Loading...
102609 CC Reg AgP7 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITE' COUNCIL MEETING Attachments Estimated Estimated Time in Start Time Minutes (Clock Time) 7:00 p.m. B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, 10/12/09 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, 10/12/09 Minutes C. Joint Park Comm./City Council Minutes,l0/13/09 Minutes 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on 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. Pre-employment Assessment Services Administrator CAF 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek overview of the Sheriffs office B. Discussion Regarding Milfoil Treatment on LMA (1ir1o nn'c Rnv Powernoint 6. PUBLIC HEARING 5 minutes 7:00 p.m. 5 minutes 7:05 p.m. 10 minutes 7:10 p.m. 15 minutes 7:20 p.m. 10 minutes 7:35 p.m. 4 (C- a 7. PARKS - Report by Representative 10 minutes 7:45 p.m. A. Manor Pond Maintenance Dir of PW 5 minutes 7:55 p.m. CAF B. Manor Park Warming House preliminary design Park Asst CAF 5 minutes 8:00 p.m. approval C. Hennepin County Youth Grant proposal Administrator 10 minutes 8:05 p.m. CAF, Resolution D. Revised Donor Policy Park Asst CAF 5 minutes 8:15 p.m. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative 10 minutes 8:20 p.m. A. Tax Forfeit Parcel - Outlot B, Marilynwood Planning 5 minutes 8:30 p.m. Director CAF, Resolution B. Request for Trail Crossing Markings and Planning 5 minutes 8:35 p.m. Education Director CAF 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. County Road 19 Final Close Out Dir of PW 5 minutes 8:40 p.m. CAF B. Meadowview/Wild Rose Lane option Engineer CAF 10 minutes 8:45 p.m. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 5 minutes 8:55 p.m. 1. Southshore Center Operations Report Administrator CAF B. Mayor and City Council 5 minutes 9:00 P.M. 12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION 1 minute 9:05 p.m. A. Union Negotiations 15 minutes 9:05 P.M. 13. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING I minute 9:20 p.m. 14. ADJOURN 1 minute 9:20 p.m. Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 26 October, 2009 A 5:30 P.M. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #313: Authorize City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Health Strategies for Employment Preplacement Assessment Services. Agenda Item #5A: Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek will provide an overview of the Sheriff's office. Agenda Item #513: A Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) Boardmember representative will present a request for Milfoil Treatment on Gideon's Bay. Agenda Item #7: Commissioner Sue Davis will provide an update on recent Park Commission activities. Agenda Item #7A: The Park Commission has passed a motion requesting that a storm water CIP project be undertaken for Manor Pond within Manor Park. Agenda Item #713: Staff recommends that City Council approves going forward with the preliminary design study for Manor Park warming house and that the costs of the preliminary designs should not exceed $5,000. Agenda Item #7C: Authorize staff to submit the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant application to support the construction of one and possibly two outdoor refrigerated hockey rinks. Agenda Item #71): Staff recommends that the City Council approve the addition of the memorial bench language to the donor policy. Agenda Item #8A: Staff recommends that a tax forfeit parcel of land near Lake Linden Drive be offered up for auction to the adjoining property owner(s). Having examined the parcel and its setting, staff finds no public purpose for the land, and it would greatly enhance at least one of the adjoining lots. Agenda Item #813: Staff seeks Council input before drafting a resolution requesting that Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County Transportation improve markings and information at regional trail crossings. City Council Meet ..s Agenda Item #9A: I~ursuant to Uty Council's request, staff will be presenting the financial summary for the County Road 1.9 - Smithtown Road Intersection Project. Agenda Item #9E: TKDA has prepared the feasibility Supplement report for the Meadowview Road improvement project, in which the roadway would be improved and the project would consider extending municipal water service. As it is proposed that special assessments be used as a source of revenue for the installation of City water, a public hearing must be held prior to ordering the improvement project. It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution accepting the feasibility report and setting the public hearing for ordering the improvement project on November 26 2009. Agenda Item #I IA. 1: Administrator Heck will provide a report on the Southshore Center Operations. Agenda Item #12: Council will Recess to an Executive Session regarding union negotiations. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. A. Roll Cali Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon. 1Aioodruff and 7erby; Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. COMPREHENSIVE UTILITY RATE STt)1)Y Director Burton stated Rusty Pi(ield,. a Senior Vice President will) Northland Securities, was present to talk about the comprehensive utility rate study. Mr. Fifield stated the focus of the work done to date on the utility rate study was intended to provide Council with information that will help Council establish utility rates and the utility enterprise budgets (stormwater management sanitary saver and water operations) for 2010, and to identify the next steps for completing the planning process. Once Council has provided input on the report provided for this meeting, the intent is to then detertnine the effects the decisions made will have on the long-term financial issues. He noted that during its September 9, 2009, work session Council stated it wanted to concentrate on addressing the basic rate scenarios before it addressed the long-term financial issues. Mr. Fifield explained the estimates for 2009 revenues and expenses are based on actual revenues and expenses through June 30, 2009. and 2009 budgeted revenues and expenses. Those estimates served as the starting basis for the projections. The operating expenses for the three utilities were projected to increase by 2 percent in 20 10 and 2011, and an increase of 4 percent was used for each year thereafter through 2029. He clarified this effort continues to be a work in progress. Mr. Fifield stated he would like to discuss each utility individually starting with stormwater management. Mr. Fifield explained during its September 9"' work session Council stated it wanted to stay with the City's basic three-tier, fixed-user rate structure for stormwater. The rates do not vary based on consumption. The goal was to identify how to increase the rate structure to provide funding for capital improvements and infrastructure maintenance. Three broad scenarios were identified to do that. Scenario I depicts an "inflationary" increase of user rates of 3 - 4 percent per year. The 2010 increase generates $82,000 for capital improvements and $25,000 for infrastructure maintenance. The additional capital Ct` Mr. Fifield stated that from his vantage point a scenario close to Scenario 2 ~Yould make the most sense. Scenario 2 does not provide enough funding to do some of the larger capital improvements. It does generate enough financial resources in combination with annual funding, prudent use of the stormwater fund balance and internal borrowing to make the necessary improvements to the stormwater management system. He suggested Council consider holding down increases in the other two utility rates to help lessen the impact of a 40 percent stormwater_ rate increase in 2010. Councilmember Turgeon stated the stormwater analysis indicates capital outlay in the amount of $614,000 in 2009, noting $457,000 of that was targeted for a potential Mary Lake outlet project. Council had recently made the decision to cancel the Mary Lake project. She suggested the capital outlay average for 2008 - 2012 be recalculated to reflect that. Mr. FiBeld stated the numbers will continue to be refined based on what has or will occur in 2009. Councilmember Woodruff stated the analysis depicts capital outlay of $97,000 for Harding Lane drainage improvements and $60,000 for and Smithtowii Lane drainage improvements. He suggested Staff review the actual cost of the Harding Lane improvements to determine if the actual cost is less then what was budgeted. Director Brown cautioned that the bids for projects in 2009 may have been reduced because of the economic climate and the lower bids should not be used as the basis for future projects. He stated he thought the estiinates in the CIP were solid and they,~vere based on a good average. Woodruff suggested the estimates for the Mary Lake outlet project be removed from the CIP average because it skews the average. Director Brown explained Staff and Mr. FiBeld discussed whether or not the entire amount should be removed. They decided not to because there generally is a project of that size that comes up that has to be done, Counci i can decide if it wants to reduce the amount for that project to zero, leave it as is or change it to something in between. Councilmember Turgeon stated various councils have discussed the Boulder Bridge Pond project over a number of years. Some Council vv~ill either have to decide if it will want to assess property owners for improvements or pay for it. She thought the Mary Lake outlet project skews the average. She commented it was her understanding that it would cost the City approximately $9,000 to pump Mary Lake each time the need arose. She noted it had not been pumped since 2006. She suggested a more realistic number should be used. Councilmember Bailey asked if Scenario 2 would generate sufficient funds for the potential Vine Hill Road project. Mr. Fifield stated he would like guidance from Council and general feedback about what size of rate increases it would find acceptable. The analysis depicts an "all in" rate increase. Council could chose to step into the increases to build to a certain balance in the capital fund. If Council agrees that Scenario 2 is the broad direction it would like to take, then the scenario can be refined and adjusted as Council deems appropriate. Pa Councilmember Bailey stated he thought Scenario 2 was more reasonable than Scenario 3 because of the uncertainly about what significant projects will be done in the next few years. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the intent was to establish a reasonable run rate for capital projects. The City has a 20-year Pavement Improvement Plan (I'MP) which mostly reflects the cost to reconstruct roadways including stormwater improvements. If capital improvement projections were based on what's in the PMP it would likely be the worst case scenario for capital fielding. In response to a question from Woodruff, Director Brown explained the Boulder Bridge lift station project in the CIP is for a stormwater lift station. Councilmember Woodruff asked what growth factor as factored into the maintenance costs. Mr. Fifield explained he thought it was 2 percent, then 2 percent, then 4 percent for subsequent years. Councilmember Woodruff stated lie liked Scenario 2. He commented that although a 40 percent rate increase in 2010 may appear startling, the actual dollar increase was not that significant. Councilmember Turgcon stated the City already has higher stormwater rates than most of its neighboring cities. Many residents are experiencing tough economic times and she expressed she did not support increasing rates. Councilmember Turgeon questioned why the number of users varied between stormwater and storm sewer in this analysis and also in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Director Nielsen explained the numbers in the Comp Plan reflect residential households; the number is quite accurate. The stormwater and sanitary sewer billings include both residential and commercial properties. Stormwater also includes vacant land. Therefore, there are differences in the number of users. Director Burton explained any lot that has a property identification number is billed for stormwater even if the land is vacant. Burton then explained Staff is measuring the number of bills as well as the revenue generated. Should a property change hands during the quarterly billing period, the previous owner and new owner will both receive a bill. Councilmember Woodruff stated the analysis reflects the cash balance in the stormwater fund is projected to be approximately $435,800 at the end of 2009 and approximately $1.1 million at the end of 2029. It also reflects capital expenditures ranging between $150,000 and $300,000 during the same period. He asked Mr. Fifield what Northland Securities thought the appropriate fund balance should be at the end of the 20-year period. He stated he would find it difficult to tell a resident the City was building a reserve and keeping it in the bank for them. He preferred residents keep their money in the bank and pay it to the City when it's needed. 01)W- - xsG-. 1 Mr. Fifie' ' . _..re City did not need a $1.1 : ' dance at the end of 20 years. He explained the projections are more realistic for the next 5 - 10 years. Beyond that they become increasingly "fuzzy"He stated it's possible the City may find itself in a position at sorne time where it has a sufficient stormwater fund balance and therefore doesn't need to implement a rate increase for a while. He clarified he has some difficulties distinguishing what things are desires and what things are needs. He stated the City will have to make changes or improvements because of new federal and state stormwater management mandates. Those are not factored into the projections because they are not known. He clarified the analysis is intended to depict that based on the assumptions used there would be $1.1 million in the balance at the end of 20 years, but it is not very likely that would be the cae. Councilmember Woodruff stated the analysis indicates the balancc will increase to approximately $582,000 at the end of 2015 from $435,000 at the end of 2009 and that is not a drarnatic increase. The large increase is in the last five years of the projection. He stated if there was insufficient balance in the earlier years the City could borrow from other enterprise funnds for improvements. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought having reserves equal to 100 percent of annual expenditures could be sufficient, but he would appreciate guidance from Northland Securities on that He then stated he was in favor of Scenario 2. He thought it prudent to educate the City's residents on what the stormwater fund is needed for and why it's necessary to increase the stormwater rates. He suggested the analysis be adjusted to include a few years prior to 2006 to have a more fine tuned average for capital outlay. He stated he was unsure of what the financial burden would he on the City because of potential mandates being discussed. Director Brown commented that because regulatory agencies want control but don't have control over property owners they impose mandates on cities and communitics to address issues. He foresees the need for things such as additional ponding facilities and ground water recharge. The cost to do those things may not be as significant as the Mary Lake outlet project, but they will add up over time. Engineer Landini stated that with regard to upcoming, mandates the City will have to have a total daily maximum load study done on Lake Virginia and an outcome of that will be the City will have to remove a to-be-determined amount of phosphorous. Landini explained the study will be funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnchaha Creek Watershed District. The City does not have any land next to the bake to meet the phosphorous load reduction. It may be possible that the City could have to install a stormwater treatment plant in the wetland. Councilmember Turgeon stated there are 20 - 30 homes located in Shorewood with Lake Virginia Lakeshore. The majority of the properties are not in the City. The City has no control and no public land. From her vantage point the only thing the City could do is sweep the streets one more time to reduce phosphorous, and it's her understanding that should satisfy the agencies. She stated there is no way for the City to know what the phosphorous level is in the ground, especially on private property. Director Brown stated when mandates are first implemented there is a lot of pushback from communities. After a while, the mandates are modified and then they become costly because the City has to obtain land or make some other costly improvement. Councilmember Zerby stated stormwater management is becoming more costly. There is more sensitivity to the natural resources. He thought it prudent to build in enough rate increase to handle future mandates and improvements. Ccanc:a... T on stated the City in the only one of the surrounding cities that bases its stormwater on s care footage of the property. She expressed she is not sure that is appropriate. She again co i eoted the City has the highest rate among communities in the area. She stated she is not in support of raising rates. She noted that when the City raised its rates about $5.00 a few years ago she received many calls from residents. Councilmember Zerby stated the City needs to educate residents about what the fee is for and why the fee needs to be raised. Councilmember Bailey stated he was unsure of what the fund balance should be. He thought a balance of $500,000 would not be adequate should some of the projects such as Vine 1-1111 Load come to fruition. He thought a fund balance in the range of $500,000 - $1 million would be adequate for stormwater, and Scenario 2 is a roadmap for achieving that. Councilmember Woodruff stated WSB and Associates conducted a stormwater issues study. He recollected the study identified costs to correct certain stormwwater issues. He suogested that study be reviewed and incorporated into this rate study. Mr. Fifield went on to discuss the sanitary sewer analysis. Mr. Fifield stated Northland Securities had been charged with determining if the sanitary sewer fund balance needed to be as large as it is noting it's prpjeeted to be approximately $4.2 million at the end of 2009. Northland Securities believes it's larger then it needs to be. It also believes some of the fund could be used to fund other public service needs. Mr. Fifield explained three different scenarios were developed for looking at sanitary sewer needs. For example, if Council wanted to draN%, down on the fund balance and forego future rate increases then the analysis needed to identify hoNv long the no-increase approach could go on based on certain assumptions. Scenario 1 analyzes this. It does not include any rate increase through 2018. In 2019 there is a 4 percent increase. But, in 2020 there is a 61 percent increase to reestablish a fund balance equal to 100 percent of annual expenditures. He thought that would be the appropriate level of reserves. In 2021 - 2029 there is a 3 percent increase. He stated the analvsis factors in what is currently known about upcoming sewer access charge increases by Metropolitan Council (Met Council) for 2010 - 2012. Beyond that nothing is factored in. He commented the City is buying-waste water treatment services from the Met Council. He explained the Met Council's projections Nwere based on a certain level of growth that is not occurring. Therefore, it has to increase its rates to connpensate for that. Mr. Fifield then explained Scenario 2 involves the creation of what is termed an "infrastructure bank". Rather than have a sanitary sewer fund balance that is significantly larger then what is needed, a portion of the fund balance would be used to create the infrastructure bank that would be used to make internal loans for stormwater system and water utility improvements. The advantages of doing that are it would minimize the City's costs to issue bonds, the City could pay interest to itself rather than a bond holder, it would give the City more flexibility in structuring the repayment terms and it is more economically efficient for smaller projects. Mr. Fifield went on to explain Scenario 3 reflects implementing consumption based rates. Customers who receive metered water would be charged based on their water consumption. An analysis was done based on the assumption that the City would want to generate the same amount of revenue as it would under Scenario 1 which has no rate increase for 2010. The proposed consumption rate uses a $50 quarterly minimum for up to 10,000 gallons of water used and an additional $2 for each additional 1000 gallons used above that. He asked Council if it thought the water consumption approach makes sense. If _-_en Staff and Council n-_ " to continue to work on ` .._.'ning what the rate should be. This scenario was intended to st s"ussion. Councilmember Bailey asked if Scenarios 2 and 3 included an overall rate increase. Mr. Fifield explained the rate increases in Scenario 2 (zero percent in 2010, 2 percent in 2011, 3 percent in 2012 and 4 percent through 2029) are driven by having a lower fund balance to draw on and increasing costs. It is more of an inflationary increase. Councilmember Turgeon asked what the 3 - 4 percent inflationary increase is based on. Mr. Fifield explained the cost to provide the services will go up minimally the first few years but will increase after that. Councilmember Turgeon asked if all the projections were based on an anticipated 3.8 percent increase from the Met Council in 2010 and a 6.1 percent increase in 2011 to v,,hich Mr. Fifield responded they did. Mr. Fifield explained reserves will be used to mitigate the need for rate increases. Administrator Heck stated one of the largest costs for the City is its payment to the Met Council for providing sewage treatment services. Mr. Fifield clarified Council is not being asked to adopt a 20-year plan. The longer-range projections are provided to give Council some understanding of the scenarios' implications 20 years out. He and Staff thought it prudent to consider smaller increases along the way rather then having more significant increases in the future. Councilmember Woodruff stated he believes the sanitary sewer fund balance is significantly more then what the City needs, and the City needs to use the excess. He expressed he had a philosophical issue with creating an infrastructure bank with the use of sanitary sewer funds. The residents who have helped create the fund balance are not the beneficiaries of the use of the infrastructure bank. He then expressed he also had a philosophical issue with having two classes of' residents for the consumption based scenario. He questioned how the Citv could justify the difference in rates for residents who have City water and those who ,don't. Those without City water would pay a flat rate and those with it would pay a variable rate. He supported drawing down the fund balance and having no rate increase. He had no issue with using the fund balance as a loan source, noting interest earned should go back into the fund. Woodruff then stated all the analyses relect a flat rate of depreciation for the 20 year period. He questioned if that is correct. He asked it he revised to reflect a more realistic depreciation schedule. Woodruff questioned the appropriateness of using the 2009 March billing (winter quarter water consumption usage) information for the Scenario 3 analysis. That billing information does not take into account the snowbirds that are not consuming water nor does it include any irrigation consumption. He thought it would be better to use more than one quarter's information. Mr. Fifield explained it's a very standard sanitary sewer billing practice to base it off of winter quarter billing. It rules out water that does not go into the sanitary sewer system. Woodruff stated he understands not including irrigation consumption. Woodruff stated the no-rate-increase analysis does not reflect actual CIP amounts for 2008 and beyond. Mr. Fifield explained that capital outlay is equal to funded depreciation. He noted the City has funded little for capital improvements to the sanitary sewer system. He explained sanitary sewer rates are not driven by the need for capital investments. The scenarios are broad and will be refined after receiving Council's input. Director Burton commented the CIP is in process. Councilmember Zerby expressed concern about the no-rate-increase scenario. 2009 reflects a loss of approximately $328,000 in the fund balance which indicates the current rate structure does not support _NG MINUTES ,.,,.ter utility operations. He also expressed concern about having a different rate for those with City water and those without. Director Burton explained that creating an infrastructure bank is in all realty just formalizing what the City already does. The City already uses the sanitary sewer fund as a revolving loan fund. Staff believes it's reasonable for Council to consider formalizing the process. She commented that everyone in the City participates in the sanitary sewer fund. In theory, if the fund were to be used for other purposes it would be to the benefit of the City's residents through the payback to the fund with interest. Mr. Fifield stated he and Staff responded to the charge of determining if flit, unitary sewer fund balance was too large. After agreeing that is was, they then identified what to do with it. Creating an infrastructure bank shows one way of decreasing the balance while miti,-ating rate increases. They thought it would be easier to explain an infrastructure bank balance then it is a very high sanitary sewer fund balance. The consumption based scenario was developed based on COUnCII discussion during its September 9`i' work session. Councilmember Zerby asked what the $125,000 Radio/ISP communications system capital improvement line item was. Director Brown explained it's for the lift stations. He thought Public Works needs more effective communications for the City's wells and lift stations. I'or- t:he islands, if the City Public Works personnel respond to an alarm warning, they have to wait until they get to the lift station to determine what is wrong and often have to go back to Public Works to get what's needed to correct the problem. Zerby stated he thought the cost might be high. Brown explained the cost is based on information he received in 2008 for installing a radio system in each of the lift stations. A new option may be available. Mayor Lizee stated she thought the infrastructure bank scenario was reasonable. She then stated that although having no rate increases in the near future may be appealing, having a 61 percent rate increase in 2020 does not seem like sound fiscal management. Because the City already makes loans from the sanitary sewer fund, she thought establishing a separate fund would help when explaining it to residents. The analysis for this approach indicates a zero percent increase in 2010 and a 2 percent increase in 2011. She thought that was reasonable. Councihnember Woodruff stated the inlrasU-ucture bank scenario reflects modest rate increases starting in 2011 while drawing $ 1 million from that fund for other purposes. He suggested establishing an interest rate for the infrastructure bank with the interest going to the sanitary sewer field each year. Mr. Fifield explained the analysis reflects the interest going back to the bank so it can loan it out to the benefit of the residents. Woodruff stated the penalty the sanitary sewer user pays is a rate increase under that approach. Director Burton stated she thought the auditors would want the interest going into the lending fund (i.e., the infrastructure bank). She stated the challenge for Staff and Mr. Fifield is to identify a way to accommodate the infrastructure bank while keeping rate increases at zero in the short term. Councilmember Woodruff suggested a contract be written between the infrastructure bank and the sanitary sewer fund where the bank pays the fund a 4 percent interest rate. Councilmember Bailey asked if would be possible to make a one-time transfer from the sanitary sewer fund to the stormwater fund. One field appears to be over funded and the other under funded. He also questioned if it would be possible to lower the rate increase for stormwater management and keep the rate increase for sanitary sewer. He stated the City needs to determine what the appropriate fund balances should be. He commented he is open to discussing creating an infrastructure bank indicating it could be smaller then $1 million. Mr. Fifield then discussed the wate. c.rlead~ -nalysis. Mr. Fifield explained the water utility analysis involved using water consumption for each billing period from June 2008 through June 2009 (five billings). The current water rates were applied to actual water use for the four billing periods from September 2008 through June 2009. Only one scenario was developed, and it reflects no rate increase. The water fund balance is adequate to mitigate rate increases from some period of time in the future. There is enough income from cellular antenna rental going into the water fund and investment reserves to offset the need for additional revenues from users. Debt is falling off, therefore, existing debt places less demand on income from the water fund. Less capital improvement is being funded then what is being funded in depreciation. Mr. Fifield then explained the critical charge was to explore options for adjusting the minimum water charge. He reviewed the two options. Option 1 reflects reducing the minimum consumption charge to 5,000 gallons from the current 10,000 gallons. Ten percent of the users would pay the minimum amount. The corresponding reduction in the minimum charge would be reduced to $17.50 from $35, and it would lower the estimated revenue to approximately $602,000 from $629,499. The rates for users who consume over 50,000 gallons (tier 2 users) would be increased to make up for the lost revenues. Tlie rate for this tier could increase to $4.25 from $3.75 per 1000 gallons. This increase is consistent with having water conservation rates. Option 2 reflects keeping the minimum use at 10,000 gallons while reducing the base charge. The base charge was reduced to $25 from $35. The first tier charge for each additional 1,000 gallons used would increase to $3.28 from $2.95 and the second tier v%ould increase to $4.25 from $3.75 per 1000 gallons. Councilmember Woodruff stated he preferred the lower minimum amount option. He thought the option challenged high consumption users. He explained the analysis indicates there are 668 users over the five quarter period who consumed 5000 gallons or less. Approximately 800 consumed 5,001 - 10,000 gallons. Approximately 1,800 consumed 10.001 - 20,000. There were 1.143 who consumed more than 50,000 gallons, and he thought those individuals should be considering how to reduce their consumptions. Councilmember Zerby stated he just did a quick internet search which suggests the average family uses 90 gallons per day which equates to more than 8,000 gallons over a 90 day period. He was unsure of what the avera-e was for the City's residents. He didn't think the rate structure encouraged much conservation. He suggested the range of 10,001 - 20,000 possibly be broken down further to encourage conservation by family's using more than douhle the average consumption. Director Brown explained the dcsI(n rates typically used across the metropolitan area are 110 - 115 gallons per person per day. The Met Council is not overly pleased with the City's usage rates of 125 - 130 gallons per person per day, noting a large part of that is due to irrigation. The average household is about 2.8 persons per household. Councilmember Zerby stated over a 90 day period an average household would use approximately 28,980 gallons based on a per-person usage rate of 115 gallons per day. Therefore, the average household pays a quarterly rate of $64.50. In order to see a drop in rate a household would have to decrease the usage by about one half, Councilmember Turgeon stated she had requested Staff provide Council with the City of Tonka Bay's water utility rates because it treats its city water. Councilmember Bailey stated he thought most conservation is going to occur with high consumption users rather than those in the middle. Councilmember Wcc -,ruf erg the current rate structure is a flat rate up to 10,000 gallons and then an additional per I C _ c~ er that. Mr. Fifield indicated he will be in attendance at the October 26, 2009, Council work session to continue this discussion. Councilmember Turgeon asked if Director Burton will then explain the difference between the estimated water revenues and billed revenues. Director Burton explained there are things such as partial billings, changes of ownership and so forth that will result in there being differences between estimated revenues and actual billing. Mr. Fifield stated because water utility revenues vary based on consumption it's difficult to predict water revenues with great accuracy. Therefore, there is more of a need For a fund balance because of the fluctuations. Councilmember Bailey stated if the City encourages conservation and that comes to Fruition there will be less water utility revenues. 3. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of October 12, 2009, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 Landini Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session klinutes, September 28, 2009 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of September 28, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Zerby abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 28, 2009 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Zerby abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. . 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-054, "A Resolution Approving Licenses to Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products for CUB Foods Shorewood, Holiday Station Store #12, and SASA, LLC, dba Metro Petro Gas and Food." C. Setting the Date for the 2009 Appreciation Event D. Recycling Service Contract .,EGULA COtJNCIL t,_. - 2S 2 v~ ith r o 11-n '1_1_ Ve C Councilmember Woos _i_¢ -n- I that at some point in the future `i~ - - -e I 3 the Southshore Cc `ty C -hould be charged back to the Center and what should be considered the City's normal maintenance rec nirements. With regard to Item 3.C Setting the Date for the Appreciation Event, Councilmember Woodruff stated the Council Action Form on this item states the amount budgeted for this in 2009 is $5,000. The event will be held at the Southshore Community Center. The 2010 tentative budget for a similar event is $2,500; it is also planned to be held at the Southshore Community Center. He questioned why there was such a difference in the amount. Administrator Heck clarified the $5,000 is the amount in the 2009 budget; that entire amount will not be spent on the event. Councilmember Zerby clarified this item was only to set the date for the event. With regard to Item 3.1) Recycling Service Contract, Councilmcmber Turgeon stated the contract indicates there are only two size options for recycling containers. One is a 68-gallon container and the other a 95-gallon container. She asked Staff to investigate is there is a smaller size container. She then asked how residents will be able to request a 95-gallon container. Administrator I-lock explained the 68- gallon container will be the standard container delivered to all households. If someone wants the larger container they should contact City Hall who in turn ~yill contact Allied Waste. They can either get a 95- gallon container or two 68-gallon containers. There is a smaller 30-gallon container, but it will not be available until two months after the new program starts. Allied Waste has experienced that when people recycle everything they can recycle they exceed the capacity of the 30-gallon container. Councilmember Zerby stated Section 3.7 Collection in the proposal states the contractor shall provide service once every other week. He questioned if that should be changed to include the day of Wednesday, or does the City's Ordinance address that. Administrator Ileek stated the Ordinance specifies when that will occur. The question is whether or not recycling services for the islands in the City can be done on the same day as the rest of the City. Zerby asked if the collection hours specified in Section 3.11 are consistent with the Ordinance. to vyhich Ilock replied they are. Councilmember Woodruff stated the month September in the first paragraph in the contract needs to be changed to October. Section 6.8 has some typographical errors in it. Staff had informed him they have been corrected. IIe su111ested section 3.22.2 Monthly Customer Relations Report be revised to state the monthly report should also include the dollar value of the credits earned under the recycle bank program. Administrator I leek explained the recycle bank program is run by a third party and the dollar value of the credits varies. heck stated the City could ask to receive a report on the number of points earned under the program. He questioned what significant value there is in knowing the dollar value. Woodruff stated the residents arc going to be charged a higher rate for recycling services with the new contract which includes the recycle bank program, and he would like the City to demonstrate the return to the customer of this program. He had no problem with points being reported instead of dollar value. Woodruff then stated Section 5.2 Liquidated Damages Item c indicates the contractor will have to pay the City $100 per incident for failing to provide monthly or annual reports. He suggested the amount be changed to $500 for each monthly report incident and $5,000 for each annual report incident. Woodruff went on to state Section 6.17 Bankruptcy be expanded to include a clause related to the contractor being ruled financially insolvent or not able to perform as a going concern. Councilmember Turgeon stated the recycle bank program will award points based on the weight of recycling collected in each neighborhood. She questioned what constitutes a neighborhood. Administrator Heck stated he will speak with Allied Waste about that. ""00D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING- ZS W(---- ' aved, erby v_®. Approving tL_v the Conse id Adopt°r° s tesolutions I mein subject to the a ar es lueste t 'e being n the contract for Recycling Services with Allied Waste, Inc. for the perio__ t, °y 1, 2010 through December 15, 2015,. Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Liz6e noted that student Nick Lentz was present this evening to satisfy a requirement of a government class he is taking at the Holy Family High School. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTA'T'IONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City Council regular meeting. The next Park Commission meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2009. 8. PLANNING Commissioner Vilett reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 6, 2009, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Comprehensive Plan - Metropolitan Council Review Director Nielsen stated Council had been provided with a copy of the Metropolitan Council's (Met Council) review comments about the City's updated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The Met Council would like to have cities such has Shorewood do new development at a minimum of three units per acre and redevelopment and inl-ill at a minimum of five units per acre. He explained the City does not have any zoning that accommodates that other than senior housing. Nielsen then stated Staff suggested it identify a couple of areas in the City that could be evaluated in the future to determine if they would be suitable for higher density housing. An accompanying cover letter would explain why the City could not consider higher density residential development throughout the City. It would identify the limitations created by substandard streets, limited mass transit, the lack of a City-wide water system, the amount of wetland, the existing character of neighborhoods and the fact that the City is 94 - 95 percent developed. If a house were to be taken down on a one acre lot it would make no sense to replace it with five units. The response will be respectful. The Planning Commission agreed with this approach. Nielsen clarified Staff was not expecting Council to take any action this evening. If Council disagrees with the direction suggested it should provide Staff with a different direction. AR COUNCIL IvIEETINU - Councilmemb( stated he was perplexed that Met Council woulil ;c ` nt n one-acre lot would have to be redey r a with a minimum of five units. Director Niel d as in theory, but lie did not think it would push that. Nielsen explained because there is City-wide sanitary sewer the Met Council cannot withhold sewer connections if it doesn't comply with that. Complying with the density suggestions would alter the character of neighborhoods just to satisfy Met Council's goal. Director Nielsen stated in 2005 the City tried to build a case that if Shorewood was viewed from the perspective of being part of the South Lake community, the community is relatively complete. The City of Excelsior has high density housing, it has a commercial district, and it has jobs. The other cities are somewhat suburbs of that larger community. The Met Council might argue that the City is taking advantage of Excelsior's density. Councilmember Bailey asked if the City would have to rezone areas in order to allow this density redevelopment, to which Director Nielsen responded it would. Nielsen stated the change in zoning on a particular one acre lot would be spot zoning and that is illegal. Ile hopes the Met Council will accept if those areas that could be developed as higher density wil I be developed such that it averages out to 3 - 5 unit densities. Director Nielsen has suggested senior housing would be a good thing to consider. He commented that a presentation was made to the Planning Commission in 2005 by an individual knowledgeable about the trends with senior housing needs. In that presentation the individual conveyed there will be a growing market for it. He explained the City's Ordinance already allows higher density for senior housing in single family areas if it's a three acre site. The density is SIX units per acre. A senior housing unit as part of a mixed use development on the northwest corner of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection could help satisfy some of the request. Senior housing may also satisfy part of the need to have 53 units of affordable housing in the City by 2020. "l he Planning Commission wanted to discuss all types of higher density housing. I le noted that in 2006 affordable housing had a value of $193,000 or less; the City has no units that cost that I ittle. Nielsen stated Staff will I send the Met Council a draft response and copy Council on it. Councilmember `burgeon commented that Met Council's comments have the City's number of households and population rcvcrscd. Director Nielsen explained up until recently the Met Council used the average of 2.9 persons per household. It has reduced it to 18 and is considering reducing it again to 2.4. Because the City is largely single family, the City uses an average of 2.7 in its projections. Councilmember Turgcon stated the Council Action Form prepared by Director Nielsen indicates that Staff will respond to Met Council's comments on a piece-meal basis. She asked which comments will be responded to sooner rather then latter. Director Nielsen stated the simpler comments will be addressed relatively soon. He hoped to respond to all of them by the end of November 2009. Director Nielsen commented that based on other cities he has spoken with it appears that cities receive an average of three rejection letters from the Met Council. He also commented that Met Council uses the phrase "incomplete for review" when it does not agree with the City's stated direction. Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted to have the comments and corrections back to the Met Council as soon as possible. She wanted it done in 2009. EGU AR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES col er )er Woodr-- f ^d he thou"` '-ird P'; ~ nor I°liels--i Council would see the draft upda,es of sr.bstance an". .__._ion cover . No !c... ' a--d t}- _ ld be forwarded to the Met Council. Director Nielsen st _ed lie would sen' the inform, 1 on about h., sing density to Council for its review before it goes to the Met Council, noting the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review it during its next meeting on November 17, 2009. There was consensus to have it on the November 23, 2009, Council regular meeting agenda. On an unrelated topic, Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had discussed the dangers at the LRT Trail crossing at County Road 19 and other trail crossings. Some bikers stop at the crossing and others don't, and some drivers stop and others don't. The State law for a frail crossing is not the same as for a pedestrian crossing. The Planning Commission passed a motion recommending Council adopt a resolution asking Hennepin County to clarify the signage at the trail crossings and asking that the resolution be passed on to neighboring cities for their support. If there is im objection from Council, Staff will prepare a draft resolution to that effect for Council's next regular meeting. Mayor Lizee stated she thought part of the problem is also inconsistent signage. Signage needs to be consistently adopted throughout the different communities. She cited the trail crossings in the City of Excelsior which cross Water Street and Excelsior Boulevard; it has pedestrian signs at the crossings which indicate a motorist should stop if someone is in the crosswalk. The question is whether or not they are pedestrian crosswalks. Director Brown stated this problem is being `debated among engineers at the state level. There are discussions about how to bring uniformity to how this is signed. Mayor Lizee stated the LRT Trail and other trail beds that have been converted to pedestrian use have a passage under Highway 101 and there is a passage under Highway 7. She questioned if it would be possible to have a bridge over CounnRoad 19 where the LRT 1'rail crosses. If the objective is to make the trails accessible and safe to pedestrians then how that is handled should be the same throughout the entire trail line. Councilmember Turgeon stated most of the problem is motorists think they have to stop and that causes the motorists bellied them to respond to their stopping quickly. Pedestrians and motorists need to be educated about who has the right of'way to continue on their way. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBIA' WORKS A. Nelsine Drive Feasibility Study Mayor Lizee stated Council had been provided with copies of updated resolutions for Item 9.A and Item 9.B. Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet for this evening included the feasibility report for road reconstruction of Nelsine Drive. The reconstruction of Nelsine Drive is included in the 2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the 20-Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP). The roadway has a rating of 3, it has 50 feet of right-of-way, and the road is approximately 20 feet wide and 480 feet long. There is water main adjacent to the project making a watermain extension possible. Landini explained the feasibility report evaluates: if the roadway reconstruction is feasible; sanitary sewer improvements; storm water management improvements; and, watermain improvements. The report indicates the items are feasible and cost effective. If Council chooses to move forward with the project, a 001) RECIJL'A D """CIL MEETING MINUTES !cvise(i -)n ar--;-g the report and date for the public hearing and public information meeting °-1 prov-- Council for its - ion. Landini stated the feasibility report considers the following: ® Constructing a 24-foot-wide driving surface with edge control outside of driving surface. Making stormwater improvements consisting of pipes, catch basins, and a swale. ® Extending the it-inch water main from Eureka Road down to the cul-de-sac, including the installation of hydrants and service studs to adjoining properties. ® Making repairs to the sanitary sewer to correct the problems identified in the televising report. ® An option to reclaim the roadway with no water main e.\tension. Landini explained the report identified a need for a drainage and utility easement. There is some flexibility with where it could be located. The City would not have known of this need had the feasibility report not been done. He clarified the feasibility report is a broad brush report; it's does not contain the detail of plans and specifications. The quantities and estimates are just estimates. Trees have not been identified for removal, and construction limits have not been identified. Landini stated the next step for the project would be for Council to accept the report, and direct Staff to move forward with either a reconstruction option with or without water main or a reclamation option. Should Council choose to move forward with an option to include the extension of water main, a public hearing would need to be scheduled in accordance with the appropriate procedures. A public information meeting is proposed for October 29, 2009, at 6:30 1JN4., and a public hcaring is proposed for November 9, 2009, during the City Council meeting. Landini then stated there is some flexibility as to when to order the plans and specifications for the project as far as impact to the project schcdulc Ooes. But, in order to stay on schedule Council needs to approve the schedule for the public information meeting and public hearing. Councilmember Zerby isllwd how wide Nelsinc Drive is currently. Director Brown stated it is approximately 19 22 feet wide. Zerby stated the City's standard of a 24-foot wide driving service seemed wide to him. Smithtown Road which is traveled much more heavily has two I1-foot driving lanes. Zerby, asked how wide the cul-de-sac on Smithtown Lane is. Brown explained the City's adopted standard for Cul-de-sacs is a 3540ot radius (70-foot diameter). The Minnesota Department of Transportation's standard for a driving lane surface is 12 feet wide; it does not include gutter. Zerby stated he called the standard up on the internet and related that the standard said "...the standard width of a traffic lane is 12 feet. For ht hvvays and areas where speeds are 30 miles per hour or less lane widths may be slightly reduced." Zerby asked if the driving lane surface could be narrower. Brown stated it could go down to 1 1 feet wide. Zerby stated there are only 9 properties along Nelsine Drive and the cul- de-sac. Therefore, he did not think it is necessary to have two 12-foot driving lanes for the roadway, especially because that would be wider then what currently exists. Councilmember Zerby stated he found it beneficial to have satellite overlay for other recent roadway projects. Director Brown explained when a feasibility report is done there is only basic topographical information available. Estimates are made on construction limits, potential easements are identified and so forth based on that basic information. The necessary survey information is not available until the design and specification phase. It would be possible to generate a satellite overlay before the design phase for all additional cost. __AR COUNCIL- _11NUTES 'fie-by rela'-d ~ta+ has a standard whicu~ ~ *n-t "for an- ar with a c - 250 AL ~ d; ar less a Curb-to-curb 'i '22 feet '_ht-of way but not 1-;ss than 30 feet may be app -ove He stated it may be benefiCal to tie the City's standards to traffic volume. Councilmember Zerby expressed his desire to have Nelsine Road reconstructed to a narrower width then 24-foot wide driving surface proposed and for the cul-de-sac to also be less then the 70-foot diameter proposed. He recommended the City offer water to the residents along Nelsine Drive and the cul-de-sac. Councilmember Turgeon stated she agreed the road could be constructed narrower than proposed and the cul-de-sac be constructed with a diameter less than proposed. The current roadway is 22 feet wide, and the current diameter is 60-feet wide. The proposed roadway would be near 29 feet wide from the back of the curbs. She asked when Nelsine Drive was last sealcoated. Director 13rov1;n stated it was patched and sealcoated about five years ago, and has been patched each year since. the stated she had issue with the requirement for easements. She asked what the impact on the project would be. if the City is not able to get the necessary easements. Director Brown stated there are options for where the easement can be located. He explained Staff has discussed easements with the affected property owners through the public hearing process. If the property owners are unwilling to grant easements then other alternatives will be sought out during the design process. Another option, thou11h not desired, would be to run the drainage and utility easement along Eureka Road, noting it does add length to the storm sewer and thereby cost. As a last resort if there is no cooperation by the property owners the roadway improvements could be done as reclamation project. Councilmember Woodruff stated the way he interpreted the report is the engineers are indicating Nelsine Drive is not suited for reclamation because of the soils testing. He asked if the stormwater issues study done a few years ago by WS13 and Associates identified any significant stormwater issues in the area of Nelsine Drive. Engineer l.andim stated it did not. Woodruff asked if property owners have been experiencing problems with vv cl l «atcr. Director Brown stated that during his tenure with the City property owners along Nelsine l)rivc have. typically not favored City water. Brown is not aware if there are well water quality issues in the area. I le stated most private wells in the City range in depth from 120 - 125 feet, and there is generally high iron content in that aquifer. Councilmember Bailey asked how the topic of City water was going to be present to the residents. He strongly recommended the CON "put its best foot forward" when explaining to residents the benefits of city water and the need to extend vy Ater main. He suggested it may be beneficial to have a professional brochure created. He thought it was this Council's bias to extend water into areas where property owners are willing to accept it. He expressed concern about there being enough time to prepare a first class piece of communication prior to the proposed dates for the public information meeting and public hearing. Although he doesn't want to push the dates back, he also does not want to enter into the meetings without having quality information to help convince property owners of the benefits of City water. He wants to ensure City will do the best job possible to sell City water. Director Brown stated Staff has a rough draft of a water brochure it prepared some time ago. That could be enhanced and presented to Council prior to proceeding to the next step. It may be worthwhile to take that necessary pause in the timeline. He cautioned that Staff and Council need to be going in the same direction before this project is discussed with residents. Mayor Liz& stated she personally cannot support a road reconstruction project that does not include all utilities. It doesn't make sense for the City or for the cost of the roadway. She thought there were other means of paying for the up-front investment in extending water main in the short term (such as borrowing from the enterprise funds) until property owners decide to hook up to the water main. . uwj REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Councilmember Zerby stated he agreed with Con-_ - = y that the City has to ' .ne residents on the benefits of City water. He also agreed with Mayor Lizee that the City needed to find a way to help residents ease the burden of the assessment for water main such as some type of multi-year payment terms. Councilmember Turgeon stated residents can have up to a 15-year payment plan. Lizde stated the payment options should be marketed better. Director Brown stated those types of things can be addressed in the brochure. He suggested Staff enhance the brochure and have it available for Council to review during its October 26. 2009, meeting. Director Brown stated as professional engineers Staff is bound to design roadways in accordance with roadway standards; that is a 12-foot-wide lane standard which could he reduced to l l feet if justified. Should Council want to not adhere to the standards, he would like the report to indicated that Staff recommends the roadways be constructed per the design standard but realizing that Council desires something other then Staff's recommendation, Council's preference will be adopted as part of the report. Council indicated it would be acceptable to document that. Councilmember Turgeon stated it makes no sense to her to reconstruct Nelsine Drive to a width of approximately 29 feet including curb and gutter. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO., 09-055, "A Resolution Approving Feasibility Report on Proposed Improvements, and Settim, Public Hearing Date for November 9, 2009, and Informational Meeting Date for October 29, 2009, and directing Staff to start discussion to obtain easements necessary for improvements, City 1'roject 10-01 Nelsine Drive Road Improvement Project." Councilmember Bailey again expressed leis concern that quality material will not be ready for the October 29, 2009, informational meeting. `Vhe meeting date may be too soon. He wanted Staff to ensure there are quality materials available and a quality presentation prepared. There was ensuing discussion about amendino the motion to not schedule the meeting dates. Councilmember Zerby complemented Staff for having started this project this year even though the actual improvements will be made in 2010. Administrator Heck stated Council has expressed they wanted to have the projects far enough along so the bid letting could be done in the spring of the construction year. If the informational meeting is scheduled for a later date then the public hearing must also be scheduled for a later date. That in turn delays the final approval and final start date for the project. He understands the concern expressed by Councilmember Bailey about promoting City water. He stated if there is a draft brochure Staff priorities for the City's communications person and City Engineer can be adjusted in order to focus on that. Councilmember Bailey asked what's going to happen if the materials are not finalized for the October 29`x' informational meetings. Administrator Heck expressed confidence that Staff can have quality materials ready. Councilmember Bailey commented that from his perspective if the City cannot convince property owners on Nelsine Drive to agree to water main installation then he wasn't sure who the City would be able to convince. "OOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Linde stated in this instance she thought it appropriate to stay with the dates presented because of ..is r -DrAing holidays. Engineer Landini stated he would email Council a copy of the draft brochure by the end of the week. Motion Passed 5/0. B. Meadowview Road Feasibility Study Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet for this evening included the feasibility report for road reconstruction of Meadowview Road. The reconstruction of Meadowview Road is included in the 2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the 20-Year Pavement Mana-enicnt Plan (PMP). The roadway has a rating of 3, it has 50 feet of right-of-way, and the road is approxirnatcly 20 feet wide and 626 feet long. There is water main adjacent to the project making a watermain c~tension possible. Landini explained the feasibility report evaluates: if the roadway reconstruction is feasible; sanitary sewer improvements; storm water management improvements; and, watermain improvements. The report indicates the items are feasible and cost effective. If Council chooses to move forward with the project, a revised resolution approving the report and setting the date for the public hearing and public information meeting had been provided to Council for its consideration. Landini stated the feasibility report considers the 601lowing. ■ Constructing a 24-foot-wide driving surface with edge control outside of driving surface. ■ Making stormwater improvements consisting of pipes and catch basins. ■ Extending the. 8-inch water rnain, and installing hydrants and service stubs to adjoining properties. ■ Making repairs to the sanitary sewer to correct the problems identified in the televising report. ■ An option to reclaim the roadway with no water main extension. Landini clarified the feasibility report is a broad brush report; it's does not contain the detail of plans and specifications. The cluantitics and estimates are just estimates. Trees have not been identified for removal, and construction limits have not been identified. Landini stated the next step for the project would be for Council to accept the report, and direct Staff to move forward with either a reconstruction option with or without water main or a reclamation option. Should Council chose to move forward with an option to include the extension of water main, a public hearing would need to be scheduled in accordance with the appropriate procedures. A public information meeting is proposed for October 29, 2009, at 6:30 P.M., and a public hearing is proposed for November 9, 2009, during the Cit)% Council meeting. He noted Council has been provided with an updated resolution for its consideration this evening. Landini explained that to extend water north on Meadowview Road it would come down Wild Rose Lane. This route was chosen over two other possible routes because it would create a loop in the water system if it was ever extended all the way down Wild Rose Lane. For storm sewer the suggestion is to go north across Valleywood Lane and discharge onto a piece of City-owned property on the north and into an outlet. Temporary construction easements will be needed from property owners. Mayor Lizee stated the report it V j 'irectional' ar` °c n Eureka Road to N"-rview Road down Wild Rose Lane. She asked if _ir_ --onal boring was would it make it eav.d. ',o -.ab out for water along Wild Rose Lane at a later d, 'e, or would somett ing like open trenching have to be done. Engineer Landini explained with the directional boring for Wild Rose Lane there would be the water main for as far as the boring went. Wild Rose Lane is scheduled to be reconstructed in 2023 according to the 20-year PMP and further extension of water main down Wild Rose Lane could be considered at that time. In response to a question from Lizee, Landim stated Valleywood Lane is scheduled to be reconstructed in 2013 and Sunnyvale Lane in 2014. Mayor Lizee stated she wondered if it would make more sense to extend water- down Valleywood Lane to Meadowview Road because Valleywood Lane is in such poor condition. She stated water main was not going to be carried all the way down Wild Rose Lane; therefore, she thought it may be more prudent to install it down Valleywood Lane. Director Brown explained Wild Rose Line is the closest route to creating a loop in the water system. Currently there is a dead end systcm that goes around Howards Point Road, Edgewood Road and half way down Nobel Road. The goal is to create a loop for the west end of the system. The Wild Rose Lane area has generally been pro City water. Valleywood,Lane is a dead end roadway, and it would be difficult to bring water down tlrat road to Grant Lorenz. Councilmember Turgeon asked if Staff could estimate the cost to extend water main dowrl the remainder of Wild Rose Lane. Director Brown stated Staff would do that. Tut-con said extending it all the way may have a positive or negative impact on the cost per property. Councilmember Turgeon expressed concern that if a reclamation effort was done instead the sanitary sewer repairs may not be made. Director Brov-vn clarified independent of what approach is taken sanitary sewer repairs must be made. Councilmember Woodruff stated Nv,hen lie did a quick count of the number of properties that would be assessed for water main versus the number of properties on Meadowview Road he convinced himself that the properties on Wild Rose I anc between Eureka Road and Meadowview Road would be stubbed out for City water and therefore be assessed for water main. Director Brown stated that is correct. In response to a comment from Woodru ff, Director Brown stated he is not aware of any water quality issues. In response to another comment, Engineer Landim explained the WSB and Associates drainage issues report does not identify any significant issues on Meadowview Road. There was one on Wild Rose Lane. It was number 10 in the report and it was a blocked culvert which has sense been jetted out. Councilmember Woodruff asked if it would make sense to reconstruct the portion of Wild Rose Lane between Eureka Road and Meadow view Road because the construction vehicles would likely use that road. Director Brown stated construction vehicles will have more of an impact on roadways with a rating of 3. By having construction vehicles use Sunnyvale Lane or Valleywood Lane the impact on them may be enough that their reconstruction schedule would be advanced. Woodruff stated he thought the City had the financial resources to reconstruct one of the other roadways in 2010 if there were sufficient personnel resources. Director Brown stated a before and after assessment could be done of the roads after the project is done. Brown then stated if the cost to extend water main down all of Wild Rose Lane makes sense then Council could consider reconstructing it as well. Woodruff stated directional boring is significantly more expensive then trenching and pipe. If trenching and pipe were considered the cost savings could partially offset the cost of doing Wild Rose Lane, noting it is a very long street. He expressed he would like Staff to determine the cost to reconstruct either Valleywood Lane or Sunnyvale Lane as part of this project. ""'DOD REGULAR COUNCIL EE rIN m s i x~S Couneilmember Bailey stated because of all of the outstanding questions asked he did not see how it would be possible to have an informational meeting on October 29, 2009. The Nelsine Drive project was more straight forward. He expressed concern about the project being pushed forward without all of the questions being answered. He did not recommend doing that. If Staff doesn't have answers for the property owners it could make them upset and maybe angry. Couneilmember Woodruff stated the TKDA did indicate in the feasibility report that Meadowview Road is a candidate for reclamation. Water main would not be extended if that approach is taken. Council could decide to take the reclamation approach and then there would not be a need to have a discussion about water. Couneilmember Bailey asked Staff if there is a reason to have the informational meetitlg and public hearings on the same days for the two projects. Engineer Landini stated there are economies of scale to advertise the meetings at the same time. Mayor Liz& stated the meetings for Meadowview Road could be delayed a few weeks and still be bid out at the satnc time. Administrator Heck asked Council what additional information it wants. Director Brown stated he thought lie heard Council wanted to have more information on the constraints involving water main installation. Couneilmember Woodruff asked that reconstruction of one of the other three streets at the same time be evaluated. I;n-ineer Landini asked if Council would consider reconstructing only a portion ol'Wild Rose Lane. Woodruff clarified lie meant the portion of Wild Rose Lane between Eureka Road and Mcadowview Road. This topic was continued to the October 26, 2009, meeting. 10. GENERAUNEW BUSINESS None. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff None. B. Mayor and City Council Couneilmember Woodruff stated he attended the Excelsior Fire Department Open House and Safety Fair on October 8"'. The attendance was outstanding. He also went to the grand re-opening of the Southshore Community Center. The attendance was good, but the age range of 18 - 50 was not well represented. He encouraged those individuals to take the time to check out the Center. He asked if Council is going to be provided with a quarterly report on Southshore Center Operations at its next meeting, to which ,,.~i REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MlNum Adinioistrator P- r+-,-A -ould. Woe ~ ' 1 Couficil wn, ' lg,-o r° a closeout report Councilmember Bailey stated during the last Council meeting he discussed the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) 2010 budget and the fact that it included funding for a mandatory contribution to the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) fund for pensions in the amount of $120,000. The $120,000 mandatory contribution in the budget was funded through expense reductions and the use of a total of $80,000 in reserves being taken from two funds. Currently it appears that the deficit reduction for 2010 has been reduced from $120,000 by about $30,000. He asked if Council has an opinion of what do to with the $30,000 that will not be needed for the mandatory contribution. He noted that EFD Chief Gerber had prepared a list of his priorities for restoring the cuts made in the 2010 budget to help fund the contribution. Mayor Lizee stated Chief Gerber has prepared a list of restoration priorities. and she was confident Councilmember Bailey (the City's representative on the L:I'D Board) would make the appropriate choices. She commented that during the last Council meeting, when this was discussed she had asked for supporting information, but nothing was included in the meeting packet for this meeting. She was not prepared to make any recommendations, and she thought Bailey was most qualified to make the recommendations to the EFD Board. Councilmember Bailey thought it would be prudent for Council to discuss its desired priorities. Administrator Heck stated he would wort: with gathering the input on this prior to the next Council meeting. Mayor Lizee stated she would prefer to discuss this when Councilmember Bailey could be in attendance. Administrator Heck stated during the last EFD Board meeting there was discussion about restoring the reserves or restoring spending. Thcrc was one memher who conveyed that her colleagues wanted it to be used to restore reserves. Councilmember TurOcon thanked Councilmember liailey for bringing this to Council for input. Councilmember Bailey stated that Director Burton has done a good job refining and preparing monthly financial reports. He thought the report should be included as part of the Council agenda on a monthly basis. Councilmember Woodruff wreed. Mayor Lizee recessed the mcetmg to an Executive Session at 8:39 P.M. 12. RECESS TO ITXECUTIVE SESSION A. Ron Johnson Matters Mayor Lizee began the Executive Session at 8:42 P.M. All Councilmembers as well as Attorney Tietjen and Administrator Heck were present. The purpose of the meeting was for confidential attorney-client discussion regarding pending and threatened litigation involving Ron Johnson. The session ended at 9:04 P.M. COUNCIL-- 1.3. RECO VE:: -sa- - cTLAR COU CII, 4O The City Council reconvened the regular meeting at 9:04 P.M. 14. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Zery seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 12, 2009, at 9:04 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk t~ Mayor Lizee convened the Joint Meeting at 6:00 p.m. A. Roll Call City Council Present: Mayor Lizee; Council members Woodruff, Zerby, and Bailey; City Administrator Heck; Park Coordinator- Anderson Absent: Council member Turgeon Park Commission Present: Chair Norman, Commissioners Davis, Quinlan, DeMers, Edmondson, and Robb Absent: Commissioner Trcnt B. Review Agenda Davis moved, Chair Norman seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted for the Joint Park Commission,; and City Council Meeting. Motion passed 10/0. 2. PRESENTATION BY MINNETONKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION FOR HENNE,PIN YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAM GRANT Mayor Lizee welcomed members of the Minnetonka Hockey Association to the meeting noting that this was a unique opportunit}~ for the City to review. Anderson explained that she and Park Secretary Grout had attended a Hennepin County Youth Grant Program presentation the past week to learn about applying for the youth sports grant as being presented this even ing. She gave a brief history summarizing that Hennepin County will be awarding $2 million annually for the next 20 years to help develop youth recreation and encourage partnerships between sports associations and cities. She explained that the hockey association had approached the city on developing additional rinks for youth hockey after hearing from Anderson at the fall sports information meeting about the potential grant. Anderson indicated that the first grant in the series had only recently been published and that the purveyors of the grant recognized that they had a small window for participation since the deadline loomed November 2"d. Anderson explained that staff wished to obtain both Council and Commission input on whether they should perform the necessary legwork needed to apply for the grant. Recognizing that the Council would need to review a recommendation by the Commission at its October 26`x' meeting i _ -ff TI A T , Tr CITY CCT P - - '-,r° 'NG Putl- 2 of 4 in order to meet the November 2" d deadline, staff felt this would be an opportune time to collect feedback. Tony Weinzetl and Ann Madsen, of the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, presented their initial proposal for the refrigerated outdoor ice facility to the joint meeting largely focusing on the financial partnership for consideration. Weinzetl noted that the association would dedicate itself to raising up to $270,000 of the funds needed for the project, with the additional $400,000 from the grant itself, the City would be merely responsible for contributing $200,000. He pointed out that indoor ice has grown extremely costly, and this would provide a quality alternative for both hockey and free skaters. Mayor Lizee noted that the Commission would be discussing the item in further detail this evening and asked the representatives of the association to make a presentation to the Council on October 26`x'. Woodruff had several questions with regard to the level of detail available to date. He questioned how much a zamboni would cost, where it would be placed and i f a building would need to be constructed to house the zamboni, what the ongoing maintenance costs for the chi] ler unit might be, and what sort of in-kind services or public works requirements would be needed. Anderson interjected that, at this point, there were several unknowns until the Council and Commission directed staff to pursue those items further. She stated that many of the details would be researched as staff began to work out the detai is of the project and the partnership itself with the association. She suggested the maintenance agreement reflect the intent of the donor policy by requiring a percentage for ongoing maintenance of the facility via the association and that the user fees might offset some minor costs by bringing in more users. Chair Norman cautioned staff of the high costs for maintaining outdoor refrigerated ice and questioned the environmental impacts of the chiller unit. Davis asked whether the ice would be for just hockey and noted that the Arctic Fever event in January could make good use of the facility. Anderson stated that the rinks would belong to the City and that the rinks would be scheduled similarly to what CRR does currently with ice time throughout the city. She pointed out that the current ice rinks in Shorc«~ood are well used and have been recognized for their high quality. Woodruff asked whether the project relied on matching funds and what would happen if we didn't provide matching funds. He questioned whether the City could go ahead with the project at a reduced scale if we cannot come up with the entire amount at the outset. Anderson stated that matching funds entirely are not required; the grant recommends there be some matching funds and in-kind services which can be allocated towards the contribution. Heck stated that staff could put together a package with true costs but the question now is what the feedback of the Council and Commission is right now. Do you feel staff should pursue the details for this project, as this is an opportunistic time to undertake this endeavor, if we can ~r -e<DN AND C1Ty COUNCIL N- 112009 pr ide enough detail about the ongoing maintenance? He suggested that the City, at minimum, pursue a single rink with the allowance to add a second rink at a later date. Mayor Lizee liked the possibility of investing in the community and partnering with the hockey association to provide this added facility to Freeman Park and make the warming house there viable and to allow more kids to play on ice. She felt if staff could get some of these questions answered and bring it back to the Council this would be a great opportunity for Shorewood. Chair Norman thanked the representatives of the Association for coming and noted that Anderson could answer additional questions or contact them for more information if necessary. 3. REVIEW AND DISCUSS PARK GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Chair Norman introduced the 5 year CIP documents for review and shared several of the Commission's accomplishments to date this year. He noted that, while many of the estimates provided by TKDA were high, staff has been able to rind mane lower priced contracts to accomplish some of the same goals. Building on current success, he pointed out that the CIP is a working document which can be supplemented by potential grant partnerships opportunities. Mayor Lizee stated that the Council has been pleased with the effort put into planning for the overall parks. She questioned where staff was in the process of working with the City of Chanhassen to make the updates. Heck and Anderson stated that the City of Chanhassen has indicated they have no interest in expanding their role at Cathcart and those they do not have the money to contribute to improvements. Mayor Lizee suggested that the 1 ine item at Badger park, removal of the hockey rink and construction of the square, be removed 1 rom the CIP plan altogether since there is disagreement within the Commission of whether this is an option and because it is a highly used rink. In addition, she suggested the funds to construct a warming house at Cathcart be repurposed to add to the Freeman Park skating facility, since the two parks are close together and we will be making significant improvements to Freeman. Zerby suggested some consideration be given to the addition of trail segments in the coming CIP within parks and near parks. Woodruff suggested the Commission ask for what they can justify and let the Council decide whether the projects can be funded. He stated that there is money to be had for high priority projects and the Commission should be more aggressive to make a recommendation that the Council should consider. He believed beyond the five year CIP plan, it may be worthwhile to lay out a prioritized list of A, B, and C priorities. Anderson pointed out that the Manor Park warming house shelter was one such example, the project will cost significantly more than first anticipated and the Commission will be discussing what part of the project to pursue. TF- -T 3.1 A T' Ci` _ Pagb 4 of 4 Mayor Liz& commended the _c i for trying to live within their means and plan their CIP budgets according to the available ar- " anticipated funds for the near term so that the City can hold to its zero increase. Zerby and Bailey felt the plan was well thought out and asked for more information about Manor Park shelter. Anderson stated that she met with Pazendak, Brown, and Ellen Luken of Luken Architecture, to discuss the project and cost estimates. She indicated that, based on these conversations, the cost for the remodel was quite a bit higher than first anticipated. The original estimate of $50-60,000 would possibly bring water to the facility and allow for a lean-to structure; whereas, remodeling the structure to place the restrooms indoors and bring the building up to code as well as make it ADA accessible. Anderson stated that Luken suggested they have a preliminary design study done for about $4500 in order to look at the options, cost estimates, and design ideas. Bailey was surprised by the figure and Woodruff stated that they had hoped to mal<e progress on this project sooner, though saw the logic in performing the study. Heck reminded the Council that the City must earmark a place for the funds that they have from the liquor store operation. Heck noted that, with regard to the grant, the more partners we can pull into the project the higher likelihood of success to receive the grant. 4. OTHER BUSINESS 5. ADJOURN Bailey moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the Joint Park Commission and City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed 10/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Department Finance Its Description: From: Michelle Nguyer Bonnie Burton Brian Fleck Item Number Background / Previous Action Claims for council authorization. The attached claims list includes checks numbered 49046 through 49085, totaling $251,784.61. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 009 11:49 AM 1 SEA L; NGE:10/13/2009 THU 99/99/ A/- _._sTC CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STAT US DATE 00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 10/13/2009 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 10/13/2009 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 10/13/2009 16625 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS R 10/13/2009 00052 PENA R 10/13/2009 20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC R 10/13/2009 10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC R 10/26/2009 00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN R 10/26/2009 01790 AMERICAN LEGAL PURL CORP R 10/26/2009 01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 10/26/2009 29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 10/26/2009 29271 DREW KRIEBEL R 10/26/2009 07600 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF R 10/26/2009 29295 FRONTIER ELECTRIC CO. R 10/26/2009 10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 10/26/2009 10473 HENN CTY PUBLIC RECORDS R 10/26/2009 11055 INFRATECH R 10/26/2009 29293 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION R 10/26/2009 13070 LANDINI, JAMES R 10/26/2009 21340 LOCAL LINK R 10/26/2009 15403 MAMA R 10/26/2009 00079 MEDICA R 10/26/2009 PAGE: 2 CHECK CHECK CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 000000 11,661.56 000000 2,012.40 049046 1,820.56 049047 32.00 049048 6,417.87 049050 305.00 049051 264.00 049052 357.00 049053 210.00 049054 761.51 049055 847.47 049056 741.00 049057 4,663.12 049058 535.00 049059 64.00 049060 6.00 049061 2,287.48 049062 6,000.00 049063 235.04 049064 131.80 049065 25.00 049066 13.023.93 i/22/2009 11:49 1 A/P F%1 STOR`1 Cbi F,CK REPORT _ SET: 01 ,9E RANGE:10/. /9999 CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STA TUS DATE 15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER R 10/26/2009 1 MICHAEL A. SWANSON R 10/26/2009 15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC R 10/26/2009 17400 MINNETONKA-CITY OF R 10/26/2009 19965 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES, INC. R 10/26/2009 15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 10/26/2009 20805 PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORP R 10/26/2009 26100 QWEST R 10/26/2009 1 ROGER A. ANDERSON R 10/26/2009 23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 10/26/2009 19435 SPRINT R 10/26/2009 29294 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY C R 10/26/2009 24600 TONKA BAY-CITY OF R 10/26/2009 29296 TRAFFIC MARKING SERVICE, INC. R 10/26/2009 25700 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA R 10/26/2009 00085 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO R 10/26/2009 83814 VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES R 10/26/2009 70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 10/26/2009 29269 WARNER CONNECT R 10/26/2009 T O T A L S REGULAR CHECKS: HAND CHECKS: DRAFTS: EFT: NON CHECKS: VOID CHECKS: TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 BANK: 1 TOTALS: AMOUNT DISCOUNT PAGE CHECK CHECK CHECK NO STATUS AMO UNT 049067 48,017 .98 049068 7,350 .00 049069 502 .27 049070 325 .83 049071 4,787 .65 049072 140 .49 049073 334 .70 049074 551 .66 049075 3,000 .00 049076 59,220 .33 049077 186 .61 049078 139 .64 049079 1,746 .50 049080 9,902 .28 049081 75 .00 049082 1,235 .20 049083 6,990 .00 049084 111 .26 049085 3,372 .08 NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED 39 186,717.26 0.00 186,717.26 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 13,673.96 0.00 13,673.96 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VOID DEBITS VOID DISCOUNTS VOID CREDITS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 41 200,391.22 0.00 200,391.22 41 200.391.22 0.00 200,391.22 10-22-2009 1'_:47 AM C O U N C I, V E N D O R - OCT 26, 2009 PAGE: _ VENDOR SORT KEY SATE " Iv FUND L AMO UNT ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 10/26/09 SVC 09/06/09-7..0/06/09 al Fund Municipal Buildings 26A .00 _ TOTAL: 264 .00 APSC'ME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 10/26/09 NOV UNION DENTAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 357 .00 TOTAL: 357 .00 AMERICAN LEGAL PURL CORP 10/26/09 MN CODE OF ORDINACES-INTER General Fund General Government _210 00 TOTAL: 210 .00 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 10/26/09 S.S.CTR-EXPENSES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 246 .23 10/26/09 S.S.CTR EXPENSES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cents 515 .28 TOTAL: 761 .51 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 10/26/09 OCT-CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 531 .01 10/26/09 OCT-PW SVC General Fund Public Works 316 .46 TOTAL: 847 .47 DREW KRIESEL 10/26/09 S.S.CTR- SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 135 .00 10/26/09 S.S.CTR SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 606 .00_ TOTAL: 741 .00 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,073 .00 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,075 .10 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 719 .18 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 282 .97 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 66 .18 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 392. 74 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 91. 85 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 286. 51 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 67. 01 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 318. 65 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 74. 51 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 224. 09 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 52. 41 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 155. 55 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 36. 38 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 560. 13 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 131. 01 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 145. 32 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 33. 98 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 27. 71 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 6. 48 10/13/09 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 285. 08 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 66. 67 10/13/09 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 158. 84 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 37. 15 10/13/09 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 176. 49 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 41. 28 10/13/09 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 18. 55 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 4. 34 10/13/09 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 42. 47 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 9. 93 TOTAL: 11,661. 56 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF 10/26/09 3RD QTR WATER SVC Water Utility Water 4_663. 12_ TOTAL: 4,663. 12 1.0-22-2 11:47 AM C" O U N C L ' V E N D O R OCT 26, 2009 2 VEN1 V DATE DESCRIPT A T''UND FRONTIER ELECTRIC CO. 10/26/09 S.S.CTR- SVCS Southshore Com mu senior Community Cente S TOTAL : 5» . 00 HENN CIA INTO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 10/26/09 SEPT 800MHZ General Fund Public Works 64 .00 TOTAL: 64 .00 HENN CTY PUBLIC RECORDS 10/26/09 PLAT 43679319 & 133 General Fund City Engineer 6 .00 TOTAL: 6 .00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,609 .60 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 210 .96_ TOTAL: 1,820 .56 INFRATECH 10/26/09 JET/VAC CLEAN @ NELSINE &M Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,287 .48 TOTAL: 2,287 .48 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 10/26/09 TREE BAY MILFOIL TREATMENT General Fund Parks & Recreation 6,000 .00 TOTAL: 6,000 .00 LANDINI, JAMES 10/26/09 OCT WELLNESS General Fund City Engineer 40 .00 10/26/09 OCT CELL General Fund City Engineer 46 .02 10/26/09 OCT MILEAGE General Fund City Engineer 106 .15 10/26/09 USB FLASH DRIVE General Fund Parks & Recreation 42 .87 TOTAL: 235 .04 LOCAL LINK 10/26/09 NOV-WEB LINK SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 131 .80 TOTAL: 131 .80 MAMA 10/26/09 LMC, CITY LEARNING POINT General Fund Administration 25 .00 TOTAL: 25. 00 MEDICA 10/26/09 NOV-MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 13,023. 93 TOTAL: 13,023. 93 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 10/26/09 NOV WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 48,017. 98 TOTAL: 48,017. 98 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 10/26/09 NOV NEWSLETTER POSTAGE General Fund General Government 500. 00 10/26/09 3RD QTR UTILITY SVC-ADDT'L Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1. 52 10/26/09 3RD QTR UTILITY PSTG-ADDT' Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 0. 75 TOTAL: 502. 27 MINNETONKA-CITY OF 10/26/09 5366 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 68. 03 10/26/09 5350 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 181. 85 10/26/09 5490 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 75. 95 TOTAL: 325. 83 MISC. VENDOR MICHAEL A. SWANSON 10/26/09 MICHAEL A. SWANSON:ESCROW Escrow Deposit Age NON-DEPARTMENTAL 7,350. 00 ROGER A. ANDERSON 10/26/09 ESCROW REF-23625/75 SMITHT Escrow Deposit Age NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,000. 00 TOTAL: 10,350. 00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 10/13/09 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,012. 40 TOTAL: 2,012. 40 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 10/13/09 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32. 00 TOTAL: 32. 00 10- 1147 AM C O U N C SPORT BY V :7 N D 0 R 26, 2009 PAGE: ' Y DA'C'E; l )N TN"_' A14O U3v'7' NORTH-AND 'T'RUST SERVICES, TUC. 10/26/09 UTILITY R1 Water Utility Water 2,393 .83 10/26/09 U=, TTY RATE - )Y Samtasy Sewer Uti Sewer 2,393 .82 TOTAL: 4,787 .65 OFFICE DEPOT 10/26/09 CARTRIDGE General Fund General Government 65 .25 10/26/09 SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 75 .24 TOTAL: 140 .49 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,020 .16 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 311 .95 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 418 .31 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 311 .93 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 378 .42 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective inspections 270 .98 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 169 .96 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 626 .89 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 153 .57 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 30 .77 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 279 .98 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 183 .22 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 195 .22 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 20 .20 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 46 .31 TOTAL: 6,417 .87 PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORP 10/26/09 POSTAGE METER General Fund Municipal Buildings 334 .70 TOTAL: 334 .70 QWEST 10/26/09 OCT SVC Water Utility Water 315 .23 10/26/09 OCT SVC Water Utility Water 236 .43 TOTAL: 551 .66 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 10/26/09 3RD QTR COURT OT General Fund Police Protection 985 .33 10/26/09 4TH QTR-LEASE PYMT General Fund Police Protection 58,235. 00 TOTAL: 59,220. 33 SPRINT 10/26/09 SVC 9/13-10/12 Water Utility Water 93. 31 10/26/09 SVC 9/13-10/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 93. 30 TOTAL: 186. 61 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATI 10/26/09 S.S.CTR-DETERGENT SURPASS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 139. _64_ TOTAL: 139. 64 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 10/26/09 2009 SPRINKLER SYSTEM PRMT General Fund Public Works 325. 00 10/26/09 3RD QTR WATER SVCS Water Utility Water 1,076. 50 10/26/09 3RD QTR SEWER SVCS Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 345. 00 TOTAL: 1,746. 50 TRAFFIC MARKING SERVICE, INC. 10/26/09 STRIPING-PAINT General Fund Streets & Roadways 9,902. 28_ TOTAL: 9,902. 28 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 10/26/09 ASPHALT PAVEMENT MAINT-JAM General Fund City Engineer 75. 00 TOTAL: 75. 00 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO 10/26/09 NOV-LIFE PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 1,235. 20 TOTAL: 1.235. 20 10- 114'7 AM 0 0 0 N C L ' V E N D O R- OCT 26, 2009 PAGE: Y DATE DUND VEOI,IA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10/'26/09 SEP i' RECYCr.1NG .SVC , U---'it.y Recycling 6,990. 00 TOTAL: ,990. 00 VERIZON WIRELESS 10/26/09 BRAD N.- 9/11-10/7-0 SVC General Fund Planning 111. 26 TOTAL: 111. 26 WARNER CONNECT 10/26/09 WIRELESS ACCESS POIN T General Fund Municipal Buildings 572. 08 10/26/09 NOV MAINT General Fund Municipal Buildings 2,800. 00 TOTAL: 3,372. 08 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 305. 00 TOTAL: 305. 00 -PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9 999 General Fund Administration 4,621. 46 General Fund General Government 6,334. 47 General Fund Finance 4,621. 13 General Fund Planning 5,606. 13 General Fund Protective Inspections 4,014. 58 General Fund City Engineer 2,517. 84 General Fund Public Works 9,287. 11 General Fund Streets & Roadways 2,367. 10 General Fund Tree Maintenance 455. 78 General Fund Parks & Recreation 4,975. 77 Water Utility Water 2,714. 45 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,892. 24 Recycling Utility Recycling 299. 28 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 686. 05 TOTAL: 51,393. 39 FUND TOTALS 101 General Fund 162,497.34 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 2,177.15 601 Water Utility 12,197.91 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 56,445.08 621 Recycling Utility 7,332.37 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 784.76 880 Escrow Deposit Agency 10,350.00 GRAND TOTAL: 251,784.61 TOTAL PAGES: 4 10_22.-2009 11:50 AM DEPARTMENT NON DEPARTMENTAL C O U N C I I_ FUND VENDOR NAt'+7I; General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3V DEPARTMEIqi' - OCT 26, 2009 PACE: 1 DATE Al 10/133/09 FEDERAL W/E 4,073.00 10/].3/09 FICA W/H 3,075.10 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 719.18 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,020 .16 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,609 .60 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 210 .96 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 10/13/09 STATE W/H 2,012 .40 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 10/13/09 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS 32 .00 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 305 .00 TOTAL: 15,057 .40 Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 282 .97 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 66 .18 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 311 .95 MAMA 10/26/09 LMC, CITY LEARNING POINT 25 .00 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 4,621 .46 TOTAL: 5,307 .56 General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 392 .74 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 91 .85 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 418 .31 AMERICAN LEGAL PURL CORP 10/26/09 MN CODE OF ORDINACES-INTER 210 .00 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 10/26/09 NOV NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 500 .00 OFFICE DEPOT 10/26/09 CARTRIDGE 65 .25 10/26/09 SUPPLIES 75 .24 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 6,334 .47 TOTAL: 8,087 .86 Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 286 .51 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 67 .01 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 311 .93 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 4,621 .13 TOTAL: 5,286 .58 Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 318 .65 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 74 .51 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 378 .42 VERIZON WIRELESS 10/26/09 BRAD N.- 9/11-10/10 SVC 111 .26 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 5,606 .13 TOTAL: 6,488. 97 Municipal Buildings General Fund ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 10/26/09 SVC 09/06/09-10/06/09 264. 00 PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORP 10/26/09 POSTAGE METER 334. 70 LOCAL LINK 10/26/09 NOV-WEB LINK SVC 131. 80 WARNER CONNECT 10/26/09 WIRELESS ACCESS POINT 572. 08 10/26/09 NOV MAINT 2,800. 00 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 10/26/09 OCT-CH SVC 531. 01 TOTAL: 4,633. 59 Police Protection General Fund SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 10/26/09 3RD QTR COURT OT 985. 33 10/26/09 4TH QTR-LEASE PYMT 58,235. 00 TOTAL: 59,220. 33 Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 224. 09 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 52. 41 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 270. 98 0- 009 11:50 AM City Engineer Public Works C O U N C I L REPORT ? rUND V: L E: General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H PERA HENN CTY PUBLIC RECORDS LANDINI, JAMES UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA *-PAYROLL EXPENSES General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H PERA HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT TONKA BAY-CITY OF CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY **PAYROLL EXPENSES Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H PERA TRAFFIC MARKING SERVICE, INC *-PAYROLL EXPENSES Tree Maintenance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H PERA *-PAYROLL EXPENSES OCT 26, 2009 PACE: 2 DATE I 10/12/2009 - 99 4,014 .58 9uPAL: 4,562 .06 10/13/09 FICA W/H 155 .55 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 36 .38 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 169 .96 10/26/09 PLAT 43679319 & 133 6 .00 10/26/09 OCT WELLNESS 40 .00 10/26/09 OCT CELL 46 .02 10/26/09 OCT MILEAGE 106 .15 10/26/09 ASPHALT PAVEMENT MAINT-JAM 75 .00 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 2,517 .84 TOTAL: 3,152 .90 10/13/09 FICA W/H 560 .13 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 131 .01 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 626 .89 10/26/09 SEPT 800MHZ 64 .00 10/26/09 2009 SPRINKLER SYSTEM PRMT 325 .00 10/26/09 OCT-PW SVC 316 .46 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 9,287 .11 TOTAL: 11,310 .60 10/13/09 FICA W/H 145 .32 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 33 .98 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 153 .57 10/26/09 STRIPING-PAINT 9,902. 28 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 2,367. 10 TOTAL: 12,602. 25 10/13/09 FICA W/H 27. 71 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 6. 48 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 30. 77 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 455. 78 TOTAL: 520. 74 Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 285 .08 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 66 .67 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 279 .98 LANDINI, JAMES 10/26/09 USE FLASH DRIVE 42 .87 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 10/26/09 TREE BAY MILFOIL TREATMENT 6,000 .00 *-PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 4,975 .77 TOTAL: 11,650 .37 Unallocated Expenses General Fund MEDICA 10/26/09 NOV-MEDICAL PERM 13,023 .93 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO 10/26/09 NOV-LIFE PREM 1,235 .20 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 10/26/09 NOV UNION DENTAL PREM 357 .00 TOTAL: 14,616 .13 Senior Community Cente Southshore Communi ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 10/26/09 S.S.CTR-EXPENSES 246 .23 10/26/09 S.S.CTR EXPENSES 515 .28 DREW KRIEBEL 10/26/09 S.S.CTR- SVC 135 .00 10/26/09 S.S.CTR SVC 606 .00 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATI 10/26/09 S.S.CTR-DETERGENT SURPASS 139 .64 FRONTIER ELECTRIC CO. 10/26/09 S.S.CTR- SVCS 535 .00 TOTAL: 2,1')/. 15 10-22-2009 11:50 AM C 0 u 0 I L REPORT DY DEPAR"IMENT - OCT 26, 2009 3 LENT FUND I- _ME DAT^ Water Water 13t-1ity EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 111 CA W/P 158 .84 LO/13/09 MEDICARE W/i3 37 -15 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 183 .22 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF 10/26/09 3RD QTR WATER SVC 4,663 .12 MINNETONKA-CITY OF 10/26/09 5366 VINE HILL RD 68 .03 10/26/09 5350 VINE HILL RD 181 .85 10/26/09 5490 VINE HILL RD 75 .95 SPRINT 10/26/09 SVC 9/13-10/12 93 .31 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES, INC. 10/26/09 UTILITY RATE STUDY 2,393 .83 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 10/26/09 3RD QTR WATER SVCS 1,076 .50 QWEST 10/26/09 OCT SVC 315 .23 10/26/09 OCT SVC 236 .43 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 2,714 .45 TOTAL: 12,197 .91 Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 176 .49 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 41 .28 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 195 .22 INFRATECH 10/26/09 JET/VAC CLEAN @ NELSINE &M 2,287 .48 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 10/26/09 NOV WASTEWATER SVC 48,017 .98 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 10/26/09 3RD QTR UTILITY SVC-ADDT'L 1 .52 10/26/09 3RD QTR UTILITY PSTG-ADDT' 0 .75 SPRINT 10/26/09 SVC 9/13-10/12 93 .30 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES, INC. 10/26/09 UTILITY RATE STUDY 2,393 .82 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 10/26/09 3RD QTR SEWER SVCS 345 .00 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 2,892 .24 TOTAL: 56,445 .08 Recycling Recycling Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA W/H 18. 55 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 4. 34 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 20. 20 VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10/26/09 SEPT RECYCLING SVC 6,990. 00 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 299. 28 TOTAL: 7,332. 37 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Managem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/13/09 FICA WIN 42. 47 10/13/09 MEDICARE W/H 9. 93 PERA 10/13/09 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 46. 31 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/12/2009 - 99/99/9999 686. 05 TOTAL: 784. 76 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Escrow Deposit Age MISC. VENDOR MICHAEL A. SWANSON 10/26/09 MICHAEL A. SWANSON:ESCROW 7,350. 00 ROGER A. ANDERSON 10/26/09 ESCROW REF-23625/75 SMITHT 3,000. 00 TOTAL: 10,350. 00 1.0 -.22..2009 i.1: 50 AM C O U N C i T, REPORT By DEPARTMBN'-" - OCT 26, 2009 DEPARTMENT rL-4r VEND: DATr' FuN D TOTALS 101 General_ Fund 162,497 .14 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 2,177 .15 601 Water Util.ity 12,197 .91 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 56,445 .08 621 Recycling Utility 7,332 .37 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 784 .76 880 Escrow Deposit Agency 10,350 .00 GRAND TOTAL: 251,784.61 - - - PAGE TOTAL PAGES: 4 Background / Previous Action: Since the mid- 1990s, the city has used the services of Ridgeview Business Health (RBH) to provide pre-employment job assessments on new hires. With the hiring of utility operator Bryan Backes, staff contacted RBH, and another vendor used by the Excelsior Fire District for its health assessments, Health Strategies, to request a quote for pre-employment assessment services. The pre-employment assessment components are determined by the position being evaluated. Besides conducting the Basic Preplacement Assessment, additional components may be necessary, depending on the position. The following is a list of possible components and pricing from each vendor: Assessment Component Ridgeview Business Health Health Strategies Basic Preplacement $60 $45 Assessment Upper Extremity Screen (per $33 $15 screen) Back Screen (per screen) $42 $15 Audiogram (per test) $36 $20 Vision (per test) $50 $25 Urine Drug Collection, $32 (collection only; lab work $65 (includes Lab work) (additional fees apply if found extra) positive) Pulmonary function test and $84 $25 Respiratory Use Health History Review Hepatitis B Vaccine (3 doses $100 $95 required) PPD/Mantoux Test $28 $25 (administering and reading) Staff Recommendation As Health Strategies comes highly recommended and can provide the services at a lower cost than Ridgeview Business Health, staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Administrator to enter into an Agreement with Health Strategies for Employment Preplacement Assessment Services. Council Action: Bay-Wide Milfoil Treatments Progress Deport & 2010 Planning Lake Minnetonka Association October 2009 Background ■ 1987 Milfoil in Minnetonka ■ 1989 Harvesting Begun ■ 2006 Demonstration Project ■ 2007 Lake Vegetation Management Plan ■ 2008 3 Bay Project (Year 1) ■ 2009 3 Bay Project (Year 2) Lake Minnetonka Association Background ■ Lake Vegetation Management Plan (I.,VMP) - Copy on LMA Website ■ A DNR-approved plan to allow variance to rules Framed the three bay project ■ Multiple experts and agencies involved ■ Five-year plan Lake Minnetonka Association Overview ® Background ® Problems ® Goals & Objectives ® Management Options in Treatments ® Herbicide Safety ® Results ® 2010 Program Lake Minnetonka Association Background ■ 2006 Pilot Project ■ To demonstrate the use and effectiveness of selective herbicides ■ Small test plot on three bays (Caimans, Grays & Phelps) Lake Minnetonka Association Background ■ Implementation (First two years) ■ 2008 Caimans, Grays & Phelps ■ 2009 Grays & Phelps Lake Minnetonka Association 1 10/2- Problems ® Milfoil is problematic: ® Diminishes ecological health ® Interferes with most recreation is Creates shoreland clean-up chore ® Native plants are important, their control should be balanced with their protection ® Water lilies sometimes problematic, habitat value ® Overall plant management is poorly coordinated Lake Minnetonka Association Goals & Objectives Goal B. Native submersed plants should be protected, except in localized areas where they pose a nuisance although control will be allowed in localized areas where native plants inhibit access to open water or prohibit recreation. Lake Minnetonka Association Management Options ■ General Approaches t. Mechanical - harvesting, pulling, cutting, covering z. Chemical - herbicides 3. Biological - biological agents Lake Minnetonka Association Goals & Objectives Goal A. Eurasian watermilfoil and other invasive plants, such as curlyleaf pondweed, will be controlled throughout the respective bays in a manner that is safe and effective to improve ecological health, reduce interference with recreational activities, and reduce Lakeshore cleanup and. Lake Minnetonka Association Goals & Objectives Goal C. Provide limited individual nuisance or access control when bay-wide selective control applications are performed. Goal D. This plan will be considered as a framework for possible expansion in the future to other bays in Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka Association Feasible Options e The Technical Committee, comprised of local, state and national experts, found the only feasible option to accomplish the plan's objectives was the use of selective herbicides Lake Minnetonka Association 2 Selective Herbicides ® `Selective' means it selectively kills the target plant(s) and minimizes impacts to native plants ® Herbicides used: ® Fndothall (2008) ® Triclopyr (2008 & 2009) Lake Minnetonka Association Herbicide Safety ■ Acceptable toxicity level is defined as the level of pesticide present in fish or water in which a lifetime of human consumption is not likely to cause adverse health effects in humans Lake Minnetonka Association Results ■ Adjustments in Year 2 ■ Focus on milfoil only ■ Address curlyleaf pondweed only if it becomes a problem ■ 'Treat later (early )une) ■ Use granular product ■ Guarantee Lake Minnetonka Association 10/2-/= lcide Safety ® No treatment, even `no action' is completely safe m Untreated milfoil has impacts a All herbicides undergo years of testing and must be registered by the US EPA Lake Minnetonka Association Results ■ Year 1 (2008) ■ Some milfoil control, varied with bay ■ Liquid herbicide diluted, effectiveness diluted ■ No harm to native plants ■ Shoreland clean up minimal Lake Minnetonka Association Results ■ Year 2 (2009) ■ Grays & Phelps - Milfoil-Frec* ■ Carnnans did not participate due to funding ■ Damage to native plants minimal ■ No shoreland clean up ■ Watering restriction - about 30 days A few individual plants, but 99%+ control Lake Minnetonka Association 3 10/2-/ Results - Costs to Costs expected to decrease ® By year 3, about 80% ® 2010 some makeup from ineffective control in year 1 ® By year 4, expect significant reductions ® By year 5, expect maintenance level costs Lake Minnetonka Association 2010 Program Costs Carmans Grays Phelps I PhelpsII Gideon St. Albans *Estimate Lake Minnetonka Association 2010 Program Notes - Gideon ■ Includes lagoons & channels ■ May be outside the LVMP o Pending permits from DNR ■ Lily pads protected 2008 2009 2010", $49 $62 $67 $65 $56 $61 $70 $68 $52 - $79 - $55 Lake Minnetonka Association 2010 Program ® Considerations: ® Grays & Phelps - Continue ® Carmans - re-enter program ® Phelps expansion ® Add Gideon & tit. Albans ® Funding & project management Lake Minnetonka Association Program Costs - Gideon 2008 2009 2010 LMCD (STL) ? DNR ? Cities ? Private - $79 Lake Minnetonka Association 2010 Program Notes - Gideon ■ Organization has begun ■ Bay Representatives ■ Next Slide ■ About $20,000 pledged as of Oct. 1 Lake Minnetonka Association 4 Gideon a Reps Rick Atherton (Ponka Bay) Gideons Point Road Dean Swanson (Excelsior) George Street Laurie L-tartish (Ibnka Bay) Woodlane Street Judd Brackett (Tonka Bay) Woodpecker Ridge Road Ross McGlasson (lbnka Bay) Lakeview Avenue JoAnn Schaub (Shorewood) Timber Lane Craig Plathe (fonka Bay) Bay Street Barry Cohen (Ibnka Bay) I Iighland Avenue Denise Westman (Tonka Bay) West Point Road Rich Kofski (Tonka Bay) Florence Drive Lake Minnetonka A ssociation Request The City of Shorewood Support This Public Project Through: ■ The City's LMCD Rep ■ A Financial Contribution ■ Letter of Support to the DNR ■ Letter of Support to Excelsior & Tonka Bay Lake Minnetonka Association 10/2 _ What Next ? ® Fundraising - through the Lake Minnetonka Association m Tax-deductible m Refundable, minus LMA costs Lake Minnetonka Association Thanks (952) 470-4449 info&LMAssociation.org www. LM A s s o cia do n. orb Lake Minnetonka Association 5 Chair Norman convened the Park Commission Meeting at 7:06 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Norman; Commissioners Davis, DeMers, Quinlan. Robb, and Edmondson; Park Coordinator Anderson; Public Works Director Brown; and City Administrator Heck Absent: Commissioner Trent B. Review Agenda Davis moved, Edmondson seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Park Minutes of September 8, 2009 Edmondson moved, Robb seconded, approving the Minutes of September 8, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Neighbors Caroll Friendly and Diane Hartgrove ofClhartwell Hill near Silverwood Park, stood and stated that they do not believe the city needs a trail, rustic or paved, around the rear side of Silverwood Park. They shared their ncighboCs comments asking where this improvement comes from and whether it is a good use of funds. They felt a better use of funds on other features could be spent to improve the park. It was their belief that a trail would attract more kids to the woods to do bad things in hidden spaces. The neighbors commented on what a beautiful natural area it was thru the woods, with a worn mowed trail already there which leads to the great sliding hill. A male resident from the area interjected that if a trail is put thru the woods, it will give kids more placed to hide and a harder place to patrol. He also noted the fire hazard posed by kids smoking marijuana in the woods and carrying on. Chair Norman asked whether the neighbors called the police when kids were causing problems in the woods, as it had never been reported to the City nor the Commission there might be problems there. Noting that only 2 residents showed up, lie asked where the neighbors were with regard to the shelter when the city sent out 500 notices for comment. Norman stated that the City had not decided whether the trail would be put in, nor would the City do so without notifying the neighbors to collect comment on the proposal. Anderson stated that, as the neighbors already acknowledged, the area atop the hill was lovely, and placing access and a bench there would make a nice addition. 'k -aL f Fi dly asked what woudb ` ,gest in-l ,t for the coma uni rail thru th ~ oods to attract undesirable activities or li, ; on the arming or t pond, and/or playground equipme . She felt the City should foc s e mai staining the pond for ice skating instead. Brown interjected that oftentimes, native species and coy make maintaining pond ice difficult and dangerous. He indicated that the ice does not always freeze on Silverwood's pond and he could not afford to lose his equipment thru the ice. He added that the additions proposed for Silverwood Park were not done without input; in fact, the City had collected feedback from neighbors at the park asking for access to the trail and a picnic shelter. He noted that over the years the city has sent notices, provided information on laserfiche, and posted information on the website. He asked what more the City could do to collect the neighbor's comments. Davis stated that if this misbehavior is a constant pattern of behavior the City needs to pull in the police and have them patrol the park areas better. Anderson thanked the neighbors for their well thought out comments and su~(,gcsted they consider submitting an application to serve on the Park Commission to share their thoughts with their community and preserve the things they value. 4. MANOR POND MAINTENANCE Brown noted that, without parroting his memorandum, there are several alternatives to consider for maintenance. While the stormwater pond is functioning as it should and was designed to do, it is part of our park system. From a technical standpoint, the most cost effective solution is the physical solution of dredging, even at the $80, 0000-90.000 price tag; the other solutions are ongoing options. Brown pointed out that, quite simply, we have a stormwater basin in the middle of one of our parks, it is something we arc stuck ,vith but the question is how we can find a compromise. He questioned how the City could keep Manor Pond's stormwater function and balance this with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. While dredging could be a solution, it must be done in the winter, and would allow the pond to be replanted with the desired plant species come spring. Davis interjected that all ponds are overgrown this year due to the lack of rain. While she was all for the dredging solution, she noted that it would negate all of the positive things the Commission had planned for parks for 2010. She stated that she would not be okay with the finds coming from the part: C1P and would instead expect the funding to come from the stormwater fund. Robb questioned whether the Commission really wished to change the purpose of the pond since it was functioning as it was designed to do. Brown pointed out that the pond would continue to function as designed today but the aesthetics would be improved. Chair Norman questioned what the barley sacks were. Brown reported that the barley straw would soak up and decay bacteria which in turn would deter the growth of the undesirable plant species. He stated that the MCWD has used this technique at minimal cost, though he had no personal experience with it. Quinlan asked how long a per - ` -)lution like ' 'l vould last. Brown estimated that the dredging has never been done, nor needed; therefore he would anticipate a minimum of 20 years. One of the neighbors living across the street from the pond stated that they had lived there for 20 years during which time the aesthetics of the pond has declined significantly. They stated that there used to be more wildlife that has all gone now. The neighbors indicated that they, too, had made contact with Dick Osgood about the silt deepening within the pond. Another neighbor asked whether ponds are required to be dredged b ° the tNICWD or DNR, noting that if so, the pond would be significantly improved. Brown interjected that the $80,000 to $90,000 estimate was a soft estimate which could grow significantly if the silt to be removed is deemed hazardous. He asked whether the Commission would be on board with this, noting that the funding N~ ould need to be resolved. Ne urged the Commission to consider the stormwater function versus the aesthetic park function in its determination. The neighbors questioned whether the new developments nearby exacerbated the pond conditions, since the pond had gone dovvnhill since the construction of the additional homes. They also stated that, given the winter use of the pond and their plans to improve the warming house, why wouldn't the City wish to improve the pond. Brown pointed out that the new homes have a pre-treatment hasin of their own which is accomplishing the function intended to pre treat the water before it moves to the Manor Pond and on into Lake Minnetonka. 1 le reminded the group that the drought has played a factor in diminishing conditions. The neighbors in attendance indicated that they would prefer money be spent on the pond than on improving the building. Brown reiterated that the pond is serving its stormwater detention facility function well, and the question remains how the City can improve it aesthetically to improve its appearance in a park setting. Chair Norman asked what plan of action the Commission can decide on. Quinlan stated that he did not see any disagreement on whether it should be done, but more so on ]low to fund it. Anderson interjected the fact that, earlier this evening, Council member Woodruff challenged the Commission to be more aggressive in its park improvement plan and bring items to the Council that they believe should be done as a high priority and leave it to the Council to make the determination of how to fund it. Brown concurred stating that, if the Commission deems the project viable, they should ask the Council how it should be funded and leave it to them to determine where it falls on the stormwater fund priority list rather than wrestling with it themselves. Heck reported that much of the discussion revolved around roads Brown added that a rate study had been undertaken to determine whether the City should up rates to help pay for some projects like the Manor Pond project. In addition, the outlet project at Lake Mary had been voted down, at a price of about $450,000 the Council had to assess the cost benefit analysis. B. Recycling in the Parks The Commission was comfortable with the report. C. Update on Arctic Fever Davis reported that things were on track for Arctic Fever and an upcoming meeting was scheduled soon. D. Update on Silverwood Park Shelter Anderson reported that due to the unforeseen decline in weather conditions it was likely the project would not begin in earnest until spring. If lucky, she predicted they might get the footings poured yet this fall. E. Update on Manor Park Warming House Given the earlier report to the Commission during the joint work session, Anderson reiterated that the Manor Park warming house remodeling project revealed many issues, including but not limited to, the condition and type of foundation, the ADA accessibility of the building and parking lot, the roof, water and sewer connections, and several others. She urged the Commission to consider taking a step bacl: to perform the feasibility or preliminary design work to consider their various options and assemble cost estimates. Brown pointed out that the preliminary design study would provide the Commission with a visioning document, as well as a realistic method for cost estimating, and justification for the design choices. While it would not provide specific designs it would provide a general scoping document to provide to the Council. Davis suggested staff go into the neighborhood deeper to ask people what they want. Given the opinions of the earlier Silverwood neighbors she suggested the Commission host a neighborhood meeting. Chair Norman stated that as a working document the study could accommodate the Commission's intent to provide future programming at Manor. W 7 D -ers questionet C< s leave ding as it is since so many issues need to be resole _ it < c, rpliant and w'rat we want. Heck suggested hosting the neighborhood meeting for all residents north of Highway 7 and east of Excelsior at the park itself in hopes of a better turn out. Quinlan asked whether the conceptual design study could be performed parallel to the neighborhood meeting in order to provide the neighbors with an a la carte menu of items to choose from the preliminary design. Brown questioned whether information gleaned from the neighborhood meeting might be so innovative that it would destroy the conceptual design posed. He urged the Commission to determine its highest and best use scenario and present that to the neighbors, as some of the neighbors may not view programs as one of their goals for the park. Heck noted that, oftentimes, neighbors take more ownership in the park and the building if given the opportunity to help build or design it from the outset. Robb moved, Quinlan seconded, recommending to the City Council that the City go forward with a preliminary design study to show the feasibility of remodeling, options, cost estimates, sketches of elevations, and design ideas to paint a vision of what the Commission wants to see for the Manor Park warming house, not to exceed $5,000. Motion passed 6/0. F. Report on Meeting with City of Chanhassen Regarding Cathcart Park As discussed during the joint meeting earlier, Anderson stated that, while the meeting with the City of Chanhassen went wcl I.. the City of Chanhassen declined the opportunity to partner with the City of Shorewood to make improvements to Cathcart Park. Given budget cuts and the fact that they have 34 of their own parks to upkeep, the City of Chanhassen did not wish to contribute to projects at Cathcart Park. Thee indicated that they would honor the current agreement which requires them to perform landscape maintenance. In addition, they did not view a need for community gardens at the park but would keep the desire for water for the park in the back of their minds as development in the area continues. They questioned the need for many improvements at the park, viewing it as a well rounded amenity in its current state. 6. DISCUSS AND WORK ON PRIORITIZING MASTER PLAN FOR CIP FOR NEXT 5 YEARS The Commission agreed that the Badger Park rink removal and square projects could be removed from the CIP, although several of the other place holders should remain as secondary priority items should funds ever become available. Davis suggested removing the construction of a warming house at Cathcart Park from the CIP, since the Freeman Park rink project will be underway and is in close proximity to Cathcart. She suggested they continue using the portable shelter at Cathcart. 7. DISCUSS HOCKEY ASSOCIATION AND YOUTH GRANT Chair Norman stated that he had concerns regarding the long term implications associated with the maintenance and repair of the chiller units. He questioned the environmental impacts of the propylene glycol. That being said, Norman stated that he liked the idea of rinks at Freeman if c( .n, ssc 1. He urged staff to pursue grants when the ities arose, but did not like the short ar l . -,ation window we were chasing. Quinlan stated that it sounded to hi as if the hockey association was flexible and urged staff to pursue the grant, see what the figures shake out at and allocate a maintenance endowment for the proj ect. Brown pointed out that public works staff would still be required to clear off the rinks after each snowfall, though the smaller equipment could be used on the rinks, as well as the zamboni by the rink attendants. Chair Norman and Davis questioned the cost of constructing two regular lit rinks instead. Anderson stated that staff could pursue the construction of one refrigerated ice rink with adequate sized equipment to allow for the later expansion to two rinks Nv,ith a follow-up grant. She reminded the Commission that the Hennepin County Grant did not allow for a great deal of lead time for this application, which could play to their- favor even though staff will have to rush to compile the required documentation. She stated that staff would need a recommendation from the Commission that staff begin work with the hockey association on the Hennepin County Grant project and move it along for City Council resolution at its October 26`r' meeting. Quinlan moved, Davis seconded, to recommend to City Council that the City apply for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant in partnership with the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association while concurrently investigating additional partners to partner with for the grant. Motion passed 6/0. 8. REVIEW REVISED DONOR POLICY AND PARKS FOR PLACEMENT OF MEMORIAL BENCHES Anderson explained that in recent conversations with Midwest Playscapes, contractor for the Silverwood Shelter project, she learned of a memorial benches program they run with the City of Chanhassen. The program identifies places throughout the park system where which the Commission would like to see benches placed and allows for the public to purchase these benches as memorials to their loved ones. and at no cost to the City. She reviewed the added language to the donor policy for consideration. Edmondson moved, Davis seconded, recommending the City Council review the addition of the memorial benches language to the donor policy. Motion passed 6/0. 9. REVIEW DEMONSTRATION COMMUNITY GARDEN GUIDELINES Anderson reported that the she would be meeting with the garden committee in the coming weeks and asked the Commission for direction with regard to the expansion of the demonstration garden to plots, their opinion for placement, and the language proposed within the revised guidelines. Chair Norman asked whether the demonstration garden and ICA requirement goes away with the expansion to plots. Brown interjected that public works will continue to spray the parks with an herbicide by a licensed contractor, though will continue to avoid the gardens themselves. He urged the OF 7 C, consid( the audience they anticipated showe ' up for demonstration gr 1 - gat the he works also filled the rain barrels material for the fencing. Chair Norman noted that the gardeners had a good harvest throughout the year and donated quite a bit to the ICA food shelves. He believed the South Shore Community Park was an appropriate place for the garden plots, instead of any other park. The rest of the Commission concurred. Davis stated that the herbicide spraying should become a part of the disclaimer within the guidelines. She questioned whether the price for the plots should bell igher since the public works staff must also till the plots in the spring and turn them over in the fall, as well as, manages the rain barrels. Anderson suggested the City retain these duties if they wish to maintain control of the conditions of the gardens themselves. She suggested they set standards for fencing, fence the perimeter and require the gardeners to police themselves inside. Rates of $30 for residents and $50 for non- residents were considered. Anderson indicated she «ould meet with the gardeners, make revisions to the guidelines and report back. Brown suggested 4' high and 16 gauge wire. 10. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR CITY COUNCIL NIF ETING ON OCTOBER 26, 2009 Anderson suggested they settle back into a three month rotation if possible. Davis volunteered as liaison for the October 26t" meeting. 11. NEW BUSINI+.SS Chair Norman suggested staff investigate the Federal stimulus dollar grants for new playground equipincnt. 12. ADJOURN Davis moved, Robb seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of October 13, 2009, at 9:17 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Kristi B Anderson Recorder F Cour wing Parks October 26,2009 From: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Background / Previous Action Manor Pond has been the subject of much discussion over the past years The Park Commission at their October meeting asked that the City Council find funds to dredge Manor Pond, based on the findings and neighborhood input that has been reviewed several times over the past 15 years. The Park Commission would view this as a priority item for the storm water fund. Attached is the information regarding Manor Pond that was in the Park Commission packet Council Action: 5755 u0ui,4ri y i; LUB r1,JAu SH _ r _vvu0D, IV]IN ESOTA 55331-8927 - (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 - www d.shorewood.mn.us ® dtyhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission FROM: Larry Brown Director of Public Works DATE: October 9, 2009 RE: Discussion of the Pond at Manor Pond Manor Park is located at 20600 Manor Road. This park includes a pond that is approximately one acre in surface area. Attachments 1 and 2 are a site location map and topographical map of the subject area. As the Park Commissioners are aware, this pond has been the subject of much discussion. During hot summer months the pond enters "full bloom" with algae, lily-pads and other plant matter. In 2005, the Park Commission partnered with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to perform sampling and testing of the water to determine what specific plant species were present and what may be the least invasive and cost effective means of treating the various plant growths. Attachment 3 is the minutes from the October 11, 2005 Park Commission meeting where various alternatives for the site that were discussed. Unfortunately, the testing that was performed was inconclusive as to the plant species and appropriate treatment. Lacking any other data, the options that have been discussed previously are: Chemical Treatment: Would need to be completed on an annual basis, and is expensive. Biological Treatment: Options such as crayfish were considered. Concerns were raised that such biological treatments may migrate to Lake Minnetonka. Bacterial Solutions: One such method that has potential that is cost effective and easily implemented is the use of bags of barley straw. The bacterial growth associated with the decomposition of this type of straw digests some of the plant matter. Ease of implementation and low costs may make this a viable option. However, this would again involve annual treatment. Aeration: Aeration has a very limited impact immediately around the aerator. Based on observations, it is unlikely that an aerator alone will have much impact, due to the density of the growth. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER to remov€ r t 'f roid c ae sha- >w d th ' jasiv [ The pros of thi is ---'j is a z solution. The cons of this is that the costs ar , e; "d at $80,000 to $90,0 )0. Discussions have also taken place with regard to what is the proper classification of this basin. To date, this pond has been classified and has been acting as a stormwater basin. Despite the issues of aesthetics, the pond is actually performing its duty to clean the water prior to discharge downstream to Lake Minnetonka. An excerpt from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, 2006 states "Ponds rely on physical, biological, and chemical processes to remove pollutants from incoming stormwater runoff. The primary treatment mechanism is gravitational settling of particulates and their associated pollutants as stormwater runoff resides in the pond. Another mechanism for the removal of pollutants (particularly nutrients) is uptake by algae and aquatic vegetation. Volatilization and chemical activity can also occur, breaking down and assimilating a number of other stormwater contaminants such as hydrocarbons. " Certainly, this is not meant to dismiss the aesthetic issues associated with the algae and other plants within this pond, located within a park. However, this stormwater pond is actually functioning as it should, as a stormwater basin. Trying to look at all possibilities, staff examined if this basin could be converted to a high quality wetland or other aesthetic feature without having a stormwater component, as part of this basin. Unfortunately equivalent land would have to be acquired to construct a similar pond within the same watershed, in addition to relocation of stormwater piping systems. This does not appear to be financially feasible or practical. Therefore, assuming that the stormwater component of this basin remains, how can the basin be improved over the long term, to bring some aesthetic qualities to the basin to exist within the public park? After considerable discussion of the alternatives, staff believes that dredging of the pond is the most practical solution. This solution provides a long term solution, and provides an opportunity to create varied depths of water to provide the proper environment for various plant species that can be managed. Staff will present this item in detail at the Park Commission meeting on Tuesday, and will discuss what steps may be available to the Park Commission, should you decide on modifying this basin. ATTACHMENT I SITE LOCATION MAP 71,71,17, a + a ~ r i g s ~ 6, a a \ a a as ? \ a m Lkl .a ATTACHMENT 2 TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP 5, r tK PONS} WATER QUALITY TESTING - (Park Commissioner e_ Westerlund presented the Manor Park Pond water quality monitoring results from the summer. To review, the Commission had visited the site during its annual park tour and agreed that the pond's water quality should be addressed via monitoring over the sununer. At the outset, the Conmssion believed that the pond suffered from algae blooms and free floating green algae, which blocks the suns rays from reaching the bottom of the lake and decomposes at the bottom using up the little oxygen that exists for the plant life and forming muck. In an effort to measure the total phosphorous, both dissolved and particulate, chlorophyll a, and the amount of free floating algae in the water, Westerlund agreed to collect samples over the summer. The samples Westerlund collected would check water clarity, how thick the algae growth was, and the dissolved oxygen at the top and bottom. Westerlund shared slides from the various testing dates; June 2°d the lake was fairly clear with lily pads and duckweed, though difficult to measure water quality due to the thick growth of macrophytes, weeds. On 7/14/05, Westerlund pointed out that mats of filamentous algae had begun to form covering the top in a green slimy algae. On 8/6/05, the entire surface of the pond was covered with the filamentous algae and decomposing algae covered with gas bubbles. Westerlund stated that she presented these facts to the Linulologist, who deduced that the pond was not suffering from a green algae problem, as first thought, but from a filamentous algae problem, or macrophyte problem. A difficult problem to solve, Westerlund presented several options. First, she proposed a chemical fix, which is often costly and requires toxic herbicides. Next, is a biological solution using crayfish to rid the pond of the macrophytes, but these may creep into the watershed, thus creating a new problem. A bacterial solution using bags of barley straw could prove to be cost effective and easily implemented. Finally, a physical solutions such as dredging, an expensive alternative; aeration, effective only near the aerated area; or shading, a cheap and relatively easy way of dying the water in order to shade out the growth. On slides from 8/31/05, Westerlund pointed out that there were several nice stands of native plants around the shoreline of the pond. However, she also shared slides of the excessive geese fecal material in and around the children's plays area, which poses a public health threat. She suggested that the Commission pursue its original plan to plant native vegetation as a buffer between the play area and the pond in order to deter the geese. This barrier of plants would be helpful, As the phosphorous is already in the sediment of the pond and reloads it, Westerlund asked the Conunission for their thoughts on the proposed solutions. Hensley asked what the goal for the pond was. Westerlund stated that, initially, the Commission chose to address the water quality issue, but also wished to use the native plantings buffer as a lakeshore restoration example. Chair Davis asked how the new development would impact the stormwater volume. Brown stated that there would be ample pretreatment at the development site. He pointed out that the outlet to the pond would be improved as the City brings a watermain past the pond. While there is not a great deal of capacity in a 3' deep pond, filtering options are necessary to improve the stagnant waters and quality. ATTACHMENT 3 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES Kc s-y vj.milented that, to him, it sounded as if the pond was striving to become a wetland, as opposed to a pond at all. Loheit asked if the health issues could be treated hand and hand with the water quality and aesthetics. While separate issues, Westerlund maintained that each could be addressed simultaneously. Young stated that he would like to see a treatment plan to attack each of the options for spring 2006. Chair Davis agreed that planting a buffer would both deter the geese and improve aesthetics and could be done so with a limited investment. Westerlund believed that, with an expert's assistance, the planting project could be completed for just a few thousand dollars. Brown stated that the Kestral Group put together a plan for the Gideon Glen project and could be approached to do so for Manor Park. Hensley stated that he believed barley straw bags might be the best options for the City, as an inexpensive alternative, to the others out there. Young moved that the Commission endorse Westerlund's explorations of plantings, collection of estimates and proposals for those, as well as, barley straw bales, and report back to the commission to resolve the Manor Park Pond issues for spring 2006. Loheit seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Brown suggested that Westerlund put together a brief article for the newsletter, as the study and proposals for the Manor Park Pond are both interesting and informative. 6. BUCKTHORN BUST EVENT Saturday, November 5`", 2005, from 9 am - 12 pm. Brown reported that 7 people had signed up so far, in addition to Commissioners and White. He noted that the weed wrenches had arrived and would be available for use after the event. Conunissioners Davis, Farniok, and possibly Westerlund and Loheit promised to attend the event. 7. PARKS FOUNDATION ART IN THE PARKS VOLUNTEER SIGN UP Young stated that the Foundation was looking for additional assistance, though he would be volunteering for the event, also scheduled for November 51" 8. DETERMINE DATE FOR NOVEMBER PARK COMMISSION MEETING Brown indicated that he would investigate the opportunity to hold the meeting at the Southshore Community Center on November 15`". Brown reported that the Concessionaire has expressed interest in running the Concessions for 2006, noting that the city received $1500 for the 2005 concessions. Description: Manor Park warming house improvements. Background / Previous Action At the Park Commissions September meeting, the Commission directed staff to determine the steps needed to bring water and sewer to the warming house, and investigate options for the remodeling of Manor Park warming house. Kristi met with Building Inspector Joe Pazandak, Public Works Director Larry Brown and Ellen Luken of Luken Architecture. Ellen Luken recommended that the following items be addressed before going forward with the improvements: a) the level of insulation in the walls and roof, b) does the building sit on footings, foundation, slab, expansion joints etc., and c) what depth in the concrete blocks. Kristi will be meeting again with Building Inspector Joe Pazandak regarding these items. Ellen also mentioned that the facility is not ADA accessible. It was estimated that the project could run as high as $350 per square foot for concrete construction, whereas wood is less expensive, and you will be working with the existing structure. The CIP has $50,000 allotted for the remodel but could grow as high as $150, 000. With this in mind, the Park Commission, at their October meeting, voted to recommend the City Council go forward with a preliminary design study to show the feasibility of remodeling options, cost estimates, sketches of elevations and design ideas for Manor Park warming house. The costs for these preliminary designs should not exceed $5,000. This study would include accurate estimates, design, code deficiencies, and phasing plans that could be done over a period of time and intergraded into the CIP 5 year plan. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council approves going forward with the preliminary design study for Manor Park warming house and that the costs of the preliminary designs should not exceed $5,000. Council Action: r~ - 5755 Country Club Road e Shore-c -,d,1 $ iesota 55331 9 952-474-3236 Fax: 952-474-0128 a www.ci.shorewood.mmus e cityhall a ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission Brian Heck, City Administrator From: Kristi Anderson, CRR Twila Grout - Park Secretary Date: October 7, 2009 Re: Manor Park Warming House Improvement Update At it's September meeting, the Park Commission directed staff to investigate remodeling options for the Manor Park warming house, to obtain general pricing, and to begin the process of discovery to determine what steps would need to be taken in order to bring water and sewer (ie restrooms) to the warming house, give it a facelift, and upgrade the facility. Having met with both Building Inspector, Joe Pazendak and Public Works Director, Brown to discuss this item further, I made an appointment with an architectural firm the city has worked with in the past, Luken Architecture. Ellen Luken met me at the site and made several interesting observations and recommendations based on the Commission's desire to add on to the facility to include restrooms and update the structure. She encouraged the City to take its time to get the right answers to several key questions she raised that should be addressed before proceeding with a project of this potential magnitude. Due to the fact that all of the engineering costs, including the need for mechanical, civil, and electrical come into play, the cost of the remodel will multiply in order to bring water to the warming house. Luken estimated that nearly 20% of a project can oftentimes be spent on those items. She recommended that several questions be addressed before the city proceeds, including, to what level is the current facility insulated in the walls and roof, does it sit on footings, foundation, slab, expansion joints etc, and what depth is the concrete block - answers to which will be forthcoming in follow-up meetings with Joe Pazendak. In addition, Luken pointed out that the current facility is Code deficient, in that it is not ADA accessible with stoops, ramps, or accessible parking spots. If the facility is to incorporate restrooms into the interior, other utility and heating issues arise. Although it would likely be cheaper to use wood to work from the existing structure, Luken questioned the vandalism levels that might be contended with. She estimated that the project could run up as high as $350 per square foot for concrete construction. The allotted $50,000 remodel could grow as high as $150,000 in a hurry. A.__ Sloe indicate AA~c ,..e would try to put together some additional questions and rough price estimates to be shared at the meeting Tuesday, Staff Recommendation: Description/Background/Previous Action The City was approached by the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association (MYHA) to consider partnering on the development of two refrigerated outdoor hockey rinks. MYHA presented information from the City of St. Paul which has three such facilities. They discussed the option of locating the sheets of ice at Freeman Park thereby making Freeman Park a year round amenity. When meeting with MYHA, the City was also looking at and considering possibilities for application to Hennepin County for funds under the newly created Youth Sports Grant and we felt the MYHA proposal fit well with the Grant opportunity and began working with MYHA on development of the Grant proposal. The MYHA presented information regarding their proposal at the joint park commission and city council meeting held October 13, 2009 and then the park commission continued discussions at their regular October 13 meeting. While there were questions on the details of the operation and maintenance of the proposed facility, the park commission voted to recommend application for the grant. Attached is the grant application requesting $400,000 from the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant to support the construction of one and possibly two refrigerated outdoor ice rinks and associated equipment to maintain the facilities, to be located at Freeman Park. The MYHA board needs to review and endorse the proposal as well. Options 1. Authorize staff to proceed with the grant application 2. Direct staff to modify the grant application and apply 3. Deny the request to apply for the grant Recommendation Staff recommends the Council authorize staff to proceed with submittal of the grant application to support the construction of one and possibly two outdoor refrigerated hockey rinks. If awarded, the City still has the option to not accept the award if certain components do not fall into place, such as funding from other partners or commitment to assist in the maintenance of the facilities. Council Action: A R17 _ EECUTI EE ENT ti rY AT F E 1Ai -A WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood desires to develop, in partnership with the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, an outdoor ice facility at Freeman Park for the purpose of benefiting youth and athletics; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County, via its Youth Sports Grant Program, provides for capital funds to assist local government units of Hennepin County for the development of sport or recreation facilities, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood: I. The City of Shorewood is requesting $400,000 from the Hennepin County Legacy Grant program for the development and construction of refrigerated outdoor ice facilities at Freeman Park in Shorewood. II. The estimated cost of developing the facility is $863,800 and Shorewood will work with various partners including the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association (MYNA) to provide the remaining $463,800. II. The City of Shorewood agrees to own, operate, and take responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of the outdoor ice facility at Freeman Park in conjunction with MYNA, and will ensure it is used for its intended purpose for the functional life of the facility, which is estimated to be 20 years. III. The City of Shorewood agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with Hennepin County for the specific purpose of constructing a sport or recreational facility and long-term program direction. IV. That the City of Shorewood City Administrator is authorized and directed to execute said application and serve as official liaison with Hennepin County or its authorized representative. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SHOREWOOD this 26th day of October, 2009. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK s 5 S . ~ a N i ~ s a ~ ~ O > ~ v ~ ~ PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FOOTBALL -Q- PROPOSED ICE RINK TREE LINE o-- FE SE WATERNAIN -a-- SANITARY SEWER PLAY VOLLEYBPL AREA IW, PARK [AL PLAY AREA TER SOFTBALL E EMAN P K Y O a c: O TREELINE SOFTBALL INE SOFTBALL 1 1 PARKING NE 1 PROPERTY LINE /TlElLINE PROPERTY LINE iREELINE INE a-_ PROPERTY LINE PARKING ET rRm xa„ as Aeo-w ® 'pt, , of tl D. oI P.bO, - W ,,k. i En9m<,dny 5755 C-1, CIU6 Rd ® Sh,,ewood KIN. 55331 952.960.7900 h~l Men o'4.bdm FREEMAN PARK 6000 EUREKA RD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 952.960.7900 hq,N SMM FREEMAN PARK 10/21,2009 1 xm As Noted d 1 The Project will be an addition of up to two chilled ice rinks and necessary Appurtenances. The existing utilities are located south of the proposed project and will not be affected by the addition. Proposed plan includes an addition to the Eddy Station building to house the ice resurfacer. Each intrusion and mitigation is listed below. Intrusion 1. Grass open space 2. Surface water runoff 3. Utilities 4. Softball Fence Mitigation Statement 1. The proposed plan exchanges grass open space for an amenity of up to two ice rinks. The new rinks will provide a longer skating season with a consistent quality of ice. 2. The proposed project will treat storm water runoff to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit requirements. The project may require the installation of a storm sewer. 3. The proposed project will require connection to existing utilities. 4. The fencing for the softball field will need to be moved. L_tters J Intent: The City of Shorewood, in partnership with the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association (MYHA), do hereby provide this letter of intent (LOI) to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for the purpose of a good faith commitment of a combined $470,000, ($270,000 from the MYHA, private donations, additional grants and $200,000 plus in-kind disbursements from the City of Shorewood) to support the HYSP Grant of $400,000 to build and maintain an outdoor refrigerated facility at Freeman Park. The signers of this LO1 are authorized to present for final approval to the City of Shorewood's City Council and the MYHA Board of Directors to finalize this commitment within the scope of the powers authorized by them. The commitment is offered with the following understandings: The City of Shorewood and the Minnetonka Youth hockey Association will formally enter into an agreement detailing the shared use facility in regard to all elements of use, maintenance and promotion to increase participation in hockey and skating in the community. The shared commitment would come from these sources: 1. $270,000 the MYHA budget, fundraising and additional grants 2. $200,000 from the City of Shorewood CIP, supplemental grant applications, City Funds as deemed appropriate, and in-kind contributions 3. Maintenance agreement based upon agreed terms The City of Shorewood and MYHA support the construction of the Refrigerated Hockey Rink Project at Freeman Park and do hereby execute this LO1 this day of 2009. By By Its Operations & Maintenance Agreement to be determined. The City of Shorewood will be the main party responsible for the operation and maintenance of up to two refrigerated outdoor ice rinks at Freeman Park. The rinks will be operated under the direction of Shorewood Public Works Department and will be supervised by the Director of Public Works, who anticipants hiring a seasonal employee dedicated to clearing, blowing, sweeping, shoveling and edging rinks upon snowfalls. Maintenance funds for the rinks will be provided by the parks operating budget. This budget is approved by the City Council on an annual basis. Attached is the annual maintenance budget that shows the amount of each maintenance item that is expected annually. This budget will be supplemented by an operations and maintenance agreement with the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association that spells out who is responsible for specific maintenance items. Currently, Shorewood operates and maintains two hockey rinks, two open rinks and one pond that are cleared for skating, at three different parks. These rinks are open Mid-December through Mid-February. The refrigerated rinks will be open November through Mid-March. The rinks will be open each day from 3:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sunday Noon- 9:00 p.m. The rinks will also be open all day from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on school off days. The rinks will be surfaced to allow for year round use and recreation which could entail inline skating, basketball and/or soccer which may lead to other maintenance requirements. This project promotes the expansion of a recreational refrigerated ice facility at Freeman Park. This is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan which reflects construction of ice rinks at Freeman Park. The Park contains a high- tech and accessible warming house facility with concession operations, Eddy Station, which was built over 10 years ago with the intent ice rinks be installed at a future date. Due to financial restraints this has not come to fruition to date, though we have an opportunity now to rectify this with the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association and the Hennepin Youth Sports Program. Freeman Park is a 55 acre community park which serves the greater south lakes communities of Shorewood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay, Deephaven, and Greenwood, as well as, parts of Minnetonka, Victoria, Chanhassen, and St Bonifacius. This park currently contains many desirable features including picnic shelters, a warming house, baseball fields, softball fields, soccer fields and trails which provide for both organized and unstructured uses for three seasons. Supported by a large parking area and surrounded by wooded trails and natural areas, this Park begs for winter use which would not impose on nearby neighbors. In addition, the intent would be for the rinks to be surfaced for year round in-line skating and the installation of hoops to support half court basketball activities. As shown within the master plan, there is considerable space allocated for the construction of up to two rinks within the designated space. The City of Shorewood has demonstrated a successful history of operating and maintaining sports and recreational facilities and scheduling of said facilities via their Independent Park Coordinator services within the City for nearly 10 years. There are currently no ice rinks within the area served by this park. The nearest rink in or outside the City limits is Cathcart Park which contains a single rink served by a portable warming house. This rink provides a space for pick- up games and free skate; however, is in need of repair. The City, in partnership with the Hockey Association, believe the cost benefits to provide a state-of-the-art refrigerated ice facility at Freeman Park, a large community park serving a vast population, far outweigh upgrading a smaller neighborhood park with limited parking and access. The proposed Project will benefit and contribute to recreational services as follows: 1. Provide facilities for the Minnetonka Hockey Association, and other users, for in-house league practice and games-there is nothing like this facility in the west metro 2. Provide dependable long-term ice facilities for ongoing programming and instruction 3. Allow the MYHA an opportunity to provide affordable ice time to more youth and host potential tournaments 4. Allow for greater capacity of users in the Hennepin County area to meet increased demand and provide for the needs of our youth population for activities and amenities 5. Do away with negative barriers to participate in recreation including gender, skill level, and culture associated with limited availability and expense 6. Ability to enhance physical fitness and community wellness, as well as, strengthen community partnerships by responding to growing needs In total, the facility will serve the entire community with the opportunity to enjoy an outstanding outdoor experience in organized and non-organized outdoor activity. Total cost pr.-' "ar the construction of up to two Refrigerated Ice Rink Facilities is $863,800. This cost is inclusive of desig:i and engineering estimates, construction, site work, materials, fees, finance costs, and contingency based on the capacity for up to two rinks provided matching funds fall into place. Funding for the Project is planned to be split as follows: Participant Dollar Amount Percentage Hennepin County Sports Program $400,000 46% Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association $263,800 31% City of Shorewood $200,000 23% Total $863,800 100% Other Grants applying for = confirmed) In an effort to leverage funds from other sources, the City Council has encouraged staff to pursue additional support within the community. The City is currently researching other funding avenues. The Hockey Association is pursuing sports related grants via STAR and Herb Brooks donors and private donations. Volunteer and In-Kind Contributions: The land is currently a part of the Shorewood Park system and the City of Shorewood Public Works Department will provide ongoing direction and supervision of construction and installation of the facility. Volunteer Labor: Many volunteers within the partner groups and beyond will contribute time toward the project in research, planning, end design, end of construction documentation, awarding construction contracts, and fundraising activities. MYHA members currently contribute over 7,000 volunteer hours during the season in addition to hundreds of additional hours off season. MYHA would contribute volunteer hours to the growth and participation of hockey within Hennepin County utilizing the outdoor facility. Economic Impact Analysis: As a result of current socio-economic conditions, many local youth have limited opportunity to participate in sports offered in the community. Many families are unable to afford the high start up costs of equipping their children for youth sports, in particular, youth hockey, one of the most popular sports in the region and community. The hockey program brings enjoyment to a large group of youth but disappointment to those who sit and watch their friends form the bleachers because they cannot afford to participate. The City of Shorewood and the Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association would like to give a larger group of youth the same opportunity by providing a high quality community based outdoor facility that increases winter physical activity, and lessons the cost of hockey thus increasing participation. By developing a partnership between the MYHA and City of Shorewood, we will be exemplifying the model for other communities that recapture the "More Play, Less Pay" philosophy. P C r !r k b . ik sees I, y, re erated ill allow for ongo'6 sled activities, pro mm ing, and events fi r stern metro for up to! 'x months. 2010 Programming, Events, and Sample Facility Rental Fees. Or,ganization/League Participants Season Potential Fee MYHA 700 Nov 1-March 30 $10 user fees/per player per season Open Hockey 2,000 " " Skating Clubs - Figure Skaters " " " f! Beginner Skating Lessons 200 it (1 11 ,P Adult Leagues 500 " MOMS on Ice 500 " Arctic Fever Event 200 January 2010 community event Supervised Teen Nights 1000 Monthly Event $10 participation fee Concession Operations 10,000 Nov 1- March 30 expenditures on snacks - % back Tournament Reservations 5 per year Nov 1- March 30 $810 Facility Rentals for parties etc 5 per year $360 _ ? Two Rink Total S ite reparati n: Site design/soil engineering 5000 5000 10000 Excavation & fill 30000 30000 60000 Concrete floor system 86000 86000 172000 On site trailer 400 400 TOTAL SITE PREP 121400 121400 242800 Rink and Related Cost: Rink board and fence 33000 33000 66000 Za m bo n i 35000 0 35000 Storage Facility 50000 0 50000 Lighting System 20000 20000 40000 Chiller System and Install 400000 30000 430000 TOTAL R&R COST 538000 83000 621000 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSE: 659400 204400 863800 ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSE: Rink #1 Rink #2 Two Rink Total Electricity 8000 8000 16000 Chiller Maintenance 1000 0 1000 Rink Attendant ($15/hour) 12285 0 12285 Zamboni Expense 5000 0 5000 Misc. Cost 1000 1000 2000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 27285 1000 28285 ® Revenue Participant Fees - Non Taxable $10 per player Pr Year One f $19,000 ~ Year Two $19,050 Year Three $19,100 Year Four $19,120 tear Five $19,200 Facilty Rental (5) $360 $360 $360 $360 $360 Tournaments (5) $810 $810 $810 $810 $810 Total Revenue: $20,170 $20,220 $20,270 $20,290 $20,370 Cost of Events/Programs Events/Program $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Total Cost: $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Gross Margin: $20,670 $20,720 $20,770 $20,790 $20,870 Operating Expenses Regular Full-time wages $ 13,725 $ 13,400 $ 14,280 $ 14,565 $ 14,860 Part-time wages $ 7,440 $ 7,626 $ 7,812 $ 7,998 $ 8,184 Contractual Services Wages $ 2,000 $ 2,100 $ 2,200 $ 2,300 $ 2,400 Repairs / Maintenance $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Utilities $ 5,000 $ 5,100 $ 5,100 $ 5,200 $ 5,200 Telephone $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 550 $ 550 Depreciation of Equipment $ 31,050 $ 31,050 $ 31,050 $ 31,050 $ 31,050 Supplies/Misc. $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 Total Operating Expenses: $ 63,755 $ 63,816 $ 64,982 $ 65,763 $ 66,344 Total Operating Income: ($43,085) ($43,096) ($44,212) ($44,973) ($45,474; Notification of Hennepin County Youth Grant Award January 1, 2010 Shorewood Park Commission recommends to City Council to January 12, 2010 approve completing plans and specifications Shorewood City Council approves completing plans and specifications January 25, 2010 Shorewood City Council approves the plans and specifications March 8, 2010 Opening Bids April 28, 2010 Shorewood Park Commission recommends award of bid May 11, 2010 Shorewood City Council awards bid May 24, 2010 Construction starts Mid-June, 2010 Awarded Grant Funds August 1, 2010 Construction completed September 1, 2010 Rinks ready to use End of October/First of November, 2010 Lo Brian . !ck, City Adr ° iistrator ailing Address 5755 Country Club Road City, State, Zip Code Shorewood, MN 55331 Telephone Number 952-960-7900 Email Address cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Minnesota Tax ID Number 8021972 Federal Employee ID Number 41-6005142 Name of Project Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rinks Authorized Representative Brian Heck, City Administrator Mailing Address 5755 Country Club Rd City, State, Zip Code Shorewood, MN 55331 Telephone Number 952-960-7905 Email Address bheck@ci.shorewood.mn.us EXECUTION IN WITNESS THEREOF, the respondent has caused this application to be executed on the day of .2009. Legal Name of Respondent ENDORSEMENT By Its I hereby certify that the local government unit identified hereby is willing and able to undertake the project as described in this application. By Date Its C Council I Parks October 26, 2009 From: Twila Grout, Park Secretary CC: Kristi Anderson, Community Rec. Resources Description: Revising the donor policy and adding a memorial bench program. Background / Previous Action At the October meeting, the Park Commission voted to recommend the donor policy be revised to include the memorial bench program. Kristi Anderson of Community Rec Resources learned of the memorial bench program through Midwest Playscapes. This program allows the public to purchase memorial benches for their loved ones, at no cost to the city. The donor may choose from the designed sites listed in the donor policy as to where they would like the bench placed. The cost of the memorial bench is $1,000 and is guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years. Attached is the revised donor policy for review. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the addition of the memorial bench language to the donor policy. Council Action: A~n } i 5755 Country Club Ror 1 + Shorewood, Mir tesota 5,331 o 952®474-3236 Fax: 952-474-0128 + www.ci.shorewood.mmus e cityhallre_i~ei.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission Brian Heck, City Administrator From: Kristi Anderson, CRR Twila Grout - Park Secretary Date: October 1, 2009 Re: Revised Donor Policy The Park Commission, at it's July meeting, approved revised changes to the Donor Policy. Since that time, there has been further discussion regarding donation of memorial benches within the parks and Southshore Community Center. The bench could be purchased through Midwest Playscapes (the City of Chanhassen also uses this bench for their memorial bench, and work with Midwest Playscapes). The bench does come in a variety of colors, if gray is not the preferred color. A revised Donor Policy along with a listing of designated placement of the benches within the parks is attached for the Park Commissions review and discussion. Staff Recommendation: Upon review, staff recommends that the Park Commission support the proposed changes to the Donation Request Form as well as, a listing of designations for bench placement, and send the item onto City Council for their approval. -j-IL Table o Contents Section: 1) Purpose 2) Definitions 3) Recognition Methods 4) Process for Donation & Recognition Submittals 5) Donor Agreement Guidelines 6) Methods of Payment - Donor Responsibility 7) Naming 8) Stewardship I . The City of Shorewood seeks to recognize donors who wish to support the City through distinguished effort or substantial gift. These guidelines have been developed to give staff a benchmark when individuals or business' approach the City and would like to provide a gift or donation. This policy determines procedures for recognizing financial contributions, donated amenities or projects, also noted in this policy as a "Substantial Gift", found within Shorewood. 2. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this policy, "Substantial Gift" is defined as a contribution of at least 50% of the estimated cost of an amenity or project for: (a) new construction, remodeling, field improvements or renovation of facilities within City parks or infrastructure; (b) developing new real property, i.e. park buildings, structures (pavilions, warming houses, shelters, plazas, etc.), architectural elements, real estate, etc.; or (c) replacement of an existing, unnamed facility or landmark that requires substantial renovation at the time of the gift. 3. RECOGNITION METHODS Recognition may be in honor of individuals, groups of individuals, or corporations "Method of donor recognition must be agreed upon and formally approved by City Council prior to signing the donor agreement. (a) The nature of the donation will assist in determining the type of recognition. (b) A plaque, or other negotiated signage, may be placed on a building, room, or facility to recognize a Donor. The design, wording, size, and location of the plaque require the approval of the City Council. (c) A donor recognition or memorial plate may be affixed to routine furniture items. The City shall specify the size and location of the donor plate and the donor will pay for the plate and engraving. The City shall approve the wording of the donor plate and affix the plate to the furniture. 2 (d) Plaques or rr for tree Is. (e) Donations of a routine nature (e.g., park benches and other furniture) shall be reviewed and approved, if appropriate, by the Public Works Director and/or the Park Commission. f_~L. Memorial Bench . A inei-norial be,nclr ni av be dc(ii- Plod in tlic, dotlator's pub-1 of choice or the Southshon C t`cnter. r The donor cauu choose from < tc plaii N itliiti a park wh(ch_designa_tes tF,e ,s. 1 eriches will be cojims_... "oni a concr _ - - ofa hi=gh duality- dcs!10 1 lie beech will he ~cu rcd in a concrete tact by the Cite and/or its contractor. For a laclge recto niticjq refer to 3(c). No additional inc ~ statties ctc shall be Ile _ imittcd_at (li I_ r_of tt- The cost of 'a tulernou°ial betic;h 1000. A bench is - ggamnteed_ft.)r_a._tn-iriim2trtri of 10 ve- rs. See attached picture of bench. (f) The donor shall pay for the delivery and installation of the amenity and/or donor recognition plaque or plate. (g) The option of funding the amenity for life will include a built-in maintenance reserve of up to 50% of said value to be put in an endowment for the ongoing care, upkeep, and maintenance of said amenity. (h) There is no exclusive right to sole recognition in cases of expansion or other structural modifications. Recognition/Donation carries no power of direction to the City on matters of schedule, design, furnishing, or priority of use. 4. PROCESS FOR DONATION RECOGNITION SUBMITTALS Any proposal for recognition and donation shall be made through a formal submission process via the Donation Acceptance and Indemnification Request Form to the City. Proposals must have the written approval of the person or corporate representative for whom the recognition is to be given. If the person is deceased, the approval of the family or designated representative should be obtained. If the person is deceased and there is not family or a designated representative, recognition can proceed through the submission process. Procedures governing a1 . < recognition proposals, of a non-routine nature, are set forth below. Exception's fro--- policy requirements must be authorized by the City Council in advance of the donation. Step One: A Schematic design and details will be submitted to the City of Shorewood and shall include the following elements: (a) A scaled architectural drawing or plan drawn to scale to be completed by a landscape architect or civil engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota, and would include: 1. site plan 2. architectural details 3. landscape plan 4. tree preservation plan 5. sign or memorial detail Please note: The Schematic design phase of the submission process will be overseen by the appropriate departments of the City of Shorewood according to established procedure. Proposed recognition (ie. plaque or nameplate) should be designated at the time of submission of schematic design, as found in Step One, a5. Recognition may not be allowed after the amenity is implemented except by Council review and approval. Step Two: After submission of the schematic design, the individual, group, or corporation will formally present their request to the City. Step Three: Upon approval by City Council, the Donor Agreement will be signed and kept on record with the City of Shorewood. 5. DONOR AGREEMENT GUIDELINES Donors or donor representatives must sign a donor agreement that delineates terms of the contributions, unless donor wishes to remain anonymous. The Donor Agreement will include the following: (1) In the event of demolition of a structure, its recognition or any part of it shall be subject to new recommendations. (2) The style of recognizing structures and facilities should adhere to City ordinances. (3) The Director of Public Works or designated staff person is responsible for overseeing compliance with full policy requirements. 4 (6) Improvements will be considered and evaluated based on ongoing maintenance requirements that accompany the request: A base level of service will be provided - (Example; maintaining fields, which includes, but is not limited to, mowing the grass, dragging fields daily, lining fields, aerating and fertilizing fields annually). Additional ongoing care and maintenance or funding the amenity for life requires an accompanying endowment. 6. METHOD OF PAYMENT AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DONATION Donations associated with recognition proposals can be made by the donor in whole (if a tangible donation) or have cash escrow for the full amount of the donation and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction of amenity or project. Individual donors for tangible items may be required to gift a portion of their contribution through an irrevocable trust or a contractual bequest mechanism to be applied for the ongoing maintenance and care of said donation in perpetuity. Should the City fail to use the funds for the stated purpose in the Donor Agreement, the funds shall be returned to the donor. 7. NAMING The City of Shorewood reserves the ability to commemorate long-term service to the community or to a distinguished person, if desired, and such recognition is contingent upon Council review and approval. The City of Shorewood will consider naming opportunities for outstanding contributions, such as a parcel of land or new donation. Donations of this nature will follow all city ordinances and guidelines from an operations perspective. Naming a building in honor of a person who has given extraordinary distinguished service to the city will not normally be considered until after his/her substantive formal relationship with the city has ended. The name used should normally be the family name, or in the case of a corporate entity, the shortest possible name. Unless the City Council determines otherwise, a name may 5 be us - ice. Shorewood City Council has final approval can any naming desinati r s. Thank you for your donation. 6 Badger Park ❖ Bench by Football Field / Pond viewing area ❖ Southshore Community Center ❖ Bench angled for tennis viewing and playground Cathcart Park ❖ Bench angled for tennis viewing and playground ❖ Bench under tree line near activities such as Bocce, Shuffle board games ❖ Bench by baseball field Freeman Park ❖ Benches located by wetland and along trails Bench located at the south end of park near access closure ❖ Bench along soccer area Manor Park ❖ One or two benches around pond ❖ Bench by Tennis Court/ Trail Silverwood Park ❖ Benches throughout rustic trail /sledding hill ❖ Two benches by pond South Shore Community Park ❖ Bench by skateboarding - B a : _e a ~4'I L t, t, 1 ' --Il x' belm- I ~~S 4_ ~l~.~'.€. Iltl, O (I-C"Al t. h it l'" ;l ) . ~'~1!"t:C`f Decon'Itive gro(- ~~e s in, the i mcl 111111 ti C lc ~(-,A i at id convey the effect of 1c ()-s have a sculptured look. '1Ihesc Aso ml,ail-JI) c, with ~A polished seat and hm--k. rI lac 1 wnc he fIr in parks and popular choice ~ l€> 1 X11 il1 l il-I '(11 Id other recreational arcas. _1 q K S BB72GC P CITY E S..6 PLANNINC b .l -NG TUESDAY, 6 B_ :7-_F_ 2009 MINUTES U C R Pi A A G sf 1. D M ul cl th st se is C 7a Nielsen minimum 11 a planning wo: OT Q c t t i~-, c faracter of the community. For example, the lots on the western side perspective of the City are located ii4**:**:**4*:*.*O***Iie-,ici,c zoning district. If a house were to be taken down on one of those lots it would make no sense to ri'Clilace it with five units. Prior to this meeting he and some of the Planning Commissioners had an informal discussion about identifying some areas in the City that could possibly be suited for somewhat higher densities. It's possible that some type mixed use development with a higher density residential component could be done at the northwest corner of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection. The Comp Plan already indicates that if/when the area where Xcel Energy is located is redeveloped it could be a mixed use development with a higher density residential component. The Commissioners did not think it made sense to have high density areas in existing low density areas. V Nielsen ' senior housing could make sense for the higher density rc ' i< " developments because the will be an increasing market for senior housing in the future. He expl ` -,d the Comp Plan already allows for senior housing to be higher density. Senior housing may also address the Met Council's requirement to have the Comp Plan acknowledge the need for 53 units of affordable housing in the next 11 years. The Commissioners discussed a number of limiting factors. There is not a City-wide water system throughout the City; it would not be possible to build high-density developments without it. There is little mass transit in the City and that limits high density developments, in particular multiple family housing. Nielsen recommended Staff prepare draft text that would explain the City's position on its land use plan and identify a few locations that could potentially be suitable for high density housing. Hopefully that would satisfy the Met Council. Commissioner Hasek requested that the Planning Commission be provided with any information that Staff would use in justifying the City's position. For example, the fact that there are only two mass transit corridors in the City is a constraint. Director Nielsen explained one of the biggest constraining factors is the City is 94 percent developed. Not much of the remaining 6 percent exists on State Highway 7 or County Road 19. The largest parcel of land in the City is approximately 20 acres in size with 11 acres of it being wetland, and the remainder is zoned for half acre lots. The property is located near Vine Hill Road. The traffic in the Vine Hill Road and Old Market Road area is already too heavy; high density development would only exacerbate the problem. There are two larger parcels of land at the end of Mill Street that are quite developable. There has been discussion about the Minnetonka Country Club property and the potential to redevelop part of .the property as higher density residential while leaving a portion of it for a nine-hole golf course. He noted one of the maps included in the Comp Plan shows any parcel of land in the City which is greater than two acres. Nielsen stated the Met Council has asked the City to project what larger lots would likely be split into smaller lots between now and 2030. The land use map will be modified to include the date 2030 and Staff will just do some straight line projections to satisfy the request while knowing full well the projections have little value to the City. The Met Council also wants the City to prepare a sewer map which reflects all of the Met Council's interceptors on it and to project the City's sewage flow to each interceptor based on future development or redevelopment. Chair Geng asked if the City responds to the Met Council's directive would it become part of the Comp Plan. Director Nielsen indicated it would. Nielsen explained the text in the Comp Plan will qualify that the Met Council required the City to project when the lots splits would occur, and that the City has no way of knowing when that will happen even though it made the projections. Commissioner Arnst asked if the requests were actually mandates. Nielsen stated the letter from the Met Council stating the City's Comp Plan is "incomplete for review" usually would mean that some information is missing. In this instance the Comp Plan is also being called incomplete because it doesn't say what the Met Council wants it so say. Nielsen commented that after talking with other cities it appears that on average a city receives three rejection letters from the Met Council. Director Nielsen stated in 2005 the City satisfied a Met Council request by including that for future development of the Xcel energy site the City would likely consider a mixed use development which would include a residential component. The City tried to build a case that if Shorewood was viewed from the perspective of being part of the South Take community the community is relatively complete. The C,. has a c . es are sc I s liaison Tur con I t` C Cr I should included as part of the South Lake c } ity. Nielsen then stated the Met Council wants the City to include a transit map as part of its Comp Plan. He explained there is a park-and-ride lot north of City Hall and bus service stops there twice a day during the week. The lot is seldom used. Metro Transit has informed the City that it has no plans to expand that service. Commissioner Arnst stated she has been a little involved with the mayors participating in the housing initiative study, and through that she has heard discussion about the need for a variety of housing choices on the regional level. She recommended the reports from that study be reviewed to determine if some of its findings should be incorporated into the Comp Plan. Nielsen commented that not every city can be everything to all people. He stated the City is trying to be a "bedroom suburb"; it's not trying to be an employment center or a commercial center. The residents in this area want space around them. Commissioner Hasek stated developers are conveying that having a convenience store on the corner in every neighborhood is not the way to go because no one can make money in those locations. That may work near a six-story building in the downtown area of a large city, but not in Shorewood. Arnst stated the mixed use buildings with retail on the bottom and residential above are not working out as planned. Nielsen commented that years ago people did live over a store, but that was in large part because they owned the store. People don't want that anymore. Director Nielsen stated if residents want their communities to offer all choices in housing then the community should. But, if they want half-acre lots they should be able to have that choice. Commissioner Hasek stated that during a Sensible Land Use Coalition program a while back there was discussion about the redevelopment of the Excelsior and Grand area in the City of St. Louis Park. The residential component is doing well but the commercial component is not doing as well. Commissioner Vilett cited the Glen Lake project in Minnetonka which is similar. In response to a comment from Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained the Comp Plan states if the Howard's Point Marina were to cease being a marina then the property can be subdivided into one-acre lots. It's zoned for that and that is what surrounds the area. Commissioner Arnst stated one of the issues with having three units or five units per acre residential development is many of the City's roadways are substandard. They can't even handle a school bus let alone the increase in traffic. She suggested that issue be conveyed. Director Nielsen again stated he will draft a sample of text that will identify a couple of areas that could possibly be developed as higher density residential and indicate the City wants to study that further. The City could consider census data as part of its study or it could do some other market study. He will also draft a cover letter explaining why the City would not consider higher density residential development throughout the City. It would identify the limitations created by substandard streets, limited mass transit, the lack of a City-wide water system, the amount of wetland and the existing character of neighborhoods. Commissioner Hasek commented the City's open spaces are not as buildable as they appear from a cursory level. C -~`iison T1 n be revis the --e t 30 days. Di r 'A 1 the sewer inters - 'or- idc -tio o tic y cannot be completed in that ti__: -e. Commissioner Arnst stated she thought the idea of telling the Met Council that the City will review census data as part of its study is a good one. She questioned if the City could gather other data on its own that would be beneficial. She asked if the two large parcels of land at the end of Mill Street could be considered for higher density residential development. Director Nielsen stated he did not think those parcels are not suitable for that. Commissioner Vilett cited a development in Chanhassen where there were ten houses built with each lot being approximately one quarter of an acre in size. The properties sold for in the neighborhood of $400,000. That price doesn't fit in with what the Met Council deems affordable housing. Director Nielsen stated selling the need for affordable and high density housing to residents will not be easy. Commissioner Hasek stated if the five-units-per-acre criteria were to be used as the goal it would require approximately 12 acres of land to reach a goal of 60 affordable housing units in the City. He asked how large the parcel of land across from Freeman Park was. He wondered if it was six acres in size. Director Nielsen stated it might be close to that size. Hasek stated what is needed is a couple of parcels of land that size to build the required 53 units of affordable housing. Nielsen noted the City went to court over a senior housing project that was five units per acre. Nielsen stated the Eureka Road and Highway 7 intersection is not a great intersection. Hasek stated that is a good reason why what looks like a great parcel of land for higher density housing really isn't. The 20-acre parcel of land on Vine Hill Road is more than half wetland, and traffic at the Vine Hill Road and Highway 7 intersection is already an issue. He suggested the letter identify those areas that may look like opportunities and then explain why they are not. Council Liaison Turgeon explained the reason she requested the Comp Plan be revised and resubmitted to the Met Council in 30 days was to put it back in the Met Council's hands. Director Nielsen stated it's his intent to have it resubmitted by the end of the year. He noted Staff and the Planning Commission use the Comp Plan regularly. He stated doing the sewer interceptor sewage projections doesn't provide the City with any value; it's of value to the Met Council. He indicated that the request to notify the FAA if a structure higher than 200 feet goes up in the City can be added to the Comp Plan in October. He can also change the Land Use Map from saying 0 - 1 units per acre to 0.1 - 1 units per acre. Those types of changes can be done quickly. Commissioner Arnst stated for the sake of conversation density does have its place. The weakness with Met Council's approach is that it wants that every place and that isn't a reality. She commented that when it comes to services and infrastructure it's cheaper to have a road that serves 50 units rather than just fifteen units. Director Nielsen stated that from his perspective a goal for a community ought to be to provide some choice. He again reiterated not all cities can be all things to all people. He explained when lie first started his tenure with the City the City had lots that were one acre in size. The City now has some lots that are a quarter acre in size, it has an apartment complex and there is some senior housing. Commissioner Arnst asked Director Nielsen to find out what the Met Council is currently calling of 6rdable housing, and determine how many units the City has. Commissioner- Hasek stated a few years a. -nount was $150,000. Commi-,.,I'c 4Jilett stated the City does not have any housing that is v ' 1 j,000 or less. Director Nielsc s ,d ;cording to realtors 3 - 4 years ago there was nothing cheapen- than $200,000. Director Nielsen noted the City amended its ordinance to state lots cannot be combined to a size greater than 1.5 times the size of the original lot size. Nielsen stated he has requested a map from the Met Council indicating where its interceptors are for the entire South Lake area. He noted that some of the City's sewage flows into the City of Excelsior's sewer system. He stated he has not been provided a map. The Met Council has stated the City has the information it needs. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Currently, the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2009. The agenda for that meeting was not been drafted. 4. PORTS Liaison to Council No report was given. SLUC No report was given. Other Commissioner Arnst asked Director Nielsen to remind Council during the October 12, 2009, Council meeting that the Planning Commission had passed a motion recommending Council adopt a resolution asking Hennepin County to clarify the signage at the trail crossings and that the resolution be passed on to neighboring cities for their support. Council Liaison Turgeon stated the Excelsior Fire District Open House and Safety Fair is scheduled for October 8, 2009, from 6:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M., and the grand re-opening of the Southshore Community Center is scheduled for October 9, 2009, from 6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. 5. ADJOURNMENT Vilett moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 6 October 2009 at 7:40 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RE, SPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder i A Department: Planning r l i _ 10/26/09 1.. NumbL.. From: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director Item Description: Tax Forfeit Parcel ® Outlot , arilynwoo Background / Previous Action Hennepin County has notified the City that Outlot B, Marilynwood is available through tax forfeiture. Staff has examined the parcel and recommends no public purpose for the land. It was originally intended to be combined with a parcel to the east of it and should be kept with that parcel (see staff report, dated 15 October 2009 - attached). Options obtain the parcel for a public purpose; authorize a public auction; or request that the parcel be auctioned to adjoining property owners. Staff Recommendation Since the parcel was originally intended to be combined with the adjoining parcel, and since that lot needs Outlot B to maintain conformity with zoning requirements, staff recommends limiting the auction to adjoining landowner(s). Council Action: TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 October 2009 RE: Tax Forfeit Parcel - Outlot B, Marilynwood FILE NO. Plat Files (Marilynwood) Hennepin County Taxpayer Services has forwarded a notice of tax forfeiture for a parcel of land (Outlot B, Marilynwood) located on the east side of the plat of Marilynwood and west of the property at 6030/40 Lake Linden Drive (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The subject property is a small strip of land, measuring 20' x 355' and containing approximately .16 acre (7100 square feet) that was previously owned by the owners of 6030/40 Lake Linden Drive. These owners sold 6030/40, but retained ownership of the subject property, before letting it go to tax forfeiture. Outlot B was originally conveyed to 6030/40 as part of the platting of Marilynwood, but apparently the parcels were never legally combined. It is not known why the previous owner of 6030/40 did not convey it when he sold the property on Lake Linden. Tax forfeited property is offered to the City, which has three options for disposing of it: 1) the City can keep the property for a legitimate public purpose (e.g., right-of-way, conservation or recreation open space, drainage, etc.); 2) the City can approve the parcel for public auction; or 3) the City can approve the parcel for auction to adjacent owners. In this case, staff suggests that the third option be chosen - the parcel should be approved for auction to adjoining owners. The size of the property makes it unusable for a public purpose, and it makes no sense for someone other than an adjoining property (i.e., the property at 6030/40) to own it. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the two-family dwelling at 6030/40 does not comply with the rear yard setback requirement for the R-2A zoning district without O.L. B. By itself, Outlot B is unbuildable. Staff intends to advise the owner at 6030/40 that this parcel is of benefit to him/her. A draft resolution offering the property for auction to the adjoining property owners is attached for your consideration at Monday night's meeting. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please contact me prior to the meeting. Cc: Brian Heck .i ames Lanami Larry Brown Mary Tietjen f. J$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER b~ b~ oa emo MliNnoo NOi ,1 r i g ~ a / a~how o r t l l l l~~ I crty rru,. 1 ~ e I / IC 5 ° g ad l 1 10 - / 9~ / ! 1 F sg: Fr Y 700 „ 7oo'Sq.Ff e /Nat CCF~ } ~ _ I 4 J l`J"` d1J I K 960 / OVV /V E 77 i~l' ,ooo_%s~Ft, OUTIOT % - - LAWRENCE BADER 5333 SEACHS/DE DR. T ~ V Ld ~AnDE PovO~ w aReA /,~i r.4 L ;,%ETL.:NO AREA II MP rW=9 i i i HOPKINS, MN 55343 62oe DITAIMA6E.4,VO UT/L/T)' EA5EMEWT551,10WN THl15S'~! f K S rn ~ 9e:ng 5.00 feet sir w,<J74; and adja:n%ng /ot /hes, =nd pe%rg feet i.~ m,dfh and adjoL°iny sheet fines as shown nn the p/at 35.0o f!~ S.E. co~.r r of Jec lion 33-~~~-25 DATE: OCT08ER //F 1982 SC4 L E- l INCH ~ /00 FEE 0.4 T UIW CI T K SEWER _e I- f 'q AREA: 11.51 CIT A T '"Y UTION CONCE 4INC A CE TAIN TAX-FORFEITED PARCEL LYING WI'. ®N THE CITY AN APPROVING IT FOR SALE TO ANABUTTING NE WHEREAS, The City Council is the official governing body of the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the County of Hennepin has sent to the City a Conservation/Non- Conservation Classification List 1493 C/NC containing one parcel which has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of property taxes: PID # 33-117-23-44-0025 WHEREAS, the County of Hennepin has requested the City to affirm the nonconservation classification of the lands; to either request a conveyance of said lands to the City for public use, approve the sale of the lands to abutting owners, or approve the public auction of the lands; and to provide other certification with respect to the property; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel is not required by the City for public use; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel is a vacant parcel, the dimensions of which make it unbuildable as a separate parcel; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1) The nonconservation status of the above parcel is affirmed. 2) The City does hereby approve the parcel at PID # 33-117-23-44-0025 for sale to the adjoining property owner(s); and 3) The above-described parcel is not, to the City's knowledge, a) land designated as a mining unit or subject to a mining permit or lease; b) land located within the boundaries of a state park; c) land containing substantial deposits of peat; or d) non-forested marginal land or wetland. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of October, 2009. ATTEST: Christine Liz6e, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Department: Planning Council Meeting: 1U/). ItE ,n " r From: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director Item Description: Request for Trail Crossing Markings and Education Background / Previous Action At the last Council meeting the City Council agreed with a recommendation from the Planning Commission that the City of Shorewood should adopt a resolution requesting that Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County Department of Transportation improve signage and education for trail crossing, especially on busy roads (County Road 19). Before staff prepares a formal resolution to that effect, we want to make sure that the Council agrees with what we are asking for. Staff suggests that the recommendation for signage found in an advisory report from the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (Guidance for the Installation of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities, dated 28 January 2009) would serve as a significant part of the solution to this issue. Examples of proposed signage are attached for your consideration. Beyond that, we would ask that these agencies incorporate trail crossing guidelines into educational material (e.g. bike and trail maps, separate brochures, etc.). Going one step further, they could run an ad campaign similar to "click it or ticket" ads done by the Highway Patrol. Options Direct staff to prepare a resolution containing the above suggestions; add to the list of potential educational approaches; make the resolution less specific. Staff Recommendation Staff seeks direction on this one. The City Engineers Association's proposed trail markings appear to make a great deal of sense, advising both motorists and trail users. Council Action: LJ F= LLJ C: s 4A O 6tp u -a a~ a, a~ CL t~ O O 5- 0 biA 73 _ O V W cc N O L. U i G e~ m ~ I } I ' ` ~Y 4 { f _ pl- -AAJ emm All I 4-i is i C Went Council Meeting Item Number Engineering/Public Works October 26, 2009 9-A From: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Date: October 22, 2009 Background / Previous Action On July 27, 2008 staff presented the summary information for the County Road 19 Project and request for advance funding from the Municipal State Aid Fund account. The City Council approved the resolution requesting the advance amount. In turn, staff forwarded the resolution and documentation to the State. The State has acknowledged receipt of the resolution and commenced with processing the paperwork for payment to the City of Shorewood. At the time that staff presented the request for the advance of funds, staff also stated that the paperwork had to be processed by five separate departments at the State, County, and local level, and that minor revision could occur due to the review by each agency. However, being that requests for advances for MSA funding are on a competitive basis, the request had to be processed as soon as possible, to insure availability at the State level. Staff had also reported that the City of Tonka Bay had expressed concerns about their obligation. As such, Council Member Woodruff requested that this item be brought back to review the financial obligations and payment progress. Attachment 1 is the final analysis of the project, in addition to the payment reconciliation. After a final review of all of the cost data and cost splits that Hennepin County provided, (used to generate the initial invoices for the project) staff did find an error in the accounting completed by the County for the undergrounding of the power lines. As it turns out, the city of Tonka Bay had paid the City of Shorewood an amount of $140,393.96, and is due a repayment in the amount $11,307.13. In addition, staff has been working with representatives for Hennepin County for Shorewood's obligation of $363,005.44 to Hennepin County, and will wait to make payment until MSA funds are received by the City of Shorewood. Then the refund will be made to Tonka Bay. The only other Shorewood obligations were an amount of $74,041.49 that has already been funded by the Local Road Fund. Council Action: d .,216-1 - 8-01 City of City of H( r Total Cost Shorewood =Tonka Bay Court Contract Construction State Aid Funds Roadway $ 3,061,394.26 $ 756,109.33 $ 2,305,284.93 Sewer (1) $ 566,711.10 $ 315,658.08 $ 78,772.84 $ 172,280.18 Local Funds $ 174,439.93 $ 62,351.99 $ 50,313.99 $ 61,773.95 Subtotal $ 3,802,545.29 $ 1,134,119.40 $ 129,086.83 $ 2,539,339.06 Construction Engineering (4) $ 101,056.50 $ 90,729.55 $ 10,326.95 - County Supplied Signal Equipment (2) $ 15,201.56 $ 5,016.51 $ 10,185.05 Right of Way (3) $ 1,788,134.58 $ 348,235.60 - $ 1,439,898.98 Contributing Flow (6) Gideon Pond $ 12,994.14 $ 12,994.14 Utility (5)(7) Undergrounding $ 169,000.00 $ 84,500.00 $ - $ 84,500.00 TOTALS $ 5,888,932.07 $ 1,662,601.07 $ 139,413.78 $ 4,086,917.23 (1) Hennepin County's proportionate share 30.4%, Shorewood's proportionate share 55.7%, Tonka Bay's proportionate share 13.9% (2) Hennepin County's proprtionate share 67%, Shorewood's proprtionate share 33% (3) R/W within Shorewood 50% Hennepin County, 50% Shorewood; R/W within Tonka Bay 100% Hennepin County. (4) Computed at 8% of the Cities' share of the contract construction costs for the project. Municipal shares ONLY shown. (5) Hennepin County participated limited to 50%, maximum contribution $300,000 per centerline mile, project length 0.427 miles, County's participation funded by Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program. (6) County participation = area of pond in acres x County percentage of drainage x 50% for right of way x price per acre (2.37 x .3 x .5 x 36,551,72). (7) Heneepin County 50%, Shorewood 50% by CRFS through Xcel Energy (faith exception of $5,000)_ Contract Construction Construction Engineering County Supplied Signal Equipment Right of Way Contributing Flow Gideon Pond Utility Undergrounding TOTALS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE/RECEIVABLE SUMMARY Payable to Payable to Payable to Payable to Shorewood Shorewood County County by Count by Tonka Bay by Shorewood by Tonka Bay $ 2,539,339.06 $ 129,086.83 - - $ 90,729.55 $ 5,016.51 - - $ 348,235.60 $ 12,994.14 - - $ 84,500.00 (7) - $ 2,636,833.20 $ 129,086.83 $ 443,981.66 $ 10,326.95 $ 10, 326.95 ATTACHMENT1 H~ S.A.- 1 r 2, ',_1- 8-01 PAYABLE RECONCILIATION SUMMARY TOTAL OBLIGATION PAYMENTS: 6/21/05 7/13/05 7/14/05 9/20/05 10/18/05 6/16/06 9/18/08 5/21/09 6/18/09 $ 26,455.31 Payable to County by Tonka Bay $ 10,326.95 $ 8,488.84 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,636,833.20 $ 140,393.96 $ 80,976.22 $ 8,488.84 REMAINING PAYABLE $ - $ (11,307.13) (1) $ 363,005.44 $ 1,838.11 AMOUNTS (1) The Cityof Tonka Bay was incorrecty invoiced by Shorewood for a poriion of Undergrounding of overhead power lines. Tonka Bay's cost is zero. Per Shorewood Council decision and Hennepin County; HC to pay for 50% and Shorewood to use CRFS through Xcel (with exception of $5000) for Shorewood's 50% portion. LESS SHOREWOOD $ 363,005.44 PAYABLE TO COUNTY NET DIFFERENCE ($363,005.44) $ 2,183,191.94 $ 71, 045.86 $ 113,938.65 $ 75,959.71 $ 5,016.51 $ 84, 500.00 $ 298,095.40 9/8/09 Department Engineering Council Meeting 10/26/09 Item Number: From: James Landini, P.E. Item Description: Accept Feasibility study for ead wvieW d Background / Previous Action The Meadowview Road Feasibility study was presented to Council on Oct 12, 2009. Council requested information on an additional road or segment of road. TKDA provided the attached supplement addressing a segment of Wild Rose Lane. Attachment 1 is the Supplemental Information report. The report presents four parts for consideration. The four parts are street reconstruction, stormwater improvements, watermain improvements and sanitary sewer improvements. Adding Wild Rose Lane segment will reduce the watermain extension improvement from $10,267.00 to $8,130.00 per benefiting property. Wild Rose Lane west of Meadowview Road reduces down to a 33 foot wide Right-of-way. Right-of-way or an easement will be necessary to install the proposed catch basin. The Feasibility & Supplement report includes: 24-foot-wide Meadowview Road & Wild Rose Lane segment with edge control outside of driving, surface. Stormwater improvements consisting of pipes, and catch basins. Installation of watermain consisting of 8" main, hydrants, and service stubs to adjoining properties. Sanitary Sewer improvements consisting of pipe repair, infiltration sealing and inflow sealing. Reclamation option of Meadowview Road with no water main. The project as described in the report is necessary, feasible and a cost-effective solution for these proposed improvements. The watermain improvements are proposed to be assessed on adjoining properties. Consequently, a public hearing must be held prior to ordering the improvement project. As the adjoining property owners did not petition to be assessed for the City water improvements, approval by a four-fifths majority of the Council will be required to order the water improvements with assessments. If Council would like to proceed with the Wild Rose Lane option, please direct staff to get quotes or order a survey, soils report and sanitary televising report. Council Action: commends that i ° - ° i the Feasibili ' i _ !3dowvie Road improv( ants, A , a >E ssment ~e proposed fc r improvements a public hearing will need to be held per Chapter 429 of innesote btatutes. The resolution would set November 23, 2009 for the public hearing. Council should also order plans and specifications to stay on schedule. Alternatively, the Council may direct further revisions to be addressed in the feasibility report; this effort would entail additional cost and additional time. C ES LUT _4 I1 TO. 09- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AN SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ATE CITY PROJECT 10-02 EA OWVIEW OA A IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council authorized preparation of a Feasibility Report for the Meadowview Road Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements; and WHEREAS TKDA, prepared this report and supplement, which was received by the Council on October 12, 2009 and Oct 26, 2009, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, 1. Accepts the Meadowview Road Feasibility & Wild Rose Lane segment Supplement Report for City Project 10-02; and 2. Sets the Public Hearing for these improvements on November 23, 2009, as special assessments are proposed. 3. Sets an Informational Meeting for these proposed improvements on November 5, 2009. 4. Direct staff to obtain easements necessary for the improvements. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of October, 2009. Christine Lizee, Mayor Attest: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 The right tire. The right people. The right company Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com October 20, 2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: 2010 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements Meadowview Road - Supplemental Information City Project No. 10-02 TKDA Project No. 14454.000 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Enclosed please find the supplemental information requested for improvements to Wild Rose Lane in conjunction with the improvement of Meadowview Road as identified for improvement in the City's Street Capital Improvement Plan. The information was requested by the City Council on October 12, 2009. The supplemental information considers reconstruction of the street and includes an alternate installation of water service to serve the benefiting properties along the street. It provides costs, proposed funding, and assessments for the options considered. Please review this report and contact me at (651) 292-4630, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cara L. Geheren, P.E. Project Manager CLG: art Enclosure cc: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity CITY Oi , _ w SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION -WILD ROSE LAME Pursuant to the City Council's request, an analysis was completed on adding reconstruction of Wild Rose Lane from Eureka Road to Meadowview Road (0.13 miles) to the scope of improvements considered for Meadowview Road. Reconstructing Wild Rose Lane in conjunction with Meadowview allows for open cut construction techniques to be used to install the watermain proposed for installation along Wild Rose Lane as outlined in TKDA's Feasibility Report titled 2010 Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements: Meadowview Road, presented to the City Council on October 12, 2009. Using an open cut method for watermain installation will reduce the overall cost of the watermain assessment as outlined in this summary document. Due to the timing of the request for additional analysis, it is important to note that soil borings, extensive topographic survey, and sanitary sewer televising were not completed. This analysis contained herein assumes that the subgrade of Wild Rose Lane is similar to Meadowview Road. It is assumed that the sanitary sewer system does not require major improvements. Using the City of Shorewood's Decision Flow Chart, field observations, and engineering opinion, it is our recommendation that the City Council consider reconstructing the street, installing storm sewer, and extending water service to benefiting properties. Wild Rose Lane was identified on the City's 2008 Pavement Management Inventory as having a passer rating of 4. Adequate right-of-way is available. Edge control does not currently exist and would be needed to construct a drainage system. If approved, residents would have a fully reconstructed street with a drainage system connected to the proposed system on Meadowview Road designed for a 10-year storm event. The proposed road would be built with the City's Standard Street Section at a width of 28.66-foot from back of curb to back of curb. The standard section is for a 9-ton roadway consisting of a geotextile fabric placed to provide separation of the native soils and the street section; 24 inches of select granular borrow (sand), 8 inches of aggregate base, and 4 inches of bituminous pavement. Draintile is also recommended to be installed to provide drainage for the select granular borrow subbase section. At the standard street width, conflicts with power poles and potential tree loss are probable. The extents of which would not be known until final design. It will be important to work closely with property owners and utility companies prior to construction to make the impacts known and resolve the issues. In addition, the northwest Page 1 14454.000 corner of the is 1 of nd Wild Rose Lan - o`_ - It-of- way issue that wils i -ed to be fu, er eva;uat-J as a part of the design process. This toted on the attached exhibit. Costs associated with obtaining right-of-way are not included in this estimate. Street Reconstruction of Wild Rose Lane has an estimated project cost of $255,473. These improvements will be paid through the City Street Fund ($205,268), the Storm Water Utility Fund ($47,246), and the Sanitary Sewer Fund ($2,959). These costs would be in addition to the cost to reconstruct Meadowview Road as outlined in the Feasibility Report. Watermain Extension was previously estimated in the Feasibility Report to have a total project cost of $174,541, with the 17 benefitting property owners each paying $10,267. The additional analysis for the water system evaluated the use of open cut techniques to install the proposed water system outlined in the Feasibility Report. If the reconstruction of Wild Rose Lane is included as outlined above, the watermain extension total estimated project cost would be reduced to $138,210, resulting in an estimated assessment for watermain improvements °of $8,130 per property. Wild Rose Lane currently has an existing 9-inch PVC sanitary sewer main installed in 1971. The sewer was not televised and this report only assumes manhole rehabilitation would be necessary. The recommended improvements considered in this supplemental information are necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, and will result in a benefit to the properties proposed to be assessed. It is recommended the City Council order a Public Improvement Hearing, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, to present the findings of this Report to the affected property owners. Page 2 14454.000 APPENDIX r 4 z rs Q t d z ~ ~ N C O O x ~ W C u d C o ~ C/] `f' O y C7 ~s d~aana 0 - o. ~ o Cc u~ o w , F y y J p L' N C E J . fL C r ~ m m ' C r r , ~ Q r ur J m r r u Q; O Y Z ~ , Q v W O ~ i £ r , ' I i2 W ~ m I ~ - GVOH MEHMAOCIVEIK - r I i CIT - OTA ST hj )C- - -ON TKDf: _ 3CT coo ENGINEER'S PRELT BINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STREET RECONSTRUCTION I LS MOBILIZATION $ 11,000 1 LS TRAFFIC CONTROL $ 5,500 672 LF SILT FENCE $ 1,344 8 EA INLET PROTECTION $ 2,400 10 EA TREE REMOVAL $ 2,500 1,643 SY REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT $ 3,285 11 EA REMOVE & REPLACE EXISTING DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT $ 8,800 2,671 CY COMMON EXCAVATION $ 18,694 6.7 RS SUBGRADE PREPARATION $ 1,176 1,576 CY SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV), SPEC 3149.2B $ 22,064 1,112 TN CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE, 100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE $ 17,785 214 TN BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE $ 13,881 214 TN BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE $ 14,948 90 GAT, BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT $ 22.A 2 EA ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING $ 900 1 EA ADJUST VALVE BOX $ 150 1,344 LF SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER $ 12,096 2,140 SY GEOTEXTILE FABRIC $ 3,210 307 CY TOPSOIL BORROW $ 4,294 2,788 SY SODDING $ 8,364 STREET RECONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $ 152,615 CONTINGENCIES $ 15,262 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL, AND ADMINISTRATION $ 37,391 TOTAL - STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS $ 205,268 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1,344 LF 4" PVC PERF EDGE DRAIN W/BACKFILL & WRAP $ 6,720 37 LF REMOVE CULVERT (ALL TYPES) $ 259 2 EA 2 X 3 CATCH BASIN W/CASTING $ 2,600 5 EA STORM SEWER MANHOLE $ 10,000 I EA STORM SEWER MANHOLE - LARGE DIAMETER $ 3,000 26 LF 12" RCP STORM SEWER PIPE $ 676 424 LF 15" RCP STORM SEWER PIPE $ 11,872 STORM SEWER SUBTOTAL $ 35,127 CONTINGENCIES $ 3,513 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL, AND ADMINISTRATION $ 8,606 TOTAL - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $ 47,246 *Estimated costs do not include cost to acquire easement for storm sewer outlet Page 1 of 2 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 255,473 The estimated costs are according to average prices received on similar projects in other areas. The actual costs for this project will be determined through a bidding process and can vary with market conditions at the time of the bid. rage 2 of 2 -A AIL _ f Fri'431gJIN 'I P--`)dECT 14454.000 ENGINEER°S PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS I EA CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN $ 1,500 24 LF 6" DIP, CLASS 52 $ 960 1,290 LF 8" DIP, CLASS 52 $ 58,050 4 EA 6" RES. SEAT GATE VALVE & BOX $ 4,000 3 EA 8" RES. SEAT GATE VALVE & BOX $ 5,100 4 EA 6" HYDRANT ASSEMBLY (8'-6" BURY) $ 12,000 615 LF V TYPE "K" COPPER WATER SERVICE $ 12,300 20 EA V CORPORATION STOP $ 3,000 20 EA 1" CURB STOP WITH CURB BOX $ 3,000 712 LB M7 DIP COMPACT FITTINGS $ 2,848 WATERMAIN SUBTOTAL $ 102,758 CONTINGENCIES $ 10,276 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL, AND ADMINISTRATION $ 25,176 TOTAL - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS $ 138,210 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 138,210 The estimated costs are according to average prices received on similar projects in other areas. The actual costs for this project will be determined through a bidding process and can vary with market conditions at the time of the bid. Pegg 1 fl C rent Council Meeting Item Dumber 1 Administration October 26, 2009 From: Brian Fleck, City Administrator Item ate on South ore enter Administrators update Description/Background/Previous Action This is a report on the past three months of activity at the SouthShore Community Center. As you recall, the City took over responsibility for the operations and management of the SouthShore Community Center effective July 1, 2009. The City entered into an agreement with Community Rec Resources to provide for the operations and scheduling of the Center as well as developing programming and marketing for the Center. The attached memorandum outlines in more detail the activities at the Center and the attached spreadsheet outlines the current state of expenditures and revenue as well as projections for the end of the year and projections for 2010. Council Action: a: To: City Council From Brian Heck, City Administrator CC: Kristi Anderson, Date: 10/21/2009 Re: Quarterly update on SouthShore Community Center The City of Shorewood has been operating the SouthShore Community Center since March of 2009 during the transition process and began to fully manage and operate all aspects of the center July 1, 2009 using Community Recreation Resources as the contracted agency overseeing the day to day operations. Since the City took over the operations, several positive changes have taken place at the Center. The interior has been painted and the banquet/dining room received new carpet and "dance" floor. The upgrades have resulted in a few more rentals this year and we anticipate increased activity in the rental area next year. Kristi worked with several individuals and organizations to expand the program offerings at the center and she secured some long term rental agreements with the Church, Southwest Chess program, South Shore Senior Partners, and a dance program. She arranged for a chef to be the preferred "caterer" at the Center and has arranged several cooking classes. Kristi is working with Tonka Center for the Arts to provide classes and programs. A "Grand Re-opening" event was held in early October and well over 200 people attended this community event. Kristi has organized two other events: a Halloween party and a Holiday party both are anticipated to be well attended. Kristi established an advisory committee to work on programming and event ideas and has visited each of the partner communities to let them know what is going on at the center and what is planned for the future. On the financial side, center revenue for the year to date is $19,033 and expenses for the year are $59,069 leaving a deficit of $39,468. These expenses include the $13,686 for the paint and flooring and $8,279 in legal services. The Center will not have these expenses in 2010. The other large area of expense for the Center is insurance at $8,950. When adjusted for capital and attorney fees, the deficit is $17,503. We are projecting total revenue at the end of the year to be close to $25,700. Our numbers could be better; however, several possible rentals were lost during the period March - June and were slow to return after Shorewood took over full responsibility for the operations. at year end is just ova d, just over _w _ I SUE Cr r °o' -_-_1 r' n. i bc `ter - _ _E A is '/z or t:._ break even in 2010. W_ wi:: Drk r -ir-i to me °;e the- happen, but the Council roust realize that Community Centers are rarely, if ever, able to achieve a break-even status and have said this many times during our discussions of the Center. I believe a more realistic objective is to lower the Shorewood subsidy supporting the Center to an aggressive $15,000 in 2010 and $5,000 in 2011. See the attached spreadsheet outlining the current financial outlook. 9 Page 2 Con m :r To Date Projects( 2008 2C)9 2009 2009 2011 Rentals $ 2,079 $ 3,609 $ 19,033 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 Class Revenue $ 8,000 Donations $ (75) $ 65 $ 150 $ 500 Interest Earnings $ 21 $ 503 $ 550 $ 850 Total $ 2,079 $ 3,554 $ 19,601 $ 25,700 $ 39,350 Expenses Building Maintenance $ General Supplies $ Legal Fees $ Communications $ Printing and Publishing $ Insurance $ Utilities $ Contractual Services $ Miscellaneous Charages $ Bank Charges $ Capital $ Total $ 381 $ 2,313 $ 9,692 $ 14,000 $ 18,500 115 $ 388 $ 698 $ 1,000 $ 1,200 - $ - $ 8,279 $ 8,279 $ 500 125 $ (72) $ (72) $ 150 $ 500 - $ 2,025 $ 2,025 $ 3,000 $ 5,500 - $ - $ 8,583 $ 8,583 $ 9,000 942 $ - $ 4,119 $ 6,000 $ 7,000 1,320 $ 1,318 $ 8,583 $ 11,000 $ 21,000 48 $ 1,230 $ 3,107 $ 4,600 $ 5,000 - $ 0 $ 4 $ 10 $ 30 - $ 6,843 $ 13,686 $ 13,686 $ - 2,932 $ 14,045 $ 58,704 $ 70,308 $ 68,230 Revenue less expenses $ (853) $ (10,490) $ (39,103) $(44,608) $(28,880) Description/Background/Previous Action Council member Bailey has addressed the issue of the Excelsior Fire Department Budget with the Council on several occasions. Council member Bailey is looking for feedback / input from the Council regarding how to deal with funds freed up from a lower than expected contribution to the Fire Relief Association. As you recall, the adopted budget allocated $120,000 to this activity. Due to a rebound in the market, the required contribution has decreased to approximately $97,000 leaving the district with $23,000 in possible dollars to reallocate. The fire board will be discussing the disposition of these funds at their November meeting. During the budget discussions, Chief Gerber assembled a list of priorities for the Board to consider restoring should dollars become available. His list of preferred priorities for restoration is attached. In talking with Council member Bailey regarding this issue, he indicated he does not support restoration of funds for wages at this time and he is unsure of keeping the funds in the Relief Association. He has expressed some openness to restoring training and would consider restoration of the fund balances. Action needed: provide input and feedback on restoration priorities. Council Action: a. O L ial F to it( for Fi Ai _ ht - 3Pension Contribution - $120,000 b. Required amount - $97,000 c. Amount of funding for restoration consideration - $23,000 lanin~ a. I believe it is important for us to plan for 2010, 2011 and beyond. I understand that the impacts of the economy will impact communities far beyond the initial crisis. b. The costs per capita for 2010 for fire and safety services from the fire district are $58.25 c. Service Delivery is a critical element in planning. d. Recruitment and retention are important factors for our service delivery. e. Key areas for consideration include: staffing, facilities, apparatus, equipment, and training. Background - how have reserves been built a. The Excelsior Fire District Reserves have been improved over the last three years. I believe it is important for the Board, Operating Committee, Firefighters, and community to acknowledge how the fund balance reserves have been built up. i. The EFD Board has set more realistic budgets for 2007, 2008 and 2009 and set policy initiatives. ii. The EFD Operating Committee has provided guidance for the operations of the Fire District. iii. The Chief has set goals and objectives for achieving sound fiscal management. iv. The Fire Officers and Firefighters have provided dedicated service while coming in under budget in 2007 and 2008. v. The 2009 Budget is also on track to come in under budget; HOWEVER the amount under budget is projected less than in 2008, vi. The 2010 budget will be extremely difficult to come in under budget with the cuts. vii. The "under budget" amounts have built up the fund balance reserves viii. The EFD Board has not specifically budgeted for fiend balance reserves. b. The reserve funds in the operating accounts and capital accounts are where they should be. The current and projected balances meet or exceed the State Auditors levels. c. The Excelsior Fire District staff met the direction of 0% increase for 2010; however, there were operational impacts that will affect firefighters and service delivery. d. The EFD staff does not want to go back to where we had to present and accept 15-16% increases because of unrealistic budgets. 1 Relief Association Contribution $23,000 a. Provide the funding to the relief association as budgeted in an effort to minimize required contribution in 2011 and beyond. 2 Salary $8,094 a. Restore 2% increase to Chief, Inspector, Admin Spec. $2,484 b. Restore 3% increase to Firefighters $3,761 c. Restore PERA/Medicare/FICA Costs $1,849 YET --l icial pc u v isr equip frrefigh-m 2. The first two years as firefig passes training and gaining operational knowledge, the next 3®8 years provide effective service delivery, 3. If we are not able to retain firefighters, we are not becoming as effective as we could for fire and life safety operations. x. I believe salaries are the most important restoration priority for the following reasons: 1. The Excelsior Fire District staff will continue to meet the direction of 0% increase for 2010. 2. The Excelsior Fire District does not have a "Step Plan"; therefore, any increase for staff is a "step and cost of living" increase. 3. Current EFD staff salaries (Firefighters, Inspector, Administrative staff, Chief) are not at the bottom of the tier, but they certainly are not at the "top" of the scale. 4. Recruiting and retaining staff for our unique service area (costs of homes/businesses) requires us to stay on the "cutting edge". 5. Creating a "perception" of "penalizing" fire district staff for effective fiscal management impacts the overall management of the District. 6. The costs of hiring, equipping and retraining are higher than the proposed amount for wage increases. 7. Firefighter "salaries" are not a direct relation to costs and services provided by the firefighters, but provide reimbursement for expenses such as fuel and clothing. 8. These costs are .005% of the overall budget 3 Training $14,900 a. Restore training budget to 2009 level $10,250 b. Restore conferences to 2009 level $4,650 Narrative: xi. I believe restoring the training area funding directly impacts firefighter performance, health, safety, risk management, claims avoidance and overall loss control. The life safety initiatives and case studies from firefighter injuries and fatalities from across the country continue to point to training deficiencies and needs. xii. Training individual firefighters receive at conferences and other "off site" training has direct benefits to the individual firefighter and the overall fire district. Restoring training for staff will provide short term and long term impacts to firefighters and the overall organization. 4 Fire Prevention $1,300 a. Restore funding to the fire prevention line item to 2009 $1,300 level Narrative: The restoration of the funding for fire prevention will allow us to continue fire prevention education at current levels. Examples of fire prevention include: xiii. Open House xiv. Education with Schools a d ive: The restoration of these funds will help provide realistic budgets for specific line items. "Technology $32200 a. Restore computer replacement schedule $3,200 xv. Replace two computers/monitors as scheduled Narrative: The restoration of this funding will allow us to stay on schedule for maintaining and replacing current technology needs of the District. Without these funds we will decrease our capacity. 7 Communications $ 950 a. Restore pager purchase to the 2010 budget $ 950 Narrative: The restoration of these funds will allow us to continue to replace / purchase pagers for the District. 8 Building Repair $1,500 a. Restore station maintenance item $1,500 Narrative: The restoration of these funds will help provide realistic budgets for specific line items. The Building maintenance line item is a dynamic line item and often over budget because of two fire stations and still getting "settled" into the buildings. 9 Fire Facilities Fund Account $40,000 a. Restore funding to the Fire Facilities Fund Account to use for future needs "Note - restore percentage as available Narrative: The restoration of fund balances is important. I believe strongly that we need to have adequate fund balances for effective fiscal management; however, I do not believe they need to over funded. 10 Fund Balance $40,000 a. Restore funding to the Operation Fund Balance to use for future needs "Note - restore percentage as available Narrative: The restoration of fund balances is important. I believe strongly that we need to have adequate fund balances for effective fiscal management; however, I do not believe they need to over funded. 0 „ 6 z, To: Excelsior Fire District Board Fro : Dana H. Young, Fiscal Agent Re, Fire District Reserve Funds Summary In light of the fact that the mandatory contribution to the Fire Relief Association will be at least $22,806 less than was originally anticipated in 2010, the Fire Board has requested that staff provide an analysis on EFD reserve funds to assist the Board in their decision on the possible reallocation of these surplus funds. A review of EFD reserve funds is of particular interest since the 2010 EFD Budget includes the use of $40,000 in reserve funds from both the Operating Fund and the Facilities Fund. To this end, staff will provide an analysis on the frequency of payments made by the cities to the District and its potential impact on EFD reserve funds. During the review of the 2010 Budget and the subsequent decision to use $40,000 in reserves from both the Operating Fund and Facilities Fund, discussion was held on the possibility of converting from quarterly payments to monthly payments, which was presumed to not only improve the District's monthly cash flow position but would also allow the District to lower its reserve percentage from the recommended 25% of current year operating expenses to a lesser amount. This would then enable the Board to utilize more of the District's reserves funds to pay for other future obligations, such as any future mandatory contributions to the Fire Relief Association, if needed. Monthly vs. Quarterly Payments After conducting a review of the District's cash flow position over a three-year period from 2010 - 2013, the assumption that converting from a quarterly to a monthly payment schedule would improve the District's cash flow is incorrect. In fact, after reviewing the data, it quickly becomes apparent that a monthly payment schedule actually lessens the District's monthly cash flow position. The reason is actually quite simple - when the District receives quarterly contributions from each city in January, April, July and October, the District is receiving advance payment for three months worth of expenditures. Although the year end cash position of each fund remains unchanged regardless of the particular payment schedule, quarterly payments does have the effect of increasing the overall monthly cash flow position throughout the year. Semi-Annual Payments In fact, pushing the analysis one step further, a semi-annual payment schedule provides the best possible monthly cash flow position for the District since it provides the District with advance payment of six months worth of expenditures. Semi-annual payments would also give the District the opportunity to change the allocation of the payments by providing enough funds to enable the Facilities Fund to pay the January bond payments in full with the January payment and the July bond payments in full with the second annual payment. This would entirely eliminate the need for the Facilities Fund to carry a fund balance at the end of the year. T >~x nual p, j including: Semi-annual payments would be made to the District in January and July, which would not present much of a burden to cities as the payments would coincide with the cities' receipt of their county settlement payments in December and July. 2. It would improve the overall monthly cash flow for the District and its three most critical fiends - Operating Fund, Capital Equipment Fund, and Fire Facilities Fund. 3. It would enable the District to fully fund the January bond payments and the July Bond payments from the Facilities Fund, thereby eliminating the deficits that occur within the Facilities Fund each year from January - March and eliminate the need for the Facilities Fund to carry a reserve fund. 4. It would allow the District to transfer $170,000 in excess reserve funds from the Facilities Fund at the end of 2010 that could be designated for a possible Building Fund, or to be designated to pay any mandatory contributions to the Fire Relief Association in the future, or some other purpose. 6. It would much more clearly delineate the appropriate size of reserve funds in the Operating Fund, Capital Equipment Fund, and Facilities Fund. Impact of Semi-Annual Payments on District Fund Reserves Converting to a semi-annual payment schedule would have some very positive effects on District Fund reserves in the Operating Fund, Capital Equipment Fund and the Facilities Fund. Capital Equipment Fund Reserves The Capital Equipment Fund does not have any surplus reserve funds. Annual contributions flow into the fund to support the annual or future purchase of vehicles and equipment and to finance the annual lease payments on more expensive vehicles. While the balance of the fund varies each year, in theory, each dollar in the fund is designated for the purchase of a vehicle or piece of equipment or lease payment sometime in the future. By its very nature, there should never be any surplus funds in the Capital Equipment Fund unless the schedule of capital purchases changes. Facilities Fund Reserves The primary difficulty with the Facility Fund has always been that principal and interest payments for all three bonds are due each January. This upfront expense results in annual deficits in the Facility Fund from January through March until the next quarterly contribution is received in April. However, if semi-annual payments were scheduled to begin in 2011, the District would have the opportunity to fully fund the bonded debt that is due in January with the first semi-annual payment and to fully fund the bonded debt that is due in July with the second semi-annual payment. As a result of this new payment schedule, the District would be able to transfer approximately $170,000 in surplus fund reserves from the Facilities Fund in 2010. 2 A review of cash flow projections from 2010 - 2012 shows the following year end Operating Fund reserves and reserve percentage: Item 2010 2011 2012 Projected Operating Fund Reserve 327,125 327,129 327,127 Reserves as a % of Annual Operating Expenses 24.0% 22.5% 21.8% With semi-annual payments beginning in 2011, and with a majority of the January payment going to fund the Facilities Fund's bond payments, the Operating Fund reserves drop to $122, 212 in June 2012 before receiving the second half payment from the cities in July. By the end of 2012, Operating Fund reserves are projected to increase back up to $327,127 or 21.8% of 2012 Operating Fund expenses. This is a strong indication that the Operating Fund has sufficient year end reserves at approximately $327,000 to support Operating Fund expenses well into the future. Recommendations Based on my analysis of cash fund balances and fund reserves from 2010-2013, I would recommend the following actions to the Excelsior Fire District Board: 1. Convert to a semi-amlual payment schedule beginning January 2011. 2. Transfer $170,000 in surplus Fire Facility Funds in October 2010 to: a) A Building Improvement Fund b) A Fire Relief Mandatory Contribution Fund c) Or, some other reserve fund. 3. Establish an Operating Fund reserve of $300,000 from 2010-2013 for the following purposes: a) $180,000 - cash reserves equaling 150% of the lowest projected monthly cash flow of $122,212 that occurs in June 2012 b) $100,000 - cash reserves that may be necessary to fund unforeseen expenditures such as the emergency repair of facilities and/or essential vehicles. c) $20,000 - cash reserves that may be necessary to fund legal services in the event of unexpected litigation. 4. Continue to review the appropriate size of the Operating Fund reserve on an annual basis. 3