOD if necessary in leis or her judgment. Following pe-unit iss a ice aild sign erection, the Building Official shall make a finial inspection? of the Sign, and if it complies in every respect with the rn? ni lffllrn standards set forth in this chapter, shall endorse on the permit his or her certificate of approval. (2) Lees: (a) Payrnent of fees. The pe mit fee and other gees and charges set forth in this chapter shall be collected by the ci-t-y before the issuance of any permits and the Building Official, or other perso-n.s duly authorized to issue the permit for vjl ich the payment of a "fee is required under the provisions o` this chapter, may not issue a permit until the -fees shall have been paid. (b) Double fees. If a person begins work of any kind for which a permit from the ciV is required, without having secured the necessary pernnits therefor, either previous to or or, the date of corn-nencement of the work, he on she shall, when subsequently securing each permit, pay double the fee provided for the permit, or is subject to the penalty provisions of this chapter. (c) Initial fees. The City (Council shall, from time to time, establish a fee schedule by ordinance. Subd. 12. 810me occupations. a. Purpose. The primary purpose of this subdivision is to provide a means through estabMishlment of specific standards and procedures by which home occupation s can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety and general Welfare of the surroundling neighborhood, It is fu the o that businesses which may be allowed Withinx residential districts should no$ gainj an unfair economic advantage over businesses located in districts zoned fol. business uses. In addition, this subdivision is intended to provide a rrechanisrn eriabliug the distinction between limited home occupations acid special home occupations, so that limited home occupations ri~wy be c.1-low ,61 as arc esso y use., within residential zoning. b, Application. Subject to the nonconforining use provision., of this section, all occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the provisions of this subdivision. 1201-70 2006S-1 LJ } E , CITY JI 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ~ SHOREVVOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-5927 ~ (952) x'.74-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 - wwvv, i.shorevvood.nnn.us ciiyhall@6.shorevvood.mn.us MEMORANDUM T 0- Park C.onunission FRON-TD Brad Nielsen DATE- 9 December 2009 TRE o Signs in City Parks FILE NO. Zoning (Signs) The Park Commission has been asked to consider allowing conunercial advertising signs on the outfield fences in certain ballfields in Freeman Park. Staff has been asked to identify what changes to its existing codes would be necessary to accommodate this activity. Shorewood's regulations pertaining to signs are found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. of the City Code (a copy of which has already been provided to you). There are also definitions relative to signs in Section 1201.02 of the Code. Following are the provisions of Subd. 11. that would have to be amended: o b.(2)(d) prohibits baiulers except for temporary (10 days at a time) business signs. Staff does not have enough information at this time to know what types of signs are being proposed. o b.(2)(f) prohibits sighs on trees, fences or utility poles. o c.(3 restricts signs on public property to ,gover7uz?ental. sighs. o c.(4 limits bamlers to temporary business signs (maximrun 10 days). Again staff does not know what types of signs are being proposed. d. 1 c lists billboards and advertising signs as nonconforming signs. This is perhaps the most significant revision that would have to occur. The City has had a long history of phasing out billboards. In essence., the proposed sighs P3 acp PRINTED ON RECYCLED P4PER -vioniorandum he: Signs in Parks 9 December 2000 differ little from billboards, that is, off-site advertising signs. Over the years the City has managed, tluough its development regulations, to eradicate five of seven billboards that existed over the past 30 years. Thousands of dollars were spent in getting the billboard on County Road 19, at the LRT Trail removed. Ill this light it will be extremely important to obtain a legal opinion from the City Attorney, stating that the amendments necessary to allow signs in the signs in the parks will in no way* eopaydize the City's approach to prohibiting billboards, e.(1 lists sig as allowed in residential zoning districts. Advertising signs are not allowed in residential districts, Freeman Park is zoned single-family residential. With regard to process, the changes referenced above require that a public hearing be held by the Plaluiing Commission. A public hearing notice must be published in in the official newspaper, at least 10 days in advance of the hearing. The same notice would be mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the park, or parks, in which the proposed signs would be located. Obviously, the Plam ing Commission would rely heavily on the Park Commission's input, as well as public testimony, in malting its recommendations to the Council. The City Council makes a final decision on the proposed amendments. If the Park Conunission has any questions or would like additional information relative to this platter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 952-474-3236 or by e- mail at bnielsenWci.shorewood.mn.us. Cc: Brian Heck Maiy Tietjen James Landini Mayor and City Council Planriing Commission PARK CC r- sN lit TES 'I'[7ESDl IY, - CElaIBER 9, 200& PAGE 2 0F B. Update on Arctic Fever Chair Norman stated that the fundraising efforts for Arctic Fever continue, noting that the event is 80% funded at this time. He pointed out that they are short an estimated $500 due to a shortfall of funds expected from the Legion which won't be available. Norman indicated that the pond hockey organizers have roughly 65-70% of their teams registered and will need many volunteers to assist with that event. Quinlan, volunteer coordinator, stated that while the overall number of volunteers for Arctic Fever is in good shape, he committed to helping the pond hockey folks recruit more volunteers for their tournament. Trent asked how the Corninission could help bridge the funding gap or recruit volunteers. Chair Norman stated there would be a meeting the next day and funding would be discussed at that time. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 5. RENEW SIGN ORDINANCE As a follow-up to a request made by Diamond Sports and STLL to allow advertising sponsorships on the ball fields at Freeman Park, Landini reviewed the high points of the current Sign Ordinance with the Commission, as well as, Planiiing Director Nielsen's memo with regard to what changes would need to occur to accommodate such activity. As Landini reviewed the memo, Quinlan stated that it was clear to him that it has been the cities intent to remove billboards throughout the city and limit, if not, eliminate this type of advertising. He suggested they use the Sign Ordinance as a fallback to deny the request. Landini stated that the Commission should discuss the Ordinance, memo, and request and decide what they wish to recormnend to Council. Chair Norman stated that, based on other conununities ordinances, as well as Shorewood's Sign Ordinance, he believed this activity should be limited on public grounds. He pointed out that the City has a strong sign ordinance currently which has mostly done away with signs. Trent felt the Commission should not modify the ordinance based on this request and feared doing so could be setting a new precedent, `walking a slippery slope'. Wellens stated that he believed the City Council would feel the same way. Quinlan moved, Trent seconded, denying the request on behalf of STLL and Diamond Sports to allow ball field signage at Freeman Park by changing the current Sign Ordinances that are in place. Motion passed 5/0. Exhibit E PARK COMM. RECOMMENDATION Excerpt fi-oin 9 December 2008 minutes Page 1 of 2 _'_n From: commrecresources@mchsi.com Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:39 PM To: Brad Nielsen; Jeremy Norman; Twila Grout Cc: Brian Heck Subject: FW: RE: STILL request.... FYI - STLL response Tx - Kristi Forwarded Message: From: "Kyle Heitkamp" <kheitkamp@q.com> To: <commrecresources@mchsi.com> Subject: RE: STLL request.... Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:35:29 +0000 Kristi, Please find attached the breakdown you requested. We have each individual invoice for all of these expenditures if you would like to sit down with our Treasurer. I thought it would be best to give you a summary at this point instead of a pile of invoices. The budget you have in the packet is for the 2009 season which includes the Field Improvements ($10,000) and Field Maintenance ($7,500). The 2008 expenditures were Field Improvements ($6,252.40) and Field Maintenance ($7,491.40) for a total of the $13,743.80. The significant repairs (safety related) are mainly repairs needed to fencing and batting cages. These repairs have been put off (by STLL) each year to the point that we need to address them this year. Tim Jenzer has had a discussion with Brian Heck on the batting cage issue. Originally, it was our understanding that there may have been funds approved in prior years for this project. After meeting with Brian we found this was not true. There have been a discussion of how we could partner to get these repairs completed. I have not included prices on these due to not having specific bids. We have not brought the fence issues to the City's attention, due to STILL taking care of repairs like this in the past. We feel we have a great relationship with the City of Shorewood. This is why I mentioned our partnership with the community, City and STLL is so important in the request we submitted. I feel all three entities do a great job in sharing costs and responsibilities to provide a great experience for the athletes. As I mentioned in the request, our sponsorship dollars continue to get smaller. This is why we are trying to get creative with this temporary signage is at Freeman Park. I hope this answers your questions. If not, please give me a call at your convenience. Thanks, Kyle Heitkamp 952-412-8092 2/10/2009 Exhibit F STLL BUDGET INFORMATION Provided to Park Commission Page 2 of 2 From: commrecresources@mchsi.com [mailto:commrecresources@mchsi.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5: 11 PM To: kheitkamp@q.com object: STLL request.... Kyle - good talking with you this afternoon - below is the email I sent earlier today FYI. Let me know your thoughts. Kristi Good morning Frank - please email a copy of this to Kyle Heitkamp (I did not have a contact for him) As Park Coordinator for the City, I was reviewing the STLL zoning application request for signage scheduled for discussion at the Park Commission meeting tomorrow evening, a few questions came to mind that I hope you can clarify. With regard to the $13,743.80 STLL mentioned that was spent on field improvements/Maintenance in 2008, could you break that down more specifically. As I reviewed the attached STLL 2008 budget in the packet, there is no reference to improvements or maintenance items made within Shorewood in 2008 that would constitute this figure, unless I misinterpreted something in the budget. In addition, reference is made to 'significant repairs' that must be completed at Freeman fields as they are related to 'safety concerns'. Once again, could you identify what these significant repairs consist of so that I may relay these to the Commission. To my recollection, STLL has not brought any need for improvement to the attention of the Commission in the past few years that has not ever been addressed, especially with regard to the safety and well being of our child athletes. Thank you for your assistance, Kristi Anderson CRR/City of Shorewo 2- 2/10/2009 Field Maintenance and Im rovements m2008 Garden Market & Landscape Freeman 1 Garden Market & Landscape Freeman 3 Garden Market & Landscape Kelly Green Irrigation Metro Athletic Leum Signs Freeman 1 and 3 Freeman 1 and 3 Freeman 1 and 3 $ 2,300.00 Skin infield, build up field for proper drainage, rebuild mound, new sod and aglime. $ 687.50 Skin infield, build up field for proper drainage, rebuild mound, new sod and aglime. $ 707.12 Aglime for ongoing maintenace for season $ 1,123.98 Repair sprinkler heads, winterization of sprinkler system $ 2,055.77 Field Dry, Chalk, and paint Freeman 1 and 3 $ 396.00 Signs to label betting cages and "Please Stay Off Fields" signs Grant Leum Freeman 1 and 3 $ 348.29 Hangers and Ties to hang batting cage nets Tim Jenzer Freeman 1 and 3 $ 706.24 Lawnmower repair, Gas, Fertilizer Ag Power Enterprises Freeman 1 and 3 $ 4,899.00 Lawn Tractor Preferred Electric/Kyle Heitkamp Freeman 1 and 3 $ 519.90 Electrical Repiar and Hose bib for concession stand. $ 13,743.80 Note: This amount doesn't include the following: Grounds Crew Labor (mowing/dragging infields, field prep) $ 5,467.51 Replacement of bases mandated by Little League $ 1,227.80 Tim Jenzer's volunteer hours (20-25/week) Parent and Player volunteer Field Clean Up hours (100s) $ 20,439.11 Field Maintenance and Improvements - 2009 Budget $ 17,500.00 Potential Improvements: Fencing Improvements Freeman 1 and 3 Numerous areas where pipes and fencing are loose or unattached. Freeman 1 Dugout fencing is curled on bottom which allows balls to flow through. Batting Cage Improvements Freeman 1 Asphalt or turf batting cages. (Jenzer has had discussion with Brian Heck) $ 1,718.64 Purchase batting cage mats. $ 500.00 Repair/Replace L-Screens Batting Cage Improvements Freeman 3 Repair/Replace cable which the nets hang (currently broken) a3 Automated External Defibrillator Normal Maintenance Freeman 1 and 3 Freeman 1 and 3 7'7? $200-2000 $ 250.00 $1200-2500 $ 4,700.00 Repair/Replace fencing due to curled on bottom Hang mats on fence to eliminate fence damage and improve safety. Repair/Repair L-Screens Little League is strongly suggesting we purchase a unit. f'- 4 TUESW t, F JARY 10, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 The Commission complimented the pair on their well thought out program and indicated that they would follow-up with staff and public works to determine where the garden could potentially be placed as well as discuss other details of the plan. Anderson suggested they consider focusing on `kids of all ages' for the program, especially if the garden is planted in Freeman where Shorewood Ponds seniors might enjoy bringing their grandchildren or working the gardens themselves. Davis stated that she would follow-up with staff, as well as, check how the Arboretum nuns their community garden program at their children's learning center. 3. REVISION TO ZONING ORDINANCE / SIGNS IN 11~k1ZKS - (Planning Director, Brad Nielsen) Planning Director Nielsen explained that STLL representative Kyle Heitkamp had submitted an application for amendments to Shorewood's Zoning Cock, that would allow advertising signs to be placed on the ball fences at Freeman Park. He reminded the Commission that they had reviewed this proposal informally at the end of last year. Althocigh the Commission had voted unanimously to not recommend such amendments, the STLL group decided to pursue a formal application. Nielsen stated therefore that is why the submission has been rerouted back to the Commission for a formal recommendation. He indicated that the Planning Commission would be holding a public hearing on March 3"d and would 111:c to hear Iron the Commission prior to that date. Heitkamp explained that the Ica1_1uc is getting close to critical mass, 500 players strong, and that the need for financial assistance is greater this year than in the past. Heitkamp maintained that it is their intent to sell sponsorships of the signs to help keep costs for all players down and to add to the scholarship f nd overall. (le reviewed some financial burdens and expenses incurred by the organization with regard to repairs, maintenance, and equipment. He stated that he was unfamiliar with what the Commission had decided at the end of 2008. Chair Norman asked how the City could continue to work with the little league group in a way that might alleviate some of their burden besides the fence billboards. Though he felt Heitkamp Inad done a fine job presenting little leagues case, Young stated that he hated to undo an ordinance that had a solid foundation such as this. Anderson interjected and read passages from the November Park Commission Meeting and tine final recommendation to deny the request at the December meeting for review. She asked for further clarification with regard to the maintenance items and safety related issues referenced within the application. Davis stated that in reviewing the budget supplied to the Commission, she saw mixed budget messages and places the budget could be trimmed. Exhibit G PARIS COINIM. RECOMMENDATION Excerpt from 10 February 2009 minutes PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2009 PACE 3OF3 Trent stated that he would urge the organization to pursue other avenues or explore other financing options open to them, Woodruff reminded Heitkamp and the Commission that, had the organization applied for a variance, the City does not consider financial hardship a valid reason to grant variances thus the little league decided to undertake the ordinance amendment request instead. Nielsen stated that, if the City Council ends up determining the application move forward, he would suggest looking at a conditional use permit instead. Hensley stated that he was really concerned that, if the Commission supported such a request, it would be precedent setting. As an attorney he would view this as a de. f-i nite change in direction from what the city has decided in recent years. Hensley added that, as a resident, he would not want to look at signs in the public park anyway. Chair Norman concurred, stating that the City has gone to great lengths to rc'Iulate signnage. He felt this to be a `slippery slope' and questioned where things would stop. He suggested the organization contact the Park Foundation and ask them to assist with fundraisers or financial aid scholarships. He stated that he believed the city would be wi Ding to examine the relationship it has with the sports organization in order to lighten their load and consider making some of the fixes nornrrally performed by the little league itself. Heitkamp stated that members of the other sports organizations had letters attached stating that they had no intent to pursue such measures. Anderson pointed out that cacti Na rote that they would not pursue advertising boards themselves at this time but she questioned how the Cormnissioir would regulate allowing signs at one end of the park and not the other or for orne organization and not another as the application presented themselves. Chair Norman questioned whether there etas a formal document or agreement that identified who cares for what v-vitlh regard to maintenance. He asked what the user fees cover for the users and whether there were items the city could take upon itself. He asked staff to investigate. Anderson stated that, to her knowledge, there was no formal agreement between the city and the little league but that, typically, when an improvement is made or donated to the parks it becomes the property, as well as, the responsibility of the City. Woodruff was surprised to hear there would be no formal agreement with regard to maintenance. Quinlan pointed out that, if little league estimates they will make $20,000 in sponsorships, perhaps the City should consider how it can offset some maintenance costs rather than allowing the signage. However, he noted that the purchase of a new mower and rakes to mow the infields and care for the ag lime are specific to the organization and this application only and may not necessarily even be city maintenance items. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2009 PACE 4 OF 4 Heitkamp stated that he did not wish to jeopardize the good working relationship the little league had with the City; however, he maintained that costs are rising and they are searching for solutions or will have to start cutting things. He pointed out that many local businesses have expressed an interest in advertising on the signs. Anderson suggested the Commission give consideration to private versus public spaces in which advertising is or is not currently allowed. Chair Norman concurred, stating that he found it difficult to consider putting private messages in our public spaces which are currently clutter free. Nonnan believed this to be a larger issue than allowing little league to raise money. He felt the city should keep private interests out of public open spaces and that the ordinance is well written to do so. Trent agreed, stating that the bigger issue is to keep the aesthetics consistent within the parks for a commercial free park experience. Woodruff suggested the Commission investigate.vvhetlier the city should provide more support than it has in the past and encouraged the little league to invest] (4atc whether there are other answers than signage out there to help with the financial piece of things. FAmendments is moved, Young seconded, to recommend denial of the request by STLL for to the Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow advertising signs to be ed on ball field fences in Freeman Parl: ~~~ith the recommendation that staff review our rent agreement with STLL and investigate other avenues for support that would help et some of the maintenance costs. Motion passed 7/0. 4. REPORTS A. Report on Cite Council Meeting Woodruff reported that the City Council appointed new members to the Planning Commission, as well as, tvvo new Park Commissioners, Thomas Robb and Bob Edmundson. B. Report on Arctic Fever Event on January 17, 2009 Chair Nonnan reported that attendance was estimated between 500-800 people in Shorewood. He noted that the sliding hill was very popular and would encourage staff to build a giant sliding hill every season. Nonnan stated that the pond hockey sponsor has already committed to 2010 and the planning groups will be meeting soon to discuss where they want to head going forward. Nonnan indicated that the library coloring contest also went well and that everyone was very pleased with the numbers in attendance at all events this year. C. Update on Consultant Services Anderson reported that the City Council voted unanimously to move forward with the Park Consultant Planning Services recommended by the Commission with negotiations to begin soon. Pa,;- 1 -f 1 iel From: Brad Nielsen Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:43 PM To: Mary Tietjen (mtietjen@kennedy-graven.com) Cc: Brian Heck Subject: STLL Proposed Zon Text Amdmt Good Afternoon Mary, As you are aware, South Tonka Little League has requested amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow them to place advertising signs on the ball field fences at Freeman Park. Staff has identified several issues that require legal advice. Per our conversation yesterday, would you please comment on the following: Can the City distinguish between park fence advertising signs and other types of outdoor advertising signs, including billboards? We discussed how the proposed change represents a definite change in direction with respect to the City's current policies on signage. Does such an amendment(s) jeopardize the City's position on other commercial signage, particularly outdoor advertising? Can we/should we limit the amendment to apply only to Freeman Park? Or, should the amendment be extended to include other city parks? While STLL has submitted e-mails from representatives of organized hockey and football, stating that they have no interest in placing signs in the parks, there is concern about setting a precedent for the future. Presumably, it would be difficult to deny similar treatment to other groups. Is that correct? I mentioned that this item is on the Park Commission agenda this evening and is scheduled for a public hearing on 3 March at the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission packets go out the week before the meeting, so if I could get your report by 23 February, that would be helpful. Call or e-mail me if you have any questions. '3 d .Nieben. Planning Director City of Shorewood 952-474-3236 2/10/2009 Exhibit H QUESTIONS FOR CITY ATTORNEY Dated 10 February 2009 !.of From: Joanne Bonnette Ubonnette41 @aol.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:39 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com; john.bonnette@kraft.com Subject: Fwd: Urgent Request from STLL To: Mayor Chris Lizee and Planner Brad Nielsen: As a parent of 3 sons, our family has been involved in the STLL for the post 5 years. The STLL has provided an environment that brings family, friends, and the community at-large together to support, encourage and enjoy each other while a son is playing youth baseball at a Freeman Park field. Will you PLEASE support the STLL with their request of offering their Sponsors some value- added exposure by allowing the STLL to hang temporary signage on the outfield fences. Thank you for your consideration on this signage request from STLL. Joanne Bonnette Shorewood Resident "Individual commitment to a group effort--that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work." -Vince Lombardi - -----Original Message----- From: message@southtoiikall.org To: jbonnette4@aol.com Sent: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:21 am Subject: Urgent Request from STLL EMAIL TO CITY OF SHOREWOOD We need EVERYONE'S assistance in sending an email to Chris Lizee (Mayor) and Brad Nielsen (City Planner) of Shorewood showing support of our request of temporary signage at Freeman Park. South Tonka is working with the City of Shorewood -requesting them to allow STLL to hang signage on the outfield fences at Freeman Park on a temporary basis. We are asking them to make an exception to their sign ordinance due to us being a non-profit organization. These signs would only be there three of the 12 months a year when the foilage is on the trees. They would be professionally made signs and hung in a professional manner. It is STLL's goal to make sure every player in our community has an opportunity to play baseball if they wish. With today's economic struggles, we are anticipating it being more difficult for families to pay league fees. With that in mind we are looking for ways Page 2 of 2 supplement our costs. P_.s other sports continue to get more expensive, we want to keep our fees at a level so everyone can play. The issue is that our sponsorship dollars have decreased significantly over the past few years. The potential sponsors now have other fields in the community that allow signage in their parks so they are spending their funds elsewhere. We have had preliminary discussion with businesses that have agreed to purchase signage if we get this approved. Please take a minute send a quick email asking them to support our request to the following: clizee@ci.shorewood.mn.us bnielsen@ci.shorewood.mn.us kheitkampq com Please copy me so I can have an idea of the support we are receiving. We are meeting with the City on Tuesday, so please do this at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your support and remember this is all for the kids! Kyle Heitkamp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If you wish to be removed from this mailing list please go to the following link: http:/Zw~-jw.southtonkall.org/-``cqi-bin/maillist/remove email.cgi?email=-jbonnette4l@aol.com Which stars will make the biggest headlines in 2009? Get Holl wy ood predictions celebrity holiday photos and_ more with the PopEater Toolbar. Fror : Mike Cwiekowski [Mil, .Cwiekowski@meyers.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:54 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Temporary Signage at Freeman Park City of Shorewood, My wife and I have been homeowners in Shorewood since the Spring of 2003 and our twin sons are now entering a 3rd year in the STLL program. We support the use of temporary signage at the ballpark to generate revenue to supplement the cost in providing invaluable and positive athletic experiences for the youth of our community. Our home is the distance of a home run to Freeman Park, my family and I enjoy the park year-round, and we consider the use of this kind of signage only during the baseball season totally acceptable. We enjoy the sounds of cheering moms and dads all summer long, the joy of watching our children making an out compares to nothing else. STILL is a top-notch volunteer organization which i fully support and invest my own time. Please permit this signage effort and allow STLL to continue providing our children a fantastic baseball program. Sincerely, Mike Cwiekowski Shorewood, MN 612-735-8026 From: Terry Nicholson [rtnicholson@inchsi.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 4:22 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: signage at freeman park Dear Mayor Lizee and Mr. Nielsen, I have 2 sons that have played baseball at freeman park since 2002. 1 am in favor of having signage to attract and keep sponsors for the South Tonka Little League. When I see the local business signage at other fields, it rerninds me of how the businesses and community government come together in a number of ways to make this a nice area in which to live. Freeman park is a great baseball park for families. My husband and I look forward to bringing our camp chairs and cameras out every year to enjoy another season of baseball. I don't think that signs in the outfield or where ever they will be put will detract from the beauty of the park or the baseball experience. From what I have seen, the STLL has taken great pride in the condition of the fields and facilities and I'm sure that the signs will be tasteful and maintained. Thanks for taking my input. Sincerely, Terry Nicholson 952-401-6377 From: Tamara Schwartz [tamara.scfiwartz@biotechxray.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:36 PM To: Christine Lizee Cc: Brad Nielsen Subject: Freeman Park - So Tonka Little League - Support Signage for Sponsors Mayor Lizee (cc. Brad Nielson), This letter is to request your support of the efforts of South Tonka Little League to place professionally prepared advertising signage at Freeman Park during the summer months. We understand that there is an ordinance that would prohibit such signage, however, given the fact that the signage would be temporary (summer months only), and would be showing support of a non-for-profit community organization, we ask that you make an exception. Gor porate sponsorship of baseball teams is a common way to keep the cost down to the players and their families. Ballpark advertising signage is common, from little leagues to major leagues. We believe that local businesses would be more likely to sponsor the South Tonka Little League if, in turn, they could advertise at the ballpark. Baseball is a great community & family activity, but participation will decline if costs are not competitive with other area programs, especially in today's economic climate. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Tammy Schwartz Joe & Tammy Schwartz 1 780 Lake Point Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 1952.474.4055 (h) 314.440.1770 (c) From: Caroline Linden [thelindens@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:35 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Subject: Please allow BB field ads Dear Ms. Mayor & Mr. Nielsen, I'm writing to support South Tonka Little League's efforts to allow short-term advertising for the Freeman baseball fields. My understanding is that these would be professionally designed signs that would be in place during the summer baseball season only so there would be little visibility to neighboring homeowners. Please consider this exception to the signage regulations. STTL provides a great, affordable sports opportunity for community kids especially compared to many other sports organizations. If these signs can help support the organization and maintain affordability during this tough economy, it is well worth it. I appreciate your time and consideration for this effort. Caroline Linden Prom: Mark Velner [markvelner@gmail.eom] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:03 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Freeman Park Temporary Signage for South Tonka Little League Good morning Chris and Brad, I am asking for your assistance to support South tonka Little League's request for temporary signage at Freeman Park. South Tonka is working with the City of Shorewood requesting you to allow STLL to hang signage on the outfield fences at Freeman Park on a temporary basis. We are asking you to make an exception to your sign ordinance due to us being a non-profit organization. These signs would only be there three of the 12 months a year when the foilage is on the trees. They would be professionally made signs and hung in a professional manner. It is STLL's goal to make sure every player in our community has an opportunity to play baseball if they wish. With today's economic struggles, we are anticipating it being more difficult for families to pay league fees. With that in mind we are looking for ways to supplement our costs. As other sports continue to get more expensive, we want to keep our fees at a level so everyone can play. The issue is that our sponsorship dollars have decreased significantly over the past few years. The potential sponsors now have other fields in the cornrnunity that allow signage in their parks so they are spending their fiends elsewhere. We have had preliminary discussion with businesses that have agreed to purchase signage i.fwe get this approved. Please take a minute to consider our request and make the change that will allow us to best serve the community youth. Thank You. Marls Velner 6636 Mulberry Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-474-1464 From: terry@BRENNANPHOTO.COM Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 2:49 PM To: Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: STLL Signage Please support STLL efforts for signage at Freeman Park! F- Chris Homeister [homeichr@mchsi.com] 1:~ r Monday, January 19, 2009 9:28 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: In Support of: South Tonka Little League Request Dear Mayor Lizee and Mr. Nielsen - I'm writing tonight in support of South Tonka Little League's request to grant a waiver to allow sponsor signage to be displayed at Freeman Park during the season. The South Tonka Little League organization works tirelessly to offer an affordable and family friendly baseball experience to those within the South Tonka_ area. Securing sponsors and publically recognizing them is an important component in maintaining costs so that all local families can afford to have their children participate in a great baseball experience for the summer. I trust the South Tonka Little League organization will have the signage made in a professional and tasteful manner, and displayed in a way that the community will be proud of the organization as well as the sponsors that have elected to help fund this important summer activity where hundreds will have the opportunity to participate in this summer. Please allow for this signage to move forward, so that baseball fees can remain affordable to all for this upcoming baseball season. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Chris & Beth Homeister 26790 Noble Road Shorewood, MN 55331 952.474.3033 From: ALEXANDRA, TUCKER MASUI [tuckerstools@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 10:29 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: signage at Freeman Park Chris and Brad, We are asking you to please approve STLL's request to hang temporary signage at Freeman park. We have two boys in their program and our entire family benefits frorn what STLL offers. Our youngest looks forward to playing at Freeman every year, and our oldest likes to use all the playing fields and batting cages. STLL's insistence on being learning league with the emphasis on teaching by example, provides opportunity to a wider range of players. Although STILL has a strong volunteer base, they have to continue to find ways to supplement rising costs. In today's economic times, finding creative ways to offset rising costs is difficult. They are asking for you to grant them three month to help them to continue offering their program to all players. Again, we are asking you to please approve their request. Thank you Tucker & Alexandra Masui From: . JOHN JULIE EINHORN Djhornster@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 7:31 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Subject: FW: Urgent Request from STLL > Happy New Year City of Shorewood: I am writing to show my support > of the STILL request of temporary signage at Freeman Park. > I understand that South Tonka Little League is working with the City of Shorewood requesting them to > allow STLL to hang signage on the outfield fences at Freeman Park on > a temporary basis. I realize this would be making an exception to the current > sign ordinance with regard to the fact that STLL is a non-profit organization. These signs > would only be there three of the 12 months a year when the foilage is > on the trees. They would be professionally made signs and hung in a > professional manner. > It is STLL's goal to make sure every player in our community has an > opportunity to play baseball if they wish. Baseball has been one of the most affordable and enjoyable activities our family has enjoyed in the Shorewood community. We live here and use the parks for enjoyment through baseball and otherwise and do not think these signs would detract from the beauty of these areas. The outpouring of volunteer help from our immediate community supporting baseball shows how popular the ball programs are and keeps many families in the parks taking ownership of what happens there. With today's economic > struggles, we can naturally anticipate it being more difficult for families > to pay league fees. In fact our family income has been reduced. With that in mind, thank goodness STILL is looking for ways to > supplement costs. As other sports continue to get more > expensive, it would be great to keep our fees at a level so everyone can play. > The issue is that STILL sponsorship dollars have decreased > significantly over the past few years. The potential sponsors now > have other fields in the community that allow signage in their parks > so they are spending their funds elsewhere. STILL has had preliminary > discussions with businesses that have agreed to purchase signage if we > get this approved. Personally when I sit in those bleachers and see the signs I think of how lucky we are to have community support from our local businesses and consider that a benefit to living here. Please support STLL's request for sponsorship in this way, rernember it is all for the kids. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Julie Einhorn 5580 Howards Pt Rd Shorewood Fr .;i: Sent: To: Subject: Hagen, Julie [Julie.Hagen@Caremarl~.com] Monday, January 19, 2009 12:55 PM message@southtonkall.org; Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Request from STLL Please support the request to allow STLL to hang signage on the outfield fences at Freeman Park on a temporary basis. Julie Hagen 6210 Cypress Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Office 952-401-7947 Cell 612-208-5660 From: John.Bonnette@kraft.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 3:16 PM To: Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Temporary Signage Request for the South Tonka Little League Mr. Nielsen, As a South Tonka Little League Board member for the past few years, I am very aware of the rising costs to run a Little League program. As a businessman, I am also aware of the current struggles many businesses are facing to be profitable. With limited resources to donate and support nonprofit organizations, the STILL is in competition with other organizations for these funds from our local business community. It would help our potential to secure sponsors if we could offer them signage to communicate their businesses at STLL games. Our goal is to use these funds to help hold down our costs we have to cover through participant registration fees. Your support of our proposal for temporary signage at the Freeman Park fields would help us accomplish this goal. Your consideration of this proposal is very much appreciated! John Bonnette Player Agent South Tonka Little League Board of Directors From: Beverly Thomas [beverly@excelsiortitle.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 1:41 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Please allow signs at Freeman Park Dear Mayor and City Planners: The local community at large would appreciate your considering the allowance of temporary signs in Freeman Park. PLEASE help keep the little league fees affordable and our children continuing to play baseball. The children need healthy team sports, not video games or idle time, to continue to be offered. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. A supportive grandmother, Bev Thomas From: Schneider, Bradd [Bradd.Schneider@Honeywell.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 7:04 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Signage for South Tonka Little league Dear Mayor Lizee and City Planner Nielsen, I am writing to request that our community consider allowing South Tonka Little League the ability to hang appropriate signage with advertisers on the fences at Freeman Park where we play many of our little league games. This will help to offset some of the costs associated with putting on an inclusive youth baseball program in our community. My son Danny truly enjoys the facilities at this park and looks forward to the skill development and overall fun social atmosphere offered by playing little league. Having signage will help to generate the extra dollars needed to continue with this first class youth program in our community and in these challenging economic times every extra dollar- is difficult to come by and surely needed. Please consider this move as a great move toward helping the kids of this area. Thanks in advance for your kind consideration of this request. Regards, Bradd Bradd Schneider 2240 Sommergate Excelsior, MN 55331 763-954-4266 office 612-889-1032 cell bradd.schneider(a-)honeywell.com From: Kristjan Arnar [k.arnar@pfcequip.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 2:50 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Signage at Freeman Park To Shorewood City Council: This e-mail is to pledge my support for the temporary signage at Freeman Park. This will keep the cost of playing youth baseball reasonable allowing families of all financial situations to afford this "Great American Pastime"! Sincerely, r Kristj an Arnar PFC Equipment, Inc 9366 Deerwood Lame Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phone 763-425-7890 Fax 763-425-1132 Cell 612-597-0997 F, nn: marty@sawbridgewoodworks.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:17 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Subject: Signs To whom it may concern, Please allow this signage. I see no issue here. It is temporary and not an eye sore due to foliage. This should be a non issue. Thanks Marty Kusar Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: Hoffman, Kevin [KHoffman@krollontrack.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 1:19 PM To: Christine Lizee Cc: kheitkamp@q.com; Brad Nielsen; Mary Hoffman Subject: Signs at Freeman South Tonka baseball and I am asking that you make an exception to the sign ordinance at freeman park due to us being a non-profit organization. These signs would only be on the ballpark fences three of the 12 months a year when the foliage is on the trees. They would be professionally made signs and hung in a professional manner. It is STLL's goal to make slue every player in our connrnunity has an opportunity to play baseball if they wish. With today's economic struggles, we are anticipating it being more difficult for families to pay league fees. With that in mind we are looking for ways supplement our costs. As other sports continue to get more expensive, we want to keep our fees at a level so everyone can play. The issue is that our sponsorship dollars have decreased significantly over the past few years. The potential sponsors now have other fields in the conun7unity that allow signage in their parks so they are spending their funds elsewhere. We have had preliminary discussion with businesses that have agreed to purchase signage if we get this approved. Thank You Kevin Hoffman Volunteer Coach From: Shelley Lee [shelley@excelsiortitle.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 1:14 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Signs at Freeman Please repeal the decision on the signs. By the way nice new bldg! Shelley Lee Excelsior Title ph 952-288-2122 direct fx 952-474-3742 s _elle @excelsiortitle.com From: Carrie Nicklow [cnicl<low@rnchsi.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:24 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com; mnicklow@mchsi.com Subject: STLL Signage Issue Dear Mayor Lizee and City Planner Nielsen, Please allow South Tonka Little League to hang signage on the outfield fences at Freeman Park on a temporary basis, during the summer months. We do not believe anyone in our community would be offended by the signs, and the sponsorship brings much needed revenue to a family-centered, neighborhood-based activity. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Little League Parents and Community Members, Carrie & Mike Nicklow 5585 Harding Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 952-470-4257 cnicklow cJmchsi.com From: Becky_Fuxa@cargill.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:33 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: South Tonka Little League Plea Hello - I am a parent of two boys that have played little league baseball at Freeman Park since 2000. Little League is something that every child should have the chance to experience. I am concerned that in today's economy some may have to bow out of this opportunity. The South Tonka Little League is working hard to make sure everyone that wants to play can. You can help by allowing signage for the few months of the baseball season. Please give your approval to this request so no child is left out. Thank you for your consideration. Becky Fuxa Becky J.W. Fuxa/Research Mail stop - RB Phone - 952-742-3311 RNET - 855-23311 Fax - 952-742-5370 Becky Fuxa@ cargill.com From: Christine Levin [clevin@sabesjcc.org] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:43 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: I support STLL's request to hang temporary signage at Freeman Park Hi, Please make an exception to your sign ordinance for this non-profit organization. Christine Levin (mom of two South Tonka Little Leaguers) Frorn: Maureen Cannery [mconnery@lamedia.org] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:08 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Freeman Park Temporary Signage Hi Chris and Brad, I am sending this email in support of the Freeman Park temporary signage request from South Tonka Little League. I realize the need for Shorewood's sign ordinance, but I think you should make an exception in this instance. Many families in our community our struggling in today's economy and we want to make sure that all kids who want to play baseball are able to participate. We need to supplement our budget without raising fees, a challenge for any non-profit organization. The temporary signage at Freeman Park for our South Tonka Little League sponsors is a great way to accomplish this goal. Freeman Park is isolated enough that the signage would not be intrusive to the surrounding neighborhoods. We are only requesting the signage be up for about three months of the year, when the foliage is on the trees. The signs would be professionally designed and hung so they won't be an "eye sore". I can't imagine anyone having a problern with this request. Please make an exception to the signage rule so all of our kids are able to afford to play baseball. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Maureen Connery Media Director L.A. Media 3100 W. Lake Street Mpls, MN 55416 P:612-928-8718 F:612-928-0261 mconnery anlamedia.orq From: Jeff Erdahl [Jeff@starthearing.corn] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:50 AM To: Christine Lizee Cc: Brad Nielsen Subject: signage Chris, Please consider allowing signs at Freeman Park. STLL and baseball needs your support. Thank you, Jeff Erdahl National Sales Director SoundPoint Audiology Hearing Services Work 763-515-4050 1 Cell 612-964-5674 1 jeff@starthearing.corn From: David McFarland ['David. McFarland@marquette.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:41 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: STLL Exception Request for signage Dear Mr. Lizee and Mr. Nielsen, I am writing this e-mail to request you support the request by STLL to hang temporary signage at Freeman Park. I believe this is in the best interest of all parties, and has little impact on the city of Shorewood. I presently have 2 children in STLL, with a third (a girl) wanting to sign up this year for T-ball. That will put me at 3 children in the league. I have also each year volunteered my time as a coach on both kid's teams as well as being part of the annual spring clean up event for the fields. As you know, the economic issues we are all facing make each family make decisions on where to spend their dollars. Any way that costs can be minimized should be encourages and supported. I am a single father and the costs for getting the valuable lessons obtained through these types of extracurricular activities are "priceless", but there is a limit on what I can do. I would hope the city could find a way to make the request by STLL work. Thank you for your consideration. I am available to discuss if needed at the number below. David R. McFarland Senior Vice President / Chief Credit Officer Marquette Transportation Finance, Inc. (952) 703-7493 Fax: (952) 703-7460 From: Kurtt Richman [kurtt.richman@towersperrin.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 1:01 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Little League Request Dear Chris & Brad, I am writing to ask you to support South Tonka Little League's request for signage for the Freeman fields. Playing baseball was a great part of my youth, not only for the fun but for the sportsmanship and life lessons it taught, and being able to have businesses sponsor this signage will help the League make participation as cost effective as possible for all. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Kurtt Richman 5770 Smithtown Way Shorewood, MN 55331 F r Richard.Garnmili@black-river.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:28 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Signage at Freeman Park Chris and Brad- It has come to my attention that the City of Shorewood is not allowing South Tonka Little League to hang sponsor signs on the fences at Freeman Park. I would like to voice my objection to the decision as it significantly impedes STLL's ability to raise sponsorship dollars. Now, more than ever, STILL needs outside sources of funding to continue to offer a top notch program to the kids of Shorewood. I hope you reconsider given the significant role STLL plays in the daily lives of the residents of Shorewood. Sponsorship is a key source of support for the league and not allowing advertising impedes the league's ability to offer a wonderful sporting experience to all the kids in your city. Best Regards, Rich Gammill Parent of 4 and strong supporter of STLL Rich Ganunill Managing Director - Portfolio Manager Black River Asset Management 12700 Whitewater Drive Miir ietonlca, MN 55343 (952) 984-3173 - Phone (952) 818-6077 -Mobile (952) 249-4038 -Fax richard.gai-iul-iill@black-river.com From: Sharonnav@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:36 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Signage at Freeman Park Mayor/ City Planner: As a parent of two ball players who continue to play at Freeman Park, I am writing to request that you truly consider the temporary placement of signage for STLL. It is my understanding that the signage would be professional made, and only up for three months. As the economy is growing weaker, our wallets are becoming thinner. To allow our children to play ball each year, we must pay registration fees, etc. STILL is a non-profit organization, therefore, they seek sponsorships from local businesses to help fund America's favorite past-time sport for the local kids. The sponsors, too, are having financial difficulties, and this signage issue is leading to the possible loss of some of those long-time sponsors, which would put an even bigger burden on the parents. I hope you find it within yourselves, for the community's sake, to truly consider allowing the STLL to place temporary signage during the season. Thank you. From: Erani, Zarir [Zarir.Erani@personneldecisions.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:11 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: Kyle Heitkamp Subject: I support Temporary Signage at Freeman for STLL Dear Mr. Lizee and Mr. Nielsen, As a parent of two boys that participate in the South Tonka Little League Program, I am in strong support of leveraging temporary signage in Freeman park to offset the costs for this league. The STLL program is a great place to not only learn our national game, but also a place for kids to gain self confidence and develop friendships. It appears from my perspective that the signs would not be disruptive to the community at large and that they would only be displayed during the baseball season. Would you please carefully consider the benefits to the community at large in allowing more kids access to the STILL program? I thank you in advance for your support of this request. Kindest regards, Zarir Zarir H. Erani Vice President, Information Technology Personnel Decisions International - PDI Minneapolis Expert Partners. Real Leadership Advantage. Direct: 612.337.3654, Mobile: 612.201.9690 Zarir.Erani@personneldecisions.com www.personneldecisions.com From: Randy Mayer [RMayer@easween.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:50 PM To: Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com; Lisa Mayer Subject: FW: South Tonka Little League Signage Dear Mr. Nielsen, As a father of a current player in South Tonka Little League, I fully support the request of STILL to place signage at Freeman Park for fund raising/sponsorship purposes. Financial tirnes are difficult for many families now and STLL is working very hard on sponsorships to off-set player costs. Signage is key advertising and banners/signage are a common practise at sporting event fields. These will only be up during the little league baseball season. Please consider this allowance to the current sign ordinance. Randy Mayer Region Manager Dell Express Cellular 612 819 8860 From: Lisa Mayer [Imayer@easween.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:58 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: South Tonka Little League Signage Dear Mr. Nielsen, As a mother of a current player and an active member of the STILL organization I fully support the request of STILL to place signage at Freeman Park for fund raising/sponsorship purposes. Financial times are difficult for many families now and STLL is working very hard on sponsorships to off-set player costs. Signage is key advertising and banners/signage are a cornmon practise at sporting event fields. These will only be up during the little league baseball season. Please consider this allowance to the current sign ordinance. Lisa Mayer E.A. Sween Company CDC Division Office (952) 949-1460 Cellular (952) 200-9738 Lmayer@easween.com From: sally.a.oestreich@rrd.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:29 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Request for support of South Tonka LL Please support South Tonka Little Leagues request for temporary signage at the Freeman Fields. South Tonka LL is very important to our community. Thank you! Sally Oestreich Excelsior, MN From: EVAN NIEFELD [eniefeld@prodigy.net] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:53 AM To: Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Temporary Signage at Freeman Park Dear Mr. Nielsen: As the father of two young boys who participate in the South. Tonka Little League program, I ant requesting the city to reconsider its present policy on temporary signage at Freeman Park. So long as signage is done in a professional man ier, I believe having it would be a great way to hold down costs for little league and other programs that utilize the park. Thank you in advance for whatever assistance you can provide. Evan M. Niefeld Frorn: Chris Cannery [c_connery@yahoo.com] Sent. Monday, January 19, 2009 12:32 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: Kyle Heitkamp Subject: Freeman Park Temporary Signage Hi Chris and Brad, I am sending this email to show my support for South Tonka Little League's request for temporary signage at Freeman Park. With the economic struggles many families are facing today, it is important that we keep our fees down to ensure that all kids are able to play baseball in our community. Selling sponsorship signage will bring in additional funds and help offset any budget increases we encounter. Other baseball leagues are able to do this, which puts our league at a competitve disadvantage if we are not allowed the same leeway. The signage is just temporary (up only when the leaves are on the trees) and it will. be unobtrusive so it should not pose a problem for the sm ounding neighborhood. Please make an exception to Shorewood's signage rude for South Tonka Little League. Thardcs, Chris Cormery From: Holmgren, Catherine (TPNA) [catherine.ho[mgren@tpna.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:03 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com; sholmgren@visi.com Subject: STILL Signage I am writing in support of sponsorship signs for STLL on the fields at Freeman Park. It is nice to know that STILL is looking for ways to keep playing costs reasonable for our young athletes. It is only right to publicly acknowledge those businesses and individuals that support our league. Thank you. Sincerely, Catherine ttolnigren STI,I, Pire»t 952-474-5423 From: Terry Wehling [tjwehling@amerilabtech.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:33 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Subject: signage at Freeman Park I support and request allowing signage at Freeman park outfield. It is critical we keep all avenues for financial assistance open right now we can continue to offer opportunity for our young athletes. Sincerely, Terry J Wehling 5675 Marsh Pointe Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 Mike Hnastchenko@ellerbebecket.com -e Monday, January 19, 2009 11:t; E AM T( : Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: We need your support! In an effort to offer affordable options for our youth, the South Tonka Little League is requesting that Shorewood allow sponsorship signage on it's Freeman par_), fields. I support this effort completely, and would hope the members of the Shorewood City council would as well. The SILL group provides a community service by allowing our youth the opportunity to play baseball at Freeman park. I have been to a number of local communities and they have all embraced the concept of sponsorship as a means of supporting the local sports. I would expect the same type of commitment from Shorewood. Thanks for your support! Mike Hnastchenko Principal, Chief Technology officer Ellerbe Becket ( 800 LaSalle Avenue I Minneapolis, MN 55402-2014 ( Tel: 612 376-2237 From: Steve Midthun [smidthun@ngjensen.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:42 AM To: clizze@ci.shorewood.rnn.us; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Subject: FW: Urgent Request from STLL Hello, Please allow South Tonka little league to hang banners on the Freeman fence. I have had all four of my kids in this program which has been great. Banners are put up at many fields around the country and it will helps develop programs and keep baseball costs down. Thank you, Steve Midthun 6225 Ridge Rd, Chanhassen,MN,55317 952 229 5402 From: Fisher, Mike [Mike. Fisher@bestbuy.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:13 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: STLL ISSUE Chris & Brad- Do the right thing and help out the STLL as a non-profit. An exception to a signing ordinance is a small trade-off compared to the lifetime benefit these kids get from their interaction with the league. Thanks for your consideration Mike Fisher Sr. Dir.- MBB Lean Six Sigma Enterprise Capability Lead Mike.Fisher@BestBuy.com Direct- (612) 291-7906 Cell - (612) 865-7304 From: lorin peterson [lorinpeterson@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:56 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Signage at Freeman Please take into serious consideration the request of teh Little League to raise some money by hanging signage from our sponsors at the baseball fields. THis is such any easy thing to do, has no lasting imapct to the park facility and supports your taxpayers! No down side that I can see! Thanks! Lorin Peterson mother of 4 athletes From: Timatobin@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:30 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Banners at Freeman Park Chris and Brad: As a resident of Shorewood, I am extremely supportive of the initiative for advertising banners at Freeman Park that South Tonka Little league has brought to the City. While my son was a player with STLL for seven years, he has been removed from that organization for a couple of years now. However, my experience with STLL has provided me with the knowledge, that as an organization that uses the facilities of Shorewood, they have provided more upkeep and investment into the facilities that they use, than any other organization that uses city facilities. In my opinion, it would be absolutely absurd to not allow STLL the opportunity to increase their revenue via advertising banners. The banners will be in place for less than one-third of the year, and these additional revenue are most likely to be reinvested into the facilities. Thank you, Tim Tobin 5715 Brentridge Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 From: Mary Erani [kangaroo@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:27 PM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: 'Kyle Heitkarnp' Subject: South Tonka Little League Good Afternoon Mr. Lizee and Mr. Nielsen, I am a parent of two young boys who participate in the South Tonka Little League program. It is my understanding that STLL is asking for temporary signage at Freeman Park. I believe this is an excellent idea. It is a great way for local businesses to be involved and give back to the community. With the economic struggles that many families are facing; it is encouraging to see STLL ready to assist those in need. The city of Shorewood should be honored to have such an outstanding organization in their community. I ask that you please consider STLL's request and realize the benefits it will have on our community. Thank you for time and attention to this matter. Mary Erani Mary Erani 4101 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Home: 952.401.8852 Email: Kangaroo(o)MCHSI.Com From: Greg Greenwood [greg@igreenwood.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:43 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: South Tonka Little League and Sponsor Signs Hello Chris and Brad, I was alerted of the issue of sponsorship signs not being allowed to be put up for the season of baseball. Why? The sponsorship signs have always been a part of baseball. I grew up playing baseball at Bennett field and remember to this day, I played on sponsored teams, the Ty Abel Union 76 Little League team and on the Deephaven Drug Babe Ruth League team, during my baseball years. Couple of reasons I am wondering why the change of heart on these signs: 1. Good advertising that supports local non profit organizations. Now with the economy, if a company is willing to show their support for baseball and off set a few of the dollars we the parents of players have to pay, why not let them do it? 2. These are signs that are professionally made. Do you really think STLL would allow signs that are profane or Jude in nature? Sponsors and Parents commonly view these signs and would take issue if this were to occur. 3. They don't stay up all year round. They are only displayed in the summer months when foliage is full and the fields are barely in view from outside the parks. These fields are some of the best around. I take pride in having my son play baseball and me coaching there. I would hate to have parents of players have to explain their children they can't play and to their extended family they can't watch the games because the cost of playing baseball became prohibitive because of the City of Shorewood didn't like the look of sponsorship signs at a baseball field. Ouch. Please allow STLL to put the signs up. Thx, Greg Greenwood (c) 952.250.5170 From: Rob Willock [rwillockjr@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:21 AM To: Christine Lizee Cc: Brad Nielsen; kheitkamp@q.com Subject: South Tonka Little League Signage Proposal Mayor Lizee: I am a resident of the Shorewood Oak Neighborhood, living at 26190 Oak Leaf Trail, the neighborhood immediately west of Freeman Park. I am writing you today to request your support for the South Tonka Little League signage proposal at Freeman Park. My son has played baseball in the South Tonka League for six years now and we have always found the league to be an enjoyable and an affordable experience. In these difficult economic tirnes we would like to see the league remain an affordable option. As I am sure will be explained to you, keeping the cost affordable for the players is becoming more and more difficult for the South Tonka League as business sponsorship declines. With an approved signage proposal the league will be better positioned to attract additional business sponsors and continue to control the cost of participation. Please support the South Tonka League and the signage proposal. Thank You, Rob and Krissy Willock 952-470-6261 From: Mary Hoffman [maryhoffman@garylundeencompany.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:48 AM To: Christine Lizee Cc: kheitkamp@q.com; Brad Nielsen Subject: Re: Signs at Freeman South Tonka baseball and I am asking that you make an exception to the sign ordinance at freeman park due to us being a non-profit organization. These signs would only be on the ballpark fences three of the 12 months a year when the foliage is on the trees. They would be professionally made signs and hung in a professional marrrer. It is STLL's goal to make sure every player in our conuuunity has an opportunity to play baseball if they wish. With today's economic struggles, we are anticipating it being more difficult for families to pay league fees. With that in mind we are looking for ways supplement our costs. As other sports continue to get more expensive, we want to keep our fees at a level so everyone can play. The issue is that our sponsorship dollars have decreased significantly over the past few years. The potential sponsors now have other fields in the corninunity that allow signage in their parks so they are spending their funds elsewhere. We have had preliminary discussion with businesses that have agreed to purchase signage if we get this approved. Thank you Mary Hoffman Volunteer Coach From: Matt Koonce [mkoonce@verdi-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:37 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Sign Ordinance/Freeman Park Chris/Brad...I am writing on behalf and in support of STLL and their request to get a variance on the sign ordinance for sponsorship banners at Freeman park. As a volunteer coach for STLL, I see the impact it has on the community and the kids. Keeping the program vibrant and available for all is a huge positive for the community. Being able to generate sponsorship dollars to keep the program going and sustain it for years to come would be a big boost. While I understand having rules and ordinances is a necessity for any city, I also see how variances can be used to make exceptions where the city staff sees it is in the best interest of the community and doesn't cause undo harm to residents. I hope the city can see that granting a variance for. this sort of thing is worthwhile and is for the greater good of all the citizens. Thanks for your time and consideration. Matt Matt Koonce Project Manager 0(651)642-5540 F(651)294-3206 C(612)360-4761 www.verdi-inc.com E:1 From: Mick Hannafin [mhannafin@davidmartinagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:06 AM To: Christine Lizee; Brad Nielsen Cc: kheitkamp@q.com Subject: Signage at Freeman Park Good Morning Gentlemen, Given the current economic climate and the decrease in available funding that many organizations are facing, I commend South Tonka Little league's venture to add signage to the Freeman Park fields for the 3 months during the baseball season. As a resident I appreciate your willingness to consider creative and flexible resources that allow our children the opportunity to be involved in community activities in our hometown. Please allow the temporary signage as a way to increase revenue for this worthy cause. Thank you, M Hannafin David Martin Agency, Inc. 952-848-1305 Phone 952-920-2655 Fax 952-920-4516 Main Phone mhannafin~davidmartinaaency_.com www.davidmartinagency.corn From: William Tiede [tiede003@umn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:45 PM To: Brad Nielsen I am in favor of allowing signage at the Freeman fields in an effort to keep the STLL prograrn alive and well. It has been a GREAT program for my 2 boys and all of Shorewood!! Bill Tiede 26060 Shorewood Oaks Dr From: AnnuityLife Producer Consultants [bones@annuitylifebiz.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:31 PM To: Brad Nielsen Cc: message@southtonkall.org Subject: Signage for STLL I am writing you to respectfully request that you allow South Tonka Little League to sell advertising signage to hang on the fences at the ball fields. This would really help raise much needed operating revenue during these trying times. Thank You for your consideration. Michael "Bones" Cervony AnnuityLife Producer Consultants, LLC Phone: 800-488-1360 x502 Fax: 952-674-4446 bones-@annuitylifebiz.com www,annuitvlifebiz.com -D-R-A-F®T® CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION N A SOLUTION DENYING A QUEST BY SOUTH TON LITTLE LEAGUE FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING SIGNS TO BE PLACED ON BALLFIEL FENCES IN FREEMAN PA WHEREAS, Kyle Heitkamp, representing the South Tonka Little League (Applicant) has requested amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow commercial advertising signs to be placed on ballfield fences in Freeman Park; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City's Planning Director, whose recommendations are set forth in a memorandum, dated 26 February 2009, which memorandum is on file in the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Attorney, whose recommendations are set forth in a memorandum, dated 23 February 2009, which memorandum is on file in the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, the request was reviewed by the Park Commission at its meeting on 10 February 2009 and, after deliberation, the Park Commission recommended to the Planning Commission and City Council that the request be denied; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on 3 March 2009 and, after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the request be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at its regular meeting held on 23 February 2009, reviewed the material submitted by the Applicant, written and oral public testimony, the recommendations of the Park Commission and the Planning Commission, the Planning Director's memorandum, dated 26 February 2009, and the City Attorney's memorandum, dated 23 February 2009, which memoranda are on file in the Shorewood City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Freeman Park is public property located in the R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 2. The Applicant proposes to locate as any as 15 commercial advertising signs on the outfield fences of each of the two ballfields currently used by South Tonka Little League in Freeman Park. 3. The proposed signs measure approximately 3.5' x 7' and are made of industrial strength mesh. 4. The request would necessitate changes to the following six sections of Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. of the Shorewood Zoning Code: a. b.(2)(d), prohibiting banners except for temporary signs (10 days at a time) b. b.(2)(f), prohibiting signs on trees, fences or utility poles c. c.(3) restricts signs on public property to governmental and political campaign signs d. c.(4) limits the use of banners to temporary signs, two signs per property per year for 10 days at a time e. d.((1)(c) lists billboards and advertising signs as nonconforming signs f. e.(1) lists signs allowed in residential zoning districts; advertising signs are not allowed in residential districts CONCLUSIONS A. The Zoning Code amendments requested by the Applicant constitute a significant deviation from the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. B. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Shorewood Zoning Code should be amended. C. The Applicant's request for Zoning Code text amendments as set forth above is hereby denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23rd day of March 2009. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK k,J f l 4 , I' 5755 COUi i 'r CLUB i ~OAD o SHC', ,EWO(. Mlh., nESOTA 55331-8927 + (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us 1VIEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works FROM: James Landini, City Engineer6R~ DATE: March 18, 2009 RE: Accept Proposal for Engineering Services for the Harding Lane Project. Attachment 1 is the proposal for professional services from WSB and Associates, Inc., for the Feasibility Report and Surveying for Harding Lane. Staff requested quotes from three firms with the following work description. Harding Lane and HardhiI4 Ave. The first street is Harding Lane, Harding Ave. We have 50 feet of Right-of-Way and an existing 30' wide road. --985' of length. Shorewood would need surveying and a feasibility study. The feasibility study needs to address: o Reconstruction option and reclamation option. o Optional water main extension. o M.S. 429 process for all options. o Soil report o Drainage/storm sewer analysis o Feasibility cost estimate must include: o Minnehaha Creek permitting o Shorewood Standard road detail with 2' of sand base and draintile o Sanitary sewer investigation (televising will be required) o Exhibit preparation for Staff presentations The Survey needs to address: o Property boundaries o Topography to extend at least 15' past Right-of-Way (steep grades would need an extension) o Data on existing utilities Data on existing pond, outlet and ditch/culvert data for 200-300' downstream. WSB and Associates provided a complete and reasonable quotation for the work, addressing the items as requested. SRF and SEH also provided quotes for the work that made requested items optional or failed to address items entirely. SRF and SEH_ did not provide an estimate for the drainage/storm sewer analysis or a cost estimate, both of which are needed to make decisions affecting the City of Shorewood. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ a The fees for the feasibility report and surveying as requested are $13,764.00. The estimate for a soil report which would be direct billed to the City is $39200.00. Staff recommends approval of this proposal for the feasibility report, surveying and soils report. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposal for the feasibility report and surveying from WSB and Associates for $13,764.00 for Harding Lane dated March 18, 2009, and authorize staff to order the soils report for $3,200.00. City o Shore Quote Tabulation Harding Lane Feasibility Report City Project No. (quotes Opened: March 18, 2009, 12:00 P.M. City of Shorewood Engineer: James Landini No I Quoter i I Quoie Mr. James Landini, PE March 18, 2009 Page 3 HARDING AVENUE AND HA ING LANE PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Shorewood has identified that the existing road conditions for Hal-ding Avenue and Harding Lane have deteriorated to a point that warrants reconstruction. Harding Lane and Harding Avenue are approximately 30 feet in width and total 985 feet in length. Cul-de-sacs comprise the north and south termini of Harding Lane. Harding Avenue connects to Wedgewood Drive which was reconstructed in 2006. The City would like to evaluate the techniques of pavement removal versus reclamation to reconstruct the streets to the City typical urban section consisting of a 2-foot sand section with edge drains and new edge control. The construction of new watermain will be investigated for the residents of this project. It is intended to assess the benefiting property owners using the Minnesota State Statute 429. A drainage analysis and study of the existing conditions is to be conducted to determine the permitting requirements from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). PROJECT APPROACH/SCOPE OF SERVICES WSB's project scope and proposed work plan is based on our understanding of the project, discussions with City staff, and familiarity with City standards and requirements. The feasibility study and survey components of this proposal have been separated into key tasks. The key tasks are discussed on the following pages: 1. Feasibility Study 1.1 Project Management Project management is a key task included in each phase of the study. This task consists of management and administration, coordination of study components, and communication with the City of Shorewood. Proper completion of this task will keep open lines of communication to relay concerns or questions to the City, as well as keeping the study on schedule and within budget. 1.2 Preliminary Design This task involves the review of existing conditions to develop a preliminary design for the reconstruction of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane. As-built drawings will be referenced to determine the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems present within the project area. Infratech will be utilized to conduct a televising study and report that will identify the need for repair or replacement of the existing sanitary sewer system. A subsurface exploration will be performed by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). The exploration will consist of 4 soil borings to a depth of 15 feet. AET will provide an analysis and report of its findings including recormnendations upon completion. KIq0141-OJ01.1ArninlOnrslL%'li PROP -Hnrdiiig_Sriii h,) ii 031A1l9&,, Mr. James Landini, PE March 18, 2009 Page 4 The existing cul-de-sacs at the north and south end of Harding Lane will be reviewed to see if they meet the requirements for emergency vehicle access. If the criteria are not met, WSB will investigate options to improve the cul-de-sac design while staying within the confines of the existing right-of-way. The City does not intend to purchase additional right-of-way for this project. Preliminary design will also address the extension of the existing watermain from Wedgewood Drive to the residents of Harding Lane. A preliminary cost estimate for watermain will be included in the study for consideration by the residents. WSB & Associates, Inc. is familiar with the implementation of the City's wateimain extension policy, having implemented it on two recent projects: Wedgewood, Mallard, and Teal Road and Utility Improvements and the Southeast / Amesbury Watenmain Interconnect. 1.3 Drainage/Storm Sewer Analysis Storm sewer analysis for this project will consist of evaluating the existing storm sewer system and recommending improvements if the system is found to be inadequate including the outlet near the regional trail corridor. For purposes of this analysis, storm sewer conveying backyard areas to the trunk storm sewer system will be deemed adequate based on previous studies completed by the City several years ago. This project is located within the MCWD. The feasibility report will include a discussion on permitting issues and how the proposed construction will address the rules. 1.4 Cost Estimate This task consists of preparing a detailed cost estimate for the improvements proposed in the study. This estimate will include options identified in the study including pavement removal and reclamation costs as well as the estimated cost to provide City water to each of the project residents. The drainage and storm sewer analysis will identify the MCWD permitting requirements and associated permit fees. These fees will be included along with an estimated cost for storm sewer improvements. 1.5 Preliminary Assessment Roll WSB will prepare a preliminary assessment roll for the residents of Harding Lane. The assessment roll will be calculated based upon the existing City policy and will take into account all facets of the project. The assessment shall reflect the estimated construction costs for the project. The legal, engineering, administrative, and financing fees shall also be included along with the associated costs of televising the sanitary sewer and performing the soils borings. K100141-090AI iWID-UR PROP-1h-1i,W_Srui,4m,,, 0J1R09&,, Mr. James Landim, PE March 18, 2009 Page 5 1.6 Prepare Feasibility Report This task will include the results and findings of the above listed tasks. The report will summarize the preliminary design options and drainage analysis. The estimated costs and preliminary assessment roll will be presented within the report. The costs and assessments will reflect the different design options (pavement removal versus reclamation, waterinain) proposed. The feasibility report will be transmitted to the City for presentation to the Council for approval and ordering of the project. 1.7 Prepare Exhibits for City Staff Presentations WSB will prepare documentation and/or exhibits requested by City Staff for neighborhood meetings and Council meetings. It is understood that City staff will be responsible for presenting all materials needed for public meetings. WSB staff would be available to attend meetings should it be requested by the City. 2. Survey 2.1 Topographic Survey This task will include the topographic survey of Harding Avenue from its intersection with Wedgewood Drive to the extents of Harding Lane. The survey will identify surface features to a distance 15 feet beyond the right-of-way and further if deemed necessary to tie in steep slopes along with determining existing driveway grades. The property boundaries will be identified along with existing utilities. The ditch located north of Harding Lane will be surveyed along with culvert elevations for a distance of 200 to 300 feet downstream of the Harding Lane storm sewer outlet. The information of from the ditch will be incorporated into the drainage analysis. 3. Additional Tasks 3.1 Soil Borings AET will be working with WSB as a subconsultant to perform the subsurface exploration. During the investigation, AET will perform 4 soil borings to a depth of 15 feet. Upon completion, a report of findings and analysis will be performed and recommendations will be given concerning the existing soil conditions. It should be noted in the below fee schedule that AEI's fee for Harding Lane assumes the project will be ordered with the Smithtown Lane Reconstruction Project. Due to the close proximity of the two projects, AET can mobilize once to complete the soil borings during the same day at a lesser cost. If Harding Lane is ordered by itself, the fee would increase by $400 to a total of $3,200. K 100141-090W,h,, 11),),.SUR PROP -[/~rAiity Smithro~~+i llJ/.t09. dui Mr. James Landim, PE March 18, 2009 Page 6 3.2 Sanitary Sewer Televising hlfratech will work with WSB for this study to perform the sanitary sewer televising inspection and report. Infratech will provide cleaning of the sanitary sewer line if necessary. The associated cost to both clean and televise the Harding Lane sanitary sewer is included in the fee schedule below. Again, it should be noted that Infratech's fee for Harding Lane assumes that the project will be ordered with the Smithtown Lane Reconstruction Project. If Harding Lane is the only project televised, the fee will increase $270 to a total of $2,260. If the City cleans the sanitary sewer prior to televising, ensuring that no additional cleaning is needed, approximately $1,140 can be saved. FEE The proposed fee is based on our 2009 rates. WSB & Associates, Inc. proposes to work with City staff to perform the tasks identified above on an hourly reimbursable rate. The additional tasks are based upon the proposals from our subconsultants and reflect both a stand alone fee and a fee if Smithtown Lane is ordered in conjunction with this proposal. A summary of the fees by task is as follows: 1. Feasibility Study $ 10,680.00 2. Survey $ 3,080.00 Subtotal WSB Proposed Fee $ 13,760.00 Additional Tasks - Subconsultants 3.1 Soil Borings $ 2,800.00 3.2 Sanitary Sewer Televising $ 1,990.00 Subtotal Subconsultant Proposed Fee $ 4,790.00 TOTAL PROPOSED FEE $ 18,550.00 We propose to utilize City staff, when available, to perform portions of these tasks during implementation. Therefore, WSB & Associates, Inc. proposes to work with City staff to perform the tasks identified above for an hourly reimbursable fee of $18,550. KW0141-OWAdmfnO-ILTRPROP-11"'In,_svil1h, 031Y'9dar F- Q) O U Z Q U) ry D O LL O W Q F- U) W Q O U) W Z cZ G 0. O >O W O z W O UJ W> U) 0 W 0~ U W - W > J U U7 Z Z Q Q F- p J Q m® U3 Q m W e o LL W o N w ~ W Z M J W O Q U Ue O Z F- _ U) Q W U_ Q W Q J Q Q O Z cf) W Q J LL O ly- Z m Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 It -q Co 00 00 (D 1'- 'IT 00 0 r. N CY) - 00 O 0') CO [d• O LO I 0 Gq ff)- 64 61) 64 f{} €f; 64 a~-~ 0 0 O N N N N C9 M rf' M M ~ F- S O ~ U 00 00 O 0 L G U IL O o > `m> a) - .r N 00 't C O' fn W V N N C CO o N CO CO 'V' N rt I a W .1.~ L U N a) ~ 'O m O N N N • a` f6 N O U U) c O U) V) Q O 2 U N ~ 0 N ~ I O a N <L U) L C Q O E/) 0 a) W CE 3 U) Q CL U a c Z) F- O E C _ W u) co C o N M L U) a) N a) _ N + O J C6 E ` D N LL x W = m co L a) a) a) a) C W a a E W Oz-Fu O N w w ' LL o- d r) U D_ LLJ y N M d' U7 CO CO R F O F- U) F- U) O U m U) J O F- m D co o O O 0 NT 0) oc Oi r•. N 'IT 00 s4 ss tai t I~ O O O O Cl) C O O 0 0 N Co O 00 Co 0) ca EF) O O 0 CD O CO N N O o O o ri o O N O N N 0 0 cD ~f' d- °0 co o M Ef} Ef3 ~f ° 0 0 4 d Co co V O N C O V L i (n U] Z O ca Q U _ J S ~ O Z L) C O > ti U o L m Q) fn m = = C C U) v O U W U N O Q ~ .O > O Q o w U) L c6 w W L U U) Q N O O L J O O N O Q v) ~ LL S ~ ~ Z O C - Y > m cc M 9 Q 5 _ _ O N V) N m O Q co F- W W U N li C R M M + a F- F- S F- ti ~ e YX7 5/55 COUN FRY CLUo rtGmD ® SrCmEWOOD, ivilNidESOTA 55331-8927 ® (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us m cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works FROM: James Landim, City Engineer V(~ DATE: March 18, 2009 RE: Accept Proposal for Engineering Services for the Smithtown Lane Project. Attaclunent 1 is the proposal for professional services from WSB and Associates, Inc., for the Feasibility Report and Surveying for Smithtown Lane. Staff requested quotes from three firms with the following work description. Smithtown Lane The second street is Smithtown Lane. Supposedly we have 66 feet of Right-of-Way and an existing 20'+- wide road. -600' length. Shorewood would need on a separate quote for surveying and a feasibility study. The City will provide an owners and encumbrances report. The feasibility study needs to address: o Reconstruction option and reclamation option. o Optional water main extension. o M.S. 429 process for all options. o Soil report o Drainage/storm sewer analysis o Feasibility cost estimate must include: o Minnehaha Creek permitting o Shorewood Standard road detail with 2' of sand base and draintile o Sanitary sewer investigation (televising will be required) o Exhibit preparation for Staff presentations The Survey needs to address: o Property boundaries o Easement boundaries o Topography to extend at least 15' past Right-of-Way (flat grades would need an extension) o Data on existing utilities Please include a cost for optional Right-of-Way sketches and legal descriptions for land acquisition negotiations. WSB and Associates provided a complete and reasonable quotation for the work, addressing the items as requested. SRF and SEH_ also provided quotes for the work that made requested items optional or failed to address items entirely. SRF and SEH_ did not provide an estimate for the drainage/storm sewer analysis or a cost estimate, both of which are needed to make decisions affecting the City of Shorewood. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER The fees for the feasibility report and surveying as requested are $11,656.00. The estimate for soil report which would be direct billed to the City is $29300.00. Staff recommends approval of this proposal for the feasibility report, surveying and soils report. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposal for the feasibility report and surveying from WSB and Associates for $11,656.00 for Smithtown Lane dated March 18, 2009, and authorize staff to order the soils report for $2,300.00. City o Shorewood Quote Tabulation Smithtown Lane Feasibility Report City Project No. Quotes Opened: March 10, 2009, 12:00 P.M. Engineer: James Landini City of Shorewood No ! Quoter Quote 1 SRF $3,500.00 2 SEH $3,294.00 3 WSB $3,076.00 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mr. Tames Landini, PE March 18, 2009 Page 7 SMIT TOWN LANE PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Shorewood has identified that the existing road conditions for Smithtown Lane have deteriorated to a point that warrants reconstruction. Smithtown Lane is approximately 20 feet in width and 600 feet in length. The street ends in an irregularly shaped cul-de-sac located partially outside of the platted right-of-way. The City will need a detailed survey done to verify the property ownership and existing right-of-way limits. The City would like to evaluate the techniques of pavement removal versus reclamation to reconstruct the sheets to the City typical urban section as well as the construction of new watermain to the residents of this project. It is intended to assess the benefiting property owners using the Minnesota State Statute 429. A drainage analysis and study of the existing conditions is to be conducted to determine the permitting requirements from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). An investigation will be needed to determine the ownership rights of the parcel west of 26065 Smithtown Lane. To correct the characteristic of the cul-de-sac located at the east end of Smithtown Lane, it is anticipated that land acquisition will be necessary. PROJECT APPROACH/SCOPE OF SERVICES WSB's project scope and proposed work plan is based on our understanding of the project, discussions with City staff, and familiarity with City standards and requirements. The feasibility study and survey components of this proposal have been separated into key tasks. The key tasks are discussed on the following pages: 1. Feasibility Study 1.1 Project Management Project management is a key task included in each phase of the study. This task consists of management and administration, coordination of study components, and communication with the City of Shorewood. Proper completion of this task will keep open lines of communication to relay concerns or questions to the City, as well as keeping the study on schedule and within budget. 1.2 Preliminary Design This task involves the review of existing conditions to develop a preliminary design for the reconstruction of Smithtown Lane. As-built drawings will be referenced to determine the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer system present within the project area. Infratech will be utilized to conduct a televising study and report that will identify the need for repair or replacement of the existing sanitary sewer system. A subsurface exploration will be performed by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). The exploration will consist of 2 soil borings to a depth of 15 feet. AET will provide an analysis and report of its findings including recommendations upon completion. f.:100/4/-090Lidmi"V)""V'7'R PROP -1hudiiigS iihr-, 031809. dr~r Mr. James Landini, PL March 18, 2009 Page 8 The existing cul-de-sac at the east end of Smithtown Lane is irregularly shaped and will be reviewed to design a new cul-de-sac that meets the requirements for emergency vehicle access. Land acquisition will be necessary to reconstruct the cul-de-sac to proper dimensions. Preliminary design will also address the extension of the existing watermain from Smithtown Road to the residents of Smithtown Lane. WSB & Associates, Inc. is familiar with the implementation of the City's watermain extension policy, having implemented it on two recent projects: Wedgewood, Mallard, and Teal Road and Utility Improvements and the Southeast / Amesbury Watemmain Interconnect. 1.3 Drainage/Storm Sewer Analysis Storm sewer analysis for this project will consist of evaluating storm sewer improvements that will convey runoff from the project area. There currently is no storm sewer present in Smithtown Lane. The stone sewer improvements may also include an area for infiltration prior to discharging downstream. This project is located within the MCWD. The feasibility report will include a discussion on pennitting issues and how the proposed construction will address the rules. 1.4 Cost Estimate This task consists of preparing a detailed cost estimate for the improvements proposed in the study. This estimate will include options identified in the study including pavement removal and reclamation costs as well as the estimated cost to provide City water to each of the project residents. The drainage and storm sewer analysis will identify the MCWD permitting requirements and associated permit fees. These fees will be included along with the estimated cost for storm sewer improvements. 1.5 Preliminary Assessment Roll WSB will prepare a preliminary assessment roll for the residents of Smithtown Lane. The assessment roll will be calculated based upon the existing City policy. The assessment roll will take into account all facets of the project. The assessment shall reflect the construction costs for the project. The legal, engineering, administrative, and financing fees shall also be included along with the associated costs of televising the sanitary sewer and performing the soils borings. 1.6 Prepare Feasibility Report This task will include the results and findings of the above listed tasks. The report will summarize the preliminary design options and drainage analysis. The estimated costs and preliminary assessment roll will be presented within the report. The costs and assessments will be reflective of the different design options (pavement removal versus reclamation, watermain). The feasibility report will be transmitted to the City for presentation to the Council for approval and ordering of the project. k:'100 7 4 7-090Ad,mV)/)( M1?PROP-11-h,,4_Suii~hto~in 011,109.d Mr. James Landim, PE March 18, 2009 Page 9 1.7 Prepare Exhibits for City Staff Presentations WSB will prepare documentation and/or exhibits requested by City Staff for neighborhood meetings and Council meetings. It is understood that City staff will be responsible for presenting all materials needed for public meetings. WSB staff would be available to attend meetings should it be requested by the City. 2. Survey 2.1 Topographic Survey This task will include the topographic survey of Smithtown Lane from Smithtown Road to the project extents. The survey will identify surface features to a distance 15 feet beyond the right-of-way and further if deemed necessary to tie in steep slopes along with determining existing driveway grades. The property and easement boundaries will be identified along with existing utilities. The City will provide owner and encumbrance reports for use. Upon request, right-of-way sketches and legal descriptions will be provided for land acquisition negotiation. The fee for these optional sketches and legal descriptions has been included as an additional task within our proposed fee assuming two land acquisitions. 3. Additional Tasks 3.1 Soil Borings AET will be working with WSB as a subconsultant to perform the subsurface exploration. During the investigation, AET will perform 2 soil borings to a depth of 15 feet. Upon completion, a report of findings and analysis will be performed and recommendations will be given concerning the existing soil conditions. It should be noted in the below fee schedule that AET's fee for Smithtown Lane assumes the project will be ordered with the Harding Lane Reconstruction Project. Due to the close proximity of the two projects, AET can mobilize once to complete the soil borings during the same day at a lesser cost. If Smithtown Lane is ordered by itself, the fee would increase by $400 to a total of $2,300. 3.2 Sanitary Sewer Televising Infratech will work with WSB for this study to perform the sanitary sewer televising inspection and report. Infratech will provide cleaning of the sanitary sewer line if necessary. The associated cost to both clean and televise the Harding Lane sanitary sewer is included in the fee schedule below. Again, it should be noted that Infratech's fee for Smithtown Lane assumes the project will be ordered with the Harding Lane Reconstruction Project. If Smithtown Lane is the only project televised, the fee will increase $550 to a total of $1,850. If the City cleans the sanitary sewer prior to televising, ensuring that no additional cleaning is needed, approximately $740 can be saved. K 100141 090LIdmin ID,-ILZ7! PROP - OJ l.s09.dor Mr. James Landini, PE March 18, 2009 Page 10 FEE The proposed fee is based on our 2009 rates. WSB & Associates, Inc. proposes to work with City staff to perform the tasks identified above on an hourly reimbursable rate. The additional tasks are based upon the proposals from our subconsultants and reflect both a stand alone fee and a fee if Smithtown Lane is ordered in conjunction with this proposal. A summary of the fees by task is as follows: 1. Feasibility Study $ 9,140.00 2. Survey $ 2,520.00 Subtotal Proposed Fee $ 11,660.00 Additional Tasks - Subconsultants 3.1 Soil Borings $ 2,300.00 3.2 Sanitary Sewer Televising $ 1,990.00 3.3 Right-of-Way Parcel Sketches $ 1,000.00 Subtotal Subconsultant Proposed Fee $ 4,200.00 TOTAL PROPOSED FEE $ 15,860.00 We propose to utilize City staff, when available, to perform portions of these tasks during implementation. Therefore, WSB & Associates, Inc. proposes to work with City staff to perform the tasks identified above for an hourly reimbursable fee of $15,860. K 100141-090U4,kinlDoc UR PROP- lhvdi,kg_JSUiih,-,,031809_&,, U O Q 0 O Z ~ W Q Z In Z fj~ c D G Op = O U- O O3: Q 0 O . S w O LL w U) U 1- > Z W w W w > >p C~ E IL C) Z Q J J Q Q m w Z °o LL N L Q w w Q M ~O O O W ~Z U_ J > Z L w U O J I- Z = O F- U w cn LL O (Z 44 U) c_ C_J O O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 v 00 d" 00 e#' C9 N (9 h L f O T et co w fl-. G) C co (11) U~l 6~1 60 6p, 40!) tl3 0 O M S O S U te- L, ,a O F- O ~ 0 d ~U d a O O L d> d- C L) .F, N ~ O C N W U d d N C O CO O O - N O d c w L) L U O 'O = CO N N N It (D CL G y d U N C .O ,N O c (n O • O N L U U) ~ E: - (D O ~ N U) d U) O LL a U) U LL C) C L U) ¢ C C Z) U E C L, co p co ` U) 0 O ~ E ~ N c_ ~ y ~ O H C ~ ~ a N LL X W a _ m: ~ C O in N - N N +O+ 0 w n fl L o fa E W O N (6 o O 2 m O N LL 0- a U a a a W N N co rt CO CO R i- L ~ r < O F- LO r v- O O O O O m 0 m Ef3 EF} 69- 613 O O O O O i O O O O ..C U (6 W O O LO 0 a' U Q (6 J H Z c a J o Q = fn U y Z O o ` UM W ''O^^ VJ ~ O + W > Q w U) U L W Y O m J a U) M m LL Z c U) a O ` ~ o w o ~ D co - E Q ) U F W Cl) N co c+i co O h O LO co Lri O CD CD O O N (0 co (D m H) 69 O O O O N CD 691 O O CD. O LO o d O N N Lo N EH 61) O O O O (0 CD OC) Cn ~r O O O O (p c2 N O d V U L C C O ca U c S M y C ~ d O LL M~ L W W 0 O a U 0 L y O y f4 L U L O 0 o "O Q' J m v c ~ E in U) Co O W U a ~ "T" 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHO,EWJOD, MINNE',DTA 55331-8,27 ® (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 gi www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us r MEMORANDUM TO: City Council ~r FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator DATE: March 19, 2009- SUBJECT: Centerpoint and Xcel Franchise Centerpoint is requesting the City execute a franchise agreement. We have a draft of the proposal from CenterPoint and the question I have regarding this request, as well as the request from Xcel, is if the Council is interested in implementing a franchise fee. The current draft of the Xcel document - not yet finalized - indicates that the City is not currently going to implement or assess a franchise fee, but reserves the right to do so in the future. Similar language can be applied with the CenterPoint agreement as well. I am looking for general direction on how to proceed in discussions with the utilities. ell PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 01 d 0. 4* t; TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Agreement Background MEMO p 5755 COUNTRY CLUD ROAD ® SNORLwOOD, MINNLSOTA 55:31-8927 ® (952) 474-3236 FOX (952) 474-0128 m www.d.shorewood.mn.us s cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us City Council ' Brian Heck, City Ad March 19, 2009 Southshore Center ator of Understanding (MOU) and Interim The City Council has been discussing this issue for the past year in an attempt to arrive at a reasonable funding solution with the other four member communities and the now defunct Friends of the Southshore Senior Community Center. At the last meeting, the Shorewood Council directed staff to prepare an interim agreement outlining the relationship between the Southshore Senior Partners (SSSP), the successor group to the Friends, for the interim operations of the Center. The Council also requested an appraisal be conducted and the drafting of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provides for a sharing of costs for the interim operation of the Center. The time line established by the Council is to have a solution to the management of the Center, including an agreement for the long-term cost sharing of operational costs, by April 30, 2009. LMCC Proposal The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission submitted an offer to the member cities in early March to purchase the building. Four of the five member cities indicated an interest in finding a way to keep the facility operational as a community and senior center. On Thursday, March 19, 2009, the LMCC delivered a revised proposal to purchase the building (proposal attached). The proposal is for the City of Shorewood to purchase the building and then re-sell the building to the LMCC. The LMCC would pay to the City of Shorewood, $3,600 per month for 120 months (10) years. The LMCC is on a tight time frame .and must have an answer accepting their terms by March 25, 2009. Irs _ ~ r-) ®0® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - Attachments 1) Interim Agreement with the SSSP for operations at the facility; 2) MOU between the member cities sharing operational costs for the months of March and April; 3) Estimated and actual revenue and expenses for March and April; 4) LMCC Purchase proposal. Options 1) Approve the two Agreements as presented; 2) Modify the Agreements; 3) Withdraw from the agreement; 4) Move forward with the purchase and resale of the facility in accordance with the offer made by the LMCC; 5) Do nothing. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Council move to approve the two agreements as drafted and notify the other cities of this action. Staff also recommends moving forward with obtaining an appraisal of the Center. The rational for this recommendation is to allow adequate time to evaluate if the facility can be successfully operated under a different management scheme. Proposals are out and due back to the City by April 3, 2009. Furthermore, we do not know if the LMCC offer is the best offer for the facility as the facility has not been put on the open market for other prospective buyers. If sale is the direction the council and member communities wish to go, then the cities need to market the facility in an attempt to get the highest price. Finally, based on the current cash flow projections, keeping the facility operational through April will not cost the member cities any money. MEMORANDUM F UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE INTERIM OPERATION OFT E SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2009, by and between the Cities of SHOREWOOD, DEEPHAVEN, EXCELSIOR, GREENWOOD and TONKA BAY, ("Cities") all municipal corporations under the laws of the state of Minnesota. RECITALS A. The Cities entered into a Cooperative Agreement in 1996 for the purpose of jointly constructing a community center (the "Center") to serve the south lake Minnetonka area; B. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the Cities own the Center as tenants-in-common, with the ownership interest of each city proportionate to each city's financial investment in the Center; C. Under the Cooperative Agreement, the Cities entered into a 25-year Lease with The Friends of the South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center (the "Friends"), a non-profit corporation, whereby the Friends had full responsibility for the cost of operating and maintaining the Center; D. Due to changes in the funding sources and the resulting financial difficulties, the Friends approached the Cities for assistance in 2007 and again in 2008. The Cities provided assistance with the condition that a long-term solution to funding of the Center be developed before the end of 2008. E. No agreement was reached between the Friends and the Cities with respect to funding. F. The Cities' Lease Agreement with the Friends provides that the Lease terminates upon the dissolution of the Tenant and on February 11, 2009, the Friends notified the Cities of its dissolution and the transfer of its assets to SouthShore Senior Partners ("SSSP"), a Minnesota non-profit 501(c)3 organization F. The Cities are in the process of developing a short-term agreement with SSSP for operation of the Center and desire to allocate the remaining costs and responsibilities amongst themselves until a permanent solution or sale of the Center is finalized. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Term. This Agreement is effective March 1, 2009, and will terminate on April 30, 2009, unless extended or renewed by written agreement of the Cities. 2. Effect on Cooperative Agreement. The Cities' Cooperative Agreement dated March 4, 1996, remains in effect except as otherwise expressly modified by this Agreement. 3. Costs of Operation. The Cities agree to share equally the operational costs for the Center for the term of this Agreement. Such costs include any item related to the maintenance and operation of the Center not covered by rental income received through April 30, 2009. The City of Shorewood will act as a fiscal agent for the Cities and will manage deposits and payment of claims associated with the operation and maintenance of the Center for the term of this Agreement. Attachment A to this Agreement illustrates the estimated costs and potential liability for each member community during the term of this Agreement. Attachment A provides estimated costs only and does not affect the Cities' agreement to share operational costs equally if they exceed the estimates in Attachment A. Any excess revenue over expenditures shall be retained by the City of Shorewood to cover attorney and staff time associated with coordinating this effort. 4. Method of Approval. In accordance with the existing Cooperative Agreement, this Agreement shall be binding on all of the Cities upon written approval of two-thirds of the Cities. 5. Appraisal of Center. The Cities agree to share equally the cost of a professional appraisal of the Center to determine its fair market value. 6. Indemnification. The Cities agree that each shall be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof. 7. No Assignment. No City may assign its duties under this Agreement without first obtaining the express written consent of the other Cities. 8. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and no other agreement prior to or contemporaneous with this Agreement shall be effective, except as expressly set forth in paragraph 2 of this Agreement. Any purported amendment to this Agreement is not effective unless it is in writing and executed by all parties. 9. No Waiver By Cities. By entering into this Agreement, the Cities do not waive their entitlement to any immunities under statute or common law. 10. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts by the parties each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 11. Severability. Should any part or portion of this Agreement be deemed illegal or non- binding by a court of law, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in effect. CITY OF DEEPHAVEN Dated: By: Its: City Clerk Treasurer Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: By: Its: Mayor CITY OF EXCELSIOR By: Its: City Manager By: Its: Mayor CITY OF GREENWOOD By: Its: City (Clerk) Administrator By: Its: Mayor CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Its: City (Clerk) Administrator By: Its: Mayor CITY OF TONKA BAY By: Its: City (Clerk) Administrator By: Its: Mayor AGREEMENT F THE OPERATION F THE SOUTHSHORE CENTS This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2009, by and between the Cities of SHOREWOOD, EEPHAVEN, EXCELSIOR, GREENWOOD and TONKA BAY, all municipal corporations under the laws of the state of Minnesota ("Cities") and the SouthShore Senior Partners ("SSSP"), a Minnesota non-profit 501(c)3 organization. RECITALS 1. The Cities entered into a Cooperative Agreement in 1996 for the purpose of jointly constructing a community center (the "Center") to serve the south lake Minnetonka area; 2. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the Cities own the Center as tenants-in- common, with the ownership interest of each city proportionate to each city's financial investment in the Center; 3. Under the Cooperative Agreement, the Cities entered into a Lease with The Friends of the South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center (the "Friends"), a non-profit corporation, whereby the Friends would operate and maintain the Center; 4. The Cities' Lease Agreement with the Friends provides that the Lease terminates upon the dissolution of the Tenant; 5. On February 11, 2009, the Friends notified the Cities of its dissolution and the transfer of its assets to SSSP; 6. The Cities desire to continue operation of the Center by temporarily engaging the services of SSSP; 7. The parties wish to define the scope of services and terms of their agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Term. This Agreement is effective beginning March 1, 2009, and will terminate on April 30, 2009, unless extended or renewed by written agreement of the parties. 2. Scope of Services. SSSP will perform the following services for the Cities: a. In-kind services including opening the Center for activities and closing the building at the end of the day (4:00 - 4:30 p.m.); b. Allow renters to use and access the Center's kitchen, tables, and chairs consistent with past practice. 1 I Use of Center by SSSP. The Cities grant to SSSP use of the SouthShore Center as follows: a. Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays - 8:15 a.m. Dining room area for Dance Fitness, and first and third Mondays 8:30 a.m. for Happy Feet. b. Tuesdays - activity room for Creative Cards at 9:00 a.m. and wood carving 9:30 a.m. Dining room 10:30 Belly Dancing and Dining room for lunch 11:45 to 1:00 and cards at 1:00 p.m. c. Wednesday - Activity room from 9-noon for painting. d. Thursday - Dining room for lunch from 11:45 - 1:00 p.m. and Bridge at 1:00 p.m. e. Friday - Activity room from 9-noon Crafts and dining room 1:00 p.m. Bingo. The Cities may, at their discretion, grant SSSP additional use of the Center. 4. No Rental of Center by SSSP. SSSP shall not rent or sublease the Center without the express written consent of the Cities. 5. Payment to Cities. SSSP shall pay to the City of Shorewood (as agent for the Cities) the following: a) $1,200.00 for use of the Center during the term of this Agreement; b) all amounts representing rentals and pre-paid rentals by third parties beginning March 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. 6. Other Operational Expenses. The City of Shorewood will (as agent for the Cities) collect and pay all operational bills and expenses associated with the general upkeep of the Center including regular janitorial, utilities, and insurance, for the period March 1, 2009 through April 30, 2009. 7. Employees of SSSP. All persons employed by SSSP shall be sole and exclusive employees of SSSP and shall be compensated by SSSP. With respect to such employees, SSSP shall accept full and exclusive liability for all applicable social security, unemployment, workers' compensation or other applicable withholdings, employment taxes, contributions or employee benefits. 8. Indemnification. SSSP will hold harmless and indemnify the Cities, their officials, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including defense, settlement, and reasonable attorney fees) arising out of the performance of SSSP, its employees or agents under this Agreement. 9. No Assignment. SSSP may not assign this Agreement or procure the services of another individual or company to provide services under this Agreement without first obtaining the express written consent of the Cities. 10. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and no other agreement prior to or contemporaneous with this Agreement 2 shall be effective, except as expressly set forth or incorporated herein. Any purported amendment to this Agreement is not effective unless it is in writing and executed by all parties. 11. No Waiver By Cities. By entering into this Agreement, the Cities do not waive their entitlement to any immunities under statute or common law. 12. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts by the parties each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 13. Severability. Should any part or portion of this Agreement be deemed illegal or non- binding by a court of law, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in effect. CITY OF DEEPHAVEN Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: By: Its: City Clerk Treasurer By: Its: Mayor CITY OF EXCELSIOR By: Its: City Manager By: Its: Mayor CITY OF GREENWOOD By: Its: City (Clerk) Administrator By: Its: Mayor CITY OF SHOREWOOD 3 By: Its: City (Clerk) Administrator Dated: Southshore Senior Partners By: Its President By: Its: Mayor CITY OF TONKA BAY By: Its: City (Clerk) Administrator By: Its: Mayor 4 ATTACHMENT A Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Revenue January February March April Carryover from prior month $ 2,391.04 Church $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 EHS $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 SSSP $ - $ - $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Other $1,160.00 $1,195.00 $ 1,552.00 $1,362.00 Prepaid Rent and Deposits $ 1,342.00 TOTAL REVENUE $2,010.00 $2,045.00 $ 4,344.00 $ 5,203.04 Expenses Culligan - water $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Centerpoint - Gas $ 525.00 $ 525.00 City Utilities $ - $ 150.00 Repairs/Maintenance General $ - $ - Insurance - property/casualty $ - $ - Miscellaneacus $ 100.00 $ 100.00 Xcel - Electric $ 636.05 $ 144.96 $ 580.00 Solid Waste $ 150.00 $ 150.00 Web hosting $ 33.00 $ 33.00 Custodial Services $ 950.00 $ 950.00 Total Estimated Exenses $ 1,952.96 $ 2,538.00 Balance / (deficit) $ 2,391.04 $ 2,665.04 Less prepaid rent refunded $(1,342.00) Net Balance $1,323.04 Description Annual January February March April May June July August Sept October November December Culligan - water $ 487.80 $ 32.00 $ 32.70 $ 49.05 $ 35.15 $ 49.05 $ 49.05 $ 32.70 $ 32.70 $ 49.05 $ 32.70 $ 73.30 $ 20.35 Centerpoint - Gas $ 2,678.44 $ 416.90 $ 387.19 $ 502.00 $ 525.47 $ 255.82 $132.69 $ 58.38 $ 35.25 $ 34.79 $ 41.52 $ 61.01 $ 227.42 City Utilities $ 1,078.68 $ 242.83 $ - $ - $ 146.84 $ - $ - $ 155.69 $ - $ - $ 533.32 $ - $ - Repairs/Maintenance General $ 2,152.67 $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ $ - $ 606.47 $ 381.20 $ - $1,165.00 $ Insurance - property/casualty $ 4,658.00 $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ $4,658.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Miscellaneaous $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ 50.00 $ - $ 50.00 $ $ 50.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 50.00 $ Xcel - Electric $ 7,362.18 $ 638.85 $ 797.65 $ 724.72 $ 575.87 $ 552.08 $ 529.54 $ 483.61 $ 642.20 $ 701.86 $ 658.42 $ 535.80 $ 521.58 Solid Waste $ 1,809.21 $ 145.22 $ 144.77 $ 146.70 $ 149.50 $ 150.72 $ 154.29 $ 153.78 $ 153.53 $ 156.56 $ 155.33 $ 150.74 $148.07 Subtotal General Operations $ 20,426.98 $1,475.80 $1,362.31 $1,472.47 $1,432.83 $1,057.67 $ 865.57 $5,592.16 $1,470.15 $1,323.46 $1 ,421.29 $2,035.85 $ 917.42 Additional Expenses Custodial expenses $ 10,742.94 General supplies $ 1,362.51 Rental Agent $ 5,100.00 Web Hosting $ 1,500.00 Subtotal other expenses $ 18,705.45 Total Potential operational Cos $ 39,132.43 r 4071 T -T DRIVE ® BOX 385 ® SPRING PAF AN 553E -0385 -1-2.471.7125 ~ E X 952.471.91 ~ i;nccCimcc-tv.org 3-18-09 DEEPHAVEN LMCC Executive Committee authorized: EXCELSIOR Proposed offer to the City of Shorewood to purchase the Southshore GREENWOOD Community Center INDEPENDENCE Purchase agreement contingent on 2/3 of our 17 member cities' acceptance, as described in the Joint Powers Agreement. LONG LAKE Lease/Purchase contract over a period of 10 years for a total payment of $432,000 ($3600 per month). Interest imbedded in payment. LORETTO - Parking, street access and snow removal provided. MAPLE PLAIN - Use of existing garage and ability to make minimum modifications to MEDINA allow our van to be parked inside it. MINNETONKA - Council resolutions from 415 of member cities approving Shorewood BEACH option. MINNETRISTA - Since we both use Kennedy & Graven as counsel, we would waive the conflict and also ask Shorewood to do the same. ORONO - Offer good until 3-25-2009, with a letter of understanding accepting these ST. BONIFACIUS basic terms. SHOREWOOD - Must have an executed purchase agreement by 4-15-09. SPRING PART( I appreciate your willingness to hear our offer on such short notice. TONKA BAY y 1i VICTORIAN r - Tom Scanlon WOODLAND Chairman, LMCC v - ~ s - r y-1 n , E 7 5755 COUNTRY CLUE ROAD ® -F'Z)R-WOOD, MINK-SOTA 55331-8927 - (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 e www.d.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator DATE: March 19, 2009 SUBJECT: LMCD Update Mayor Lizee asked Council member Woodruff a few questions regarding his report on the activities of the LMCD. Council member Woodruff requested time during the meeting to present information on the questions asked. j®~{ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER March 17, 2009 TO: Shorewood Council FROM: Dick Woodruff Subject: Shorewood City Council Follow-up (LMCD questions) I've prepared information responding to questions raised during the March 9th Council Meeting by Mayor Lizee': Save the Lake Fund Reserve Policy • Initially created in the 1970's as an endowment fund. • It has evolved over the years as a means of funding public safety, environmental, and public service/educational projects above those normal activities publicly funded by the LMCD. • STL Committee consists of three LMCD Board Members and three citizen reps. LMCD Board members Bill Olson, Chris Jewett, & Lisa Whalen; and citizen reps Lili McMillan, Tom Skramstad, and Jay Soule • The LMCD reserve policy was updated last summer relating to Save the Lake Fund (expend up to 25% of the fund balance as of 12/31 of the prior year) • $67,000 has been made available for 2009 ($268,167 reserve as of 12/31/07). • Five non-LMCD projects funded in 2009 ($46,096): 1) $7,000 for I-LIDS, 2) $3,741 for "Non-Anchoring" buoys at Cruiser's Cove, 3) $4,555 for public safety equipment for the Sheriff's Water Patrol, 4) $30,000 ($10,000 per bay) for the EWM Herbicide Treatment Project with the LMA, and 5) $800 for the personal flotation device box construction costs with Safe Kids NW Metro Minneapolis. Additionally, $13,500 funded for on-going LMCD projects: primarily matching funds for MN DNR AIS Prevention Grant Application, expansion of the Solar-Light Program and the annual banquet. • Save the Lake Committee has taken great strides to fund projects that meeting the funding criteria; however, ensuring that an adequate reserve balance for future needs. • It has taken 30+ years to accumulate the existing reserve balance (the committee does not want to deplete it in a short period of time). • The committee is currently exploring possible fundraising strategies to increase the amount of annual donations. LMCD Management Plan and launch fees • 1 assume that Mayor Lizee' is referring to the 1991 Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka (she mentioned a 1999 plan during the 3/3 Council Meeting). • The 1991 Plan advocates the establishment of fees on Lake Minnetonka for purpose of obtaining additional, non-tax payer, revenues for the LMCD. Various possible permits and licenses are discussed in the Plan. The Plan also recognized that State statute prohibits imposition of such proposed fees, recommending that the LMCD and others lobby for a change in legislation. The MN DNR has not supported such fees • The Plan does not advocate restriction of public access. This is consistent with the Minnesota State Constitution that the waters in Minnesota will be free and open to the public. • The Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, as well as the 1994 Lake Access Task Force Report, both reference that there is free public access provided at a number of city, county, and state owned public access ramps around Lake Minnetonka. LMCD Code Enforcement and potential legal cost consequences • It appears that Mayor Lizee' is referring to the enforcement of LMCD Code at residential sites. • This project has been conducted during the 2006 through 2008 boat seasons in response to public feedback at a Public Meeting on boat density on May 11, 2005. • The focus, to-date, of this project has been to educate the public on LMCD Code and to encourage those residents to resolve non-compliance voluntarily. • Over the past two years, the process of identifying and noticing non-compliance has been made much more rigorous on advice of legal counsel. It's expected that this will minimize challenges when citations are issued as well as the chance that challengers will prevail in court • A Y2 time position was included in the adopted 2008 and 2009 LMCD budgets to assist in this and other related projects. • Slightly over $14,000 was spent on this project in 2008 with no costs incurred for prosecuting attorney. • Discussion of 2009 LMCD Code enforcement priorities, including possible costs to be incurred by LMCD prosecuting attorney, are scheduled for the 3/18/09 LMCD Strategic Planning Session Meeting.