03-28-11 CC Reg Meeting Agenda packet
C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Attachments
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call Mayor Lizée ___
Hotvet ___
Siakel ___
Woodruff ___
Zerby ___
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 14, 2011 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2011 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. County Road 19 Trail Options City Administrator’s
Memo, Resolution
C. LMCIT Sewer Back-up Coverage Finance Director’s
Memo, Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association, Report on Milfoil Treatments Report
7. PARKS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – MARCH 28, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
8. PLANNING
A. Zoning Violation Appeal Planning Director’s
Appellant: Ron Johnson Memo
Location: 5490 Vine Hill Road
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. City Identification Signs City Administrator’s
Memo
B. Measurable Management City Administrator’s
Memo
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Report on LMCD activities by Debbie Siakel
B. Mayor and City Council
13. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, 28 March, 2011
7:00 p.m.
At 5:45 P.M. Council will gather for the Council Photo.
A 6:00 P.M. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening.
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: Consideration of a resolution supporting the recommendations of the
County Road 19 trail Concept Design Plan.
Agenda Item #3C: This resolution sets the level of insurance coverage at $25,000 for sanitary
sewer backups caused by no fault of the city.
Agenda Item #5A: No public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6A: Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association, will report on Milfoil
treatments
Agenda Item #7: No Park report or items this evening
Agenda Item #8A: Mr. Ron Johnson has appealed a zoning violation notice directing him to
remove several wooden crates/storage containers on his property at 5490 Vine Hill Road.
He initially suggested that they are “storage pods” to be used in conjunction with some
sort of building permit for the property (there is no current building permit for the
property). When he was advised that the “pods” are not allowed under our zoning
regulations, he changed his appeal, asserting that his property is not zoned R-1C, Single-
Family Residential at all. He states that it is “grandfathered agricultural land”, which he
apparently believes is outside the scope of the City Code. Staff has recommended that an
administrative enforcement action be taken. If you have questions on this item, please do
not hesitate to contact the Planning Director prior to the meeting.
Agenda Item #9A: No Engineering/Public Works items this evening.
Agenda Item #10A: No General/New Business items this evening.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of March 28, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #11A: Consideration of purchasing and installing City of Shorewood
Entry/Identification Signs, and if the signs should include the 2010 census population
figure.
Agenda Item #11B: Councilmembers Hotvet and Siakel have requested additional discussion
and consideration of the city’s participation in the Measurable Management program.
Agenda Item #12A1: Councilmember Siakel will provide an update on recent LMCD activities.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane (arrived at
6:06 P.M.); Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen;
Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: Councilmember Siakel
B. Review Agenda
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission began working on the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study (the Study) in 2010. The Study area includes the commercial area around County
Road 19 and Smithtown Road. It’s broken into three locations; the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown
Road and County Road 19 intersection, the southeast quadrant of that intersection, and the area north of
County Road 19 just west of Shorewood Lane. The Study has focused primarily on the northwest quadrant,
while noting some of the things the Commission talked about to date also apply to the southeast quadrant.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan states the City would prefer a unified, cohesive redevelopment of the
northwest quadrant as opposed to parcels being developed individually.
Nielsen reviewed a number of benefits that could be achieved from redeveloping the northwest quadrant
with a unified, cohesive approach.
It would be much more efficient to develop ponding for the entire quadrant than on a lot by
lot basis. Drainage is very sensitive in that area; both rate control and volume control.
There could be joint use parking.
There would be some flexibility with setbacks, in particular in a planned unit development
(PUD).
There would be more efficiency in landscaping. Landscaping is a big element of the Study.
Nielsen highlighted the three locations on a map. He noted the west boundary of the northwest quadrant is
not well defined. He explained as the area progresses west along Smithtown Road there are single family
residential properties. The Planning Commission wanted there to be some flexibility with that boundary
should a developer want to buy some of those properties. The public safety facility and the City’s Public
Works garage located in the northeast quadrant are not included in the overall Study. There is a property
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 2 of 7
about 1.5 acres in size with a single family house on it in that quadrant and there was discussion that the
property could be developed into something other than single family residential. One of the issues
associated with the southeast quadrant is that it technically abuts residential property; that’s where the City
Hall and Badger Park are located. The lots in that quadrant are shallow and it’s difficult to meet some of
the City’s setback requirements.
Nielsen stated Gideon Glen is included in the northwest quadrant portion of the Study even though its use
and development have been determined already. Future redevelopment could potentially take advantage of
some of the Gideon Glen views on the northerly edge. There is an issue of buffering Gideon Glen and the
residential area to the north of it. There is a potential issue of land use transition on the west end of the
quadrant. Both vehicular and pedestrian internal circulation is an issue. On the very corner of the quadrant
there is a site that could have soil issues, although it has received a clean bill of health from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Phasing for the entire redevelopment of this quadrant could be an issue. There’s
hope that a single developer would develop this area, but it could realistically be done in pieces as long as
there is a unified, cohesive development plan. There is some concern about vehicular access to and from
County Road 19 as well as to and from Smithtown Road.
Nielsen displayed a concept drawing prepared by Planning Commissioner Hasek showing some of the
things the Planning Commission would like see happen if the northwest quadrant is redeveloped. It reflects
a unified and cohesive development, one large ponding area, access control along County Road 19 and
Smithtown Road, and some type of area identification (this is consistent with the Country Road 19
Corridor Study). He also displayed a drawing showing what it could look like if the lots were developed
independent of each other. There could potentially be a pond on each of the lots and the ponds would be
very inefficient and ineffective. Developing the area on a piecemeal basis would be much less efficient
because each lot would have to comply with the setback requirements, its own ponding, and parking area.
Nielsen explained the vision for the Smithtown Crossing redeveloped area was set forth in a vision
statement. The intent of the vision statement is to paint a picture for developers of what the City is looking
for. Some of the items are above and beyond the requirements of the City Code. For example, the City has
minimal construction material requirements as well as minimal landscaping requirements. The Planning
Commission suggested the City offer incentives to developers so that they would put in enhanced
landscaping, use natural materials in the architecture and so forth.
Nielsen stated in May 2010 the Planning Commission met with some of the northwest quadrant area
property owners. The meeting was relatively well attended. A few owners of residential properties in the
area also attended the meeting. The American Legion, which owns three parcels in the quadrant, was well
represented. There seemed to be consensus among the property owners at the end of the meeting that a
unified, cohesive development approach to redeveloping the area was best for all property owners.
Nielsen then stated in June 2010 the Planning Commission met with a panel of senior housing developers.
The panel was presented material that had been compiled about what the Commission was looking for and
was asked to provide candid feedback on the material. The panel was also asked to provide their thoughts
about the current market. The original vision statement indicated a desire for the area to be redeveloped
retail and housing. The panel members did not think there would be a strong market for strictly retail. They
indicated commercial services would be better than retail in that location. He noted the City does have a
Commercial Service zoning district that has to do with trade contractors and light industrial type activities.
That District is located almost primarily on the east end of County Road 19 abutting the City of Excelsior.
Nielsen went on to state the panel members expressed they did not think vertical mixed use would work
well; it isn’t working well anywhere in Minnesota. He noted the City Ordinance would allow for a vertical
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 3 of 7
mixed use development. He stated it’s more likely the area could be redeveloped as horizontal mixed use.
He noted there was consensus among the panel members that if the City would allow somewhat taller
buildings than the current height restriction of three stories or 40 feet in height it would increase the
likelihood of the quadrant being redeveloped.
Nielsen explained that in August 2010 the Planning Commission toured several projects in the west metro.
The focus of the tour was mixed use development, design, senior housing, and building heights.
Nielsen described a development located in the Glen Lake area in the City of Minnetonka. He also showed
pictures of that development. That development is a mixed use development. It’s a five-level building with a
gable roof that fits well into the site. The top level of the building is in the gable so it diminishes the effect
of the height. There was substantial landscaping and street lighting around the area. He then displayed a
picture of and described a mixed use development located in the City of Chanhassen. The Planning
Commission was not overly enthusiastic about the character of the building. The landscaping around the
area was significant.
Nielsen stated the Planning Commission also went to look at two developments kitty corner from each other
located in the City of Golden Valley. One development is called The Town Square and the other The
Commons. He displayed pictures of the developments. He stated the Commission liked the idea of the
public space in the developments. The Commission thought some type of public/common space in a
redeveloped northwest quadrant could be a draw for people. He displayed a drawing of The Town Square
development superimposed over the northwest quadrant, noting it fits in there quite well and leaves room
for a residential development of some type. He noted The Town Square development includes a parking
ramp and that is not expected in the City. He stated if there were to be a similar development project in the
quadrant it would have on-grade parking.
Nielsen noted that the pictures of the developments the Planning Commission looked at will not be included
in the Study report. The Commission wants developers to come up with their own ideas.
Nielsen stated the Planning Commission would like to see something like The Town Square development
for the northwest quadrant. That development is a two-story structure with a relatively steep pitched roof
that houses all of the mechanical equipment. There is retail below and office space above. The office space
has not done as well as one would have expected because office people don’t want to have to smell odors
from retail operations.
Nielsen noted the Study report includes some copies of photographs which depict what the City is looking
for.
Nielsen stated if the City is willing to give incentives for developments with things such as angled rooftops,
depth and shadow, and significant landscaping it will help entice developers to redevelop the area the way
the Planning Commission recommends. He noted the previous council indicated it was willing to consider
tax increment financing (TIF). He stated he thought that would be pretty essential to redeveloping the area
with a unified, cohesive approach. TIF would be one way the City could contribute toward the
redevelopment in order to try and make it happen the way the City would like.
Nielsen explained the Planning Commission talked about potential amendments to the City’s Zoning Code
that include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with the City’s vision for the
area. One provision would be to allow taller buildings for the right project and under the right
circumstances. For example, allowing a building to be as high as forty-five feet tall provided the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 4 of 7
architectural design and landscaping fit with the City’s vision. Another provision would allow for higher
densities than currently allowed in mixed use developments based on certain conditions.
Nielsen then explained the Commission also discussed the possibility of the City acquiring land in the area
when it becomes available on the market. Having the needed land available when the time comes to
redevelop the area would be helpful. The Study report suggests the City acquire land. He noted there is a
single family residential parcel located on the west edge of the area that is on the market. When that
property turns over the house on the property will likely be torn down. He stated the City could buy that
property, tear the house down and hold on to it until there is a redevelopment project.
Mayor Lizée asked if the American Legion has any interest in partnering with a developer on the
redevelopment of the northwest quadrant. Director Nielsen responded that during the Planning
Commission’s meeting with the property owners Legion representatives expressed interest in partnering
with someone. The Legion wants a new facility. He explained that one of the three parcels the Legion owns
does not abut either of the other two parcels. He noted the Legion is a key land owner.
Director Nielsen noted that a couple of private development groups are somewhat interested in the
northwest quadrant. He stated that in the past the money hasn’t worked out for developers even if TIF was
factored in to the equation.
Mayor Lizée stated PUDs have been an effective tool in the City over many years. She asked if the City
would have to have control over all of the property in the northwest quadrant in order to designate it as a
PUD. Director Nielsen explained the PUD happens with the development. The City’s Comprehensive Plan
suggests the quadrant be redeveloped as a PUD, but it has not been zoned as a PUD yet in part because the
west end boundary of the area is not known at this time. There are advantages to both the City and a
developer to develop the area as a PUD. There is more flexibility with a PUD, especially internally. If the
parcels were to be developed individually each property would have to have a minimum of a five-yard
setback from the parking area on the property to the property line and each property would have to have its
own ponding. If developed as a PUD there could be joint parking and one ponding area.
Mayor Lizée asked if it makes sense to amend the City’s PUD to address mixed use now or is it better to
make it site specific. Director Nielsen responded the Planning Commission will discuss a mixed use
provision in the PUD section of the City’s Ordinance in the upcoming months.
Councilmember Zerby asked if the Planning Commission considered also looking further to the east on
County Road 19. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission studied that area which is called
Planning District 6 in 2007. The study was done in conjunction with the Shorewood Yacht Club property.
During that study property owners expressed reservations about changing the zoning of their properties at
that time.
Nielsen explained Planning District 6 includes the following commercial sites: 1) the Shorewood Yacht
Club (SYC) (zoned L-R, Lakeshore Recreational; 2) the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company (zoned
C-2, Commercial Service); 3) the South Lake Office Building (zoned R-C, Residential Commercial; 4) the
Garden Patch Nursery (zoned C-2); and 5) the property between the South Lake Office Building and the
Garden Patch Nursery (zoned C-2), which is the old Crepeau Dock location and is owned by the same
individual who owns the Garden Patch Nursery.
Nielsen then explained the C-2 District was created to specifically accommodate the existing uses of
Crepeau Dock, the Garden Patch, and the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company. During the study the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 5 of 7
Planning Commission proposed phasing out the C-2 District. Nielsen stated this Study did not go that far
east. He noted the Planning Commission does intend on revisiting Planning District 6.
Councilmember Zerby asked what the biggest issue has been for developers when it comes to redeveloping
the northwest quadrant. He stated he heard CVS was considering the site. Director Nielsen explained CVS
wanted a site with highway exposure. Nielsen stated Staff told CVS representatives that there is a lot of
traffic on County Road 19, albeit not as much as on Highway 7.
Zerby then asked if the Planning Commission considered using the northwest quadrant for recreational
purposes. Director Nielsen responded the Commission didn’t want to eliminate the commercial element of
that quadrant, and it did not specifically consider a recreational use. Nielsen stated a common area and
pedestrian circulation are a key part of what the Commission is looking for.
Zerby stated there is a lack of temporary event space in the South Lake community for things such as the
Excelsior Farmer’s Market, flea markets and Christmas tree sales. The quadrant would be an excellent use
for a town square concept. The area was talked about as part of the gateway project. Director Nielsen
stated a common area could facilitate some of those types of events.
Director Nielsen stated there has been a lot of discussion about a desire to have a connection between the
LRT Trail to the north on Country Road 19 and the Smithtown Crossing area. He noted there may not be
adequate parking to accommodate commercial, residential and event uses at the same time. He stated the
land in the northwest quadrant is quite expensive for just soft recreational use. Councilmember Zerby
stated there is a parking east across County Road 19 and also by City Hall. Nielsen stated maybe the City
could contribute property for a common area so a developer wouldn’t have to pay for land he won’t make
any money off of. Zerby stated he could envision a nice fountain in a common area in the quadrant and that
he thought that would help sustain property values.
Councilmember Hotvet stated there is an opportunity to install some type of trail amenity in that area,
noting trail amenities are lacking between the City of Excelsior and Carver Park. It could be like a natural
wayside rest area.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission wants there to be a connection between Smithtown
Crossing to the LRT Trail to the north.
Councilmember Hotvet stated there has been discussion about expanding the shopping area located in the
City of Tonka Bay which is east across County Road 19 from the northwest quadrant. She asked if anyone
knows what Tonka Bay’s plans are. Director Nielsen responded he has not heard about any expansion
plans.
Director Nielsen related that a senior housing analyst stated three story buildings for senior housing are
being built all over the place, but vertical mixed use with commercial below and senior housing above are
not being constructed. He explained that some portion of a higher building could be set into the hill on the
northwest quadrant and that would reduce the visual impact of a higher building. He stated prior to the
Council and the Planning Commission meeting on this study he would like to prepare a drawing showing
what a four-story building would look like on the site.
Councilmember Woodruff complemented Director Nielsen on the great job he did of pulling all of the
information for the Study together and thanked the Planning Commission for the hard work it has done on
the Study. He commented that he has a copy of document summarizing the feelings of developers in the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 6 of 7
metropolitan area about doing things similar to this. He stated he thought the City tries to be cooperative
when working with developers, but some cities don’t.
Mayor Lizée stated the northwest quadrant property ties into the community. She then stated she thought
any development would want to capitalize on the Gideon Glen development. She went on to state she
thought it would be great to tie pedestrian and trail usage together, and that to do it as part of a PUD would
be a good idea. She suggested Council have continued discussion about how much control the City should
have and whether or not it should invest in the property.
Director Nielsen stated that the more the City invests the closer it will get to having the northwest quadrant
redeveloped the way it would like. He expressed he did not think the area could be redeveloped in a unified,
cohesive way if all the City does is make a few changes to the City Ordinance. If the City contributes
something to the redevelopment effort it’s more likely the vision could be realized. Asking a developer to
leave three-fourths of an acre for common open space without giving anything in return won’t get the City
very far. But, if the City is willing to make a contribution a developer can focus on the part of the project
that will make them money.
Mayor Lizée stated she’s interested in gaining an understanding of how the City can take advantage of its
economic development authority (EDA) and how TIF plays into that. She noted the Study report states
“Assisting in the correction of problem soils is yet another function of the EDA.” She stated there are
problem soils in the northwest quadrant.
Attorney Keane asked how large the single family residential property is that is for sale on the west end of
the quadrant and what the selling price is. Councilmember Zerby stated the property is located at 24620
Smithtown Road and the asking price is $154,000. Director Nielsen stated he thought the property is more
than an acre in size.
Administrator Heck asked Council if its vision is in harmony with the Planning Commission’s vision for the
redevelopment of the northwest quadrant. Director Nielsen stated he has not heard anything from the
Council that indicates the two visions are contrary.
Director Nielsen noted that one of the American Legion’s goals is visibility. It wants to be seen from
County Road 19. He stated so far the Planning Commission’s discussions have been about the common
area being a centralized feature of the development. The common area location would be up to the
developer. Mayor Lizée suggested the City remain flexible in assigning the location in the quadrant. Nielsen
stated the southeast quadrant may be better suited for public space. He noted the City does not own the
very tip of the northwest quadrant corner; Tonka Bay does. Councilmember Zerby stated access to the
southeast quadrant is not very good.
Mayor Lizée suggested Council discuss a date for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Park
rd
Commission. Director Nielsen noted he will be gone for 2.5 weeks in April. Nielsen suggested May 3for
the meeting. He then suggested that during the first hour sustainability be discussed and during the second
hour the Smithtown Crossing Study be discussed. After that the Planning Commission could continue on
with its regularly scheduled meeting.
ndrd
The current plan is to have the meeting on either May 2 or May 3.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 7 of 7
3. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of March 14, 2011, at
6:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane; City
Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of
Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: Councilmember Siakel
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Multi-City Council Work Session Minutes, February 24, 2011
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Multi-City Council Work Session Minutes of
February 24, 2011, as amended in Item 1.A, added Councilmember Richard Woodruff to the list of
those present from Shorewood. Motion passed 4/0.
B. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2011
Hotvet moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of February
28, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
C. City Council Work Session Minutes, February 28, 2011
Lizée moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of February 28,
2011, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
D. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2011
Zerby moved, Lizée seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February
28, 2011, as amended in Item 10.A, Page 14, Paragraph 2, Sentence 4 change “Siakel asked when
the drop-off program” to “Siakel asked when the curbside program”. Motion passed 4/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 2 of 13
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolution Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. 2011 Concession Operations Agreement
C. Personnel Action – Finance Director Appointment
D. Ball Field Pitching Rubbers
E. 2011 Smithtown Way Storm Maintenance Project
F. Picnic Tables for Parks
G. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-008, “A Resolution Accepting Donations to the
Southshore Community Center Sign Replacement Project.”
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Verified Claims List includes a payment to Parrott Contracting Inc.
That company did the excavation work on the outlet structure located near 5750 Covington Road and
Silver Lake. One of the owners of a property near that area has told him that there are significant piles of
snow with debris in them near the site and that individual wants to know when the site will be cleaned up.
He expressed his concern about paying the invoice before the cleanup work is done. Engineer Landini
explained the snow was moved to the 5750 Covington Road property. The City will rake the property in
the spring. Landini noted the City’s project is complete but the Metropolitan Council still has a project
going on near that area. Woodruff stated if the other Councilmembers don’t have an issue that the City
may have to do some cleanup work then he’s okay with approving this claim.
Councilmember Woodruff then stated that the 2011 Smithtown Way Storm Maintenance Project was
originally brought to his attention by some of the owners of properties abutting Smithtown Way. He
asked that the city notify properties owners the project is going to happen. Engineer Landini responded
the property owners will be noticed when American Engineering and Testing will be out at the site to do
some drilling and that will introduce the project. Woodruff had no further issue with this.
Councilmember Woodruff asked why the picnic tables proposed for purchase will not be compliant with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Director Brown explained a number of ADA compliant
picnic tables were ordered last year. The ADA compliant tables have already satisfied the ADA’s
requirements for the loading of the City’s parks. Brown then explained ADA compliant picnic tables are
cantilevered out at the end to accommodate a person in a wheelchair and if a person sits or leans on the
end of the table they tend to flip. Therefore, they must be anchored down. He stated that Park Coordinator
Anderson and he recommend staying with the standard picnic tables.
Motion passed 4/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 3 of 13
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
7. PARKS
Councilmember Hotvet reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 8, 2011, Park
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She was the liaison from the Council at
that meeting.
8. PLANNING
Garelick
Commissioner reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 1, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted that property owners at
Shorewood Ponds are putting together a petition that will first be seen by the Planning Commission and
then the Council asking the City to reduce the age restriction for people who live there to 55 from 62.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. 2011 Gravel Road Maintenance Experiment
Engineer Landini explained Public Works staff goes out to Enchanted Point Road an average of six times
per year to grade the road and put additional rock down. It costs the City roughly $3,000 a year to
maintain that roadway. He noted he had been asked to research sustainable surface maintenance options
that would reduce the number of times the City has to make improvements to the road. He explained he
researched Otta seal, stabilized gravel with flyash or bentonite, stabilized gravel with chloride, and
stabilized gravel with bituminous oil. He noted Otta seal has been used in the State for about 10 years. He
is aware of one roadway in Stillwater Township that was Otta sealed that Councilmembers could go and
look at if they like.
Landini stated Council may want to add this roadway to the 2011 road improvement list, while noting it is
not budgeted for in 2011 but could be funded by a transfer from the Street Reconstruction Fund. Council
could also choose to budget for it in 2012. He then stated the City has received a proposal from American
Engineering and Testing to do two shallow soil borings to determine how much base material is present.
That information is needed to correctly design the project.
Mayor Lizée stated this sounds like an interesting project and noted that Enchanted Point Road has been
problematic for a long time.
Councilmember Woodruff noted that two owners of properties abutting Enchanted Point Road are in
audience this evening and they may want to speak on this. He stated it’s his understanding that the
roadway has been unpaved since its inception. It’s also his understanding that in the 1970s there was
some type of seal of coating on it. That coating went away when the City’s sewer system went in.. The
roadways surface is dusty, muddy and there are many potholes. He then stated the residents along that
roadway have asked a number of times to have that roadway paved.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 4 of 13
Woodruff explained the City’s policy has been to assess benefiting property owners for the cost of paving
an unpaved roadway. He stated the property owners are reluctant to take on the assessment. He explained
that over the past year he has been speaking with Staff about how to restore the roadway surface to what it
was like in the 1970s when residents thought it was okay. He encouraged Council to at least authorize the
soil borings for a cost of about $900 and ultimately do the project if the results of the borings indicate it
makes sense to do so. He noted there are 3 – 4 other roadways in the City that are similar to Enchanted
Point Road. He stated if the Otta seal option works he suggested the City do the same thing to those
roadways. He recommended this project get done in 2011.
Jim Thibault, 4565 Enchanted Point Road, stated when he and his wife purchased his property in 1973 the
surface on Enchanted Point Road was either tarred or something similar to that. After the roadway was
torn up to install the sewer system, crushed rock was put down for the surface. The City’s efforts to fix
the roadway don’t last very long. He noted he hasn’t asked the other property owners along that roadway
if they are willing to pay to have more significant improvements done to the roadway’s surface. He stated
the City would benefit if the surface life of the roadway could be extended. He commented the residents
on Enchanted Island don’t ask for much. He stated it would be too costly to bring Enchanted Point Road
up to the City’s roadway standards.
Wally Larson, 4385 Enchanted Point Road, stated the 300-foot-long section of the roadway up to his
property is a mess every time it rains. When the surface is grated it’s never done deep enough to get to the
bottom of the trouble. He then stated he thought there needs to be a decent amount of class 5 rock put
down and then packed down. He went on to state it’s his understanding that there used to be some
blacktop on the roadway’s surface, noting he didn’t live at this location when the sewer system was
installed. It’s also his understanding that surface was not restored to the state it was in before the roadway
was torn up.
In response to a question from Mayor Lizée, Engineer Landini stated Enchanted Point Road is a public
roadway.
In response to a question from Councilmember Zerby, Director Brown explained the volume of traffic on
Enchanted Point Road could be estimated based on the number of properties abutting the roadway while
noting that it would be considered a low traffic volume roadway. He stated he thought Engineer Landini’s
recommendation would hold up over time.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought there were about 15 properties abutting Enchanted Point
Road. He noted that the Shorewood Yacht Club property is at the end of that roadway. He thought the
traffic volume is very low.
Councilmember Zerby stated taking the soil borings would be a good start. He asked Engineer Landini if
he was seeking approval for the soil borings only or the borings and the authorization to obtain quotes for
the Otta seal option.
Councilmember Hotvet stated Otta seal seemed to be a more positive choice than the gravel options from
an environmental perspective. She asked if it meets the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s guidelines.
Director Brown stated he was not aware of any specific guidelines with regard to this process, but
anything that can be done to minimize the amount of gravel fines from traveling into Lake Minnetonka is
a positive step.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 5 of 13
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, authorizing Staff to contract with American Engineering and
Testing to conduct two shallow borings for an amount not to exceed $900 and authorizing the
project to Otta seal Enchanted Point Road in 2011 for an estimated cost of $12,000 subject to the
results of the soil borings being favorable.
Councilmember Zerby stated that in the past Councilmember Woodruff has expressed concern about
authorizing projects that were not let out for bids. He asked Woodruff he wants Staff to go through the
bidding process for this. Woodruff stated he was comfortable moving forward with the project.
Director Brown noted if the project is done in 2011 Council will have to authorize a transfer from the
Street Reconstruction Fund to cover the cost of the unbudgeted project.
Engineer Landini noted Council will have another chance to consider the Otta seal project when it
considers the quotes to do the work.
Motion passed 4/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Deer Management Report
Director Nielsen explained the Three Rivers Park District (the District) completed its 2011 aerial deer
survey in the City and the snapshot in time showed a significant increase in the number of deer over the
2010 survey number. The 2010 survey count revealed 106 dear on the day of the flyover and the 2011
count revealed 145. A wildlife specialist for the District informed him counts were up throughout the
region; the 2011 count was easier to do and the counts was closer to actual due to the exceptional snow
cover, the deer were herding more than usual, and the pilot who flew the plane in 2011 had a very good
eye for deer.
Nielsen reviewed the 2010 deer management program. Eleven deer were removed the first weekend. The
weather was unseasonably warm the second weekend and the deer were not moving around very much.
Ten deer were removed on the third weekend. There was an ice storm on the fourth and final weekend of
the effort so Metro Bowhunters Resources Base (MBRB) pulled its archers for safety reasons. A total of
21 deer were removed in 2010; a little lower than some of the past removal programs.
Nielsen stated the phone calls the City received relative to the deer management program were
overwhelmingly in favor of continuing the program. There was only one caller who expressed concern
about removing deer. The vast majority of calls were from people requesting that archers hunt their
property. If Council decides to continue the program in 2011, the City and MBRB will have several more
sites to consider.
Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission expressed concern about residents feeding deer last year and
it asked the City to educate residents about feeding deer. The City published four articles in the City’s
newsletter. He explained that the 2011 survey map provided by the District shows the location of some of
the deer feeding sites. One of the areas most heavily populated with deer has four feeding stations located
in it. People are dumping barrels full of feed onto the sites. He stated the Commission has asked Staff to
prepare a draft ordinance banning the supplemental feeding of deer. The ordinance will be presented to
the Commission during its next meeting. The Commission suggested including a questionnaire with the
utility bill from the City as a means of gathering feedback from residents about feeding deer. The
Commission is also considering holding an open house to discuss the issue of feeding deer.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 6 of 13
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing Staff to have a 2011 deer management program.
Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Lizée stated MBRB has done a great job and it’s been a great partner for the City. She then stated
that before a new regulation is added to the City Ordinance enforcement of it must be considered. She
expressed that she thought it would be difficult to enforce a ban on supplemental feeding of deer. She
stated people may consider a bird feeder a supplemental deer feeder because deer try to feed out of bird
feeders. She suggested the supplemental feeding of deer be kept as a conversation point with the City’s
residents.
Director Nielsen stated some of the model ordinances Staff have looked at try to address Mayor Lizée’s
concern about bird feeders. For example, the ordinances consider quantities of feed. He then stated it
would not be an easy ordinance to enforce. He noted the ordinance would be enforced on a complaint
basis.
B. Stop Sign Placement Policy
Administrator Heck explained last fall residents in the area of the Yellowstone Trail and Glencoe Road
asked Councilmember Woodruff about installing stop signs on Yellowstone Trail for safety reasons.
When he was first informed about the request he didn’t think the City had a policy for evaluating requests
for stop signs. He has since found out that in 1992 the then council adopted a resolution outlining the stop
sign warrant criteria. He stated Staff believes it is prudent for Council to review the current policy and
decide what, if any, changes it would like to make to the policy. Staff recommends the City have such a
policy and it suggests the policy be put into a regular policy format and not a resolution format.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the particular issue the residents have at the intersection of Yellowstone
Trail and Glencoe Road is that Yellowstone Trail is uncontrolled. Drivers traveling on Glencoe Road
have to stop at the intersection but they can’t see the traffic traveling on Yellowstone Trail. The residents
believe that is dangerous and having a stop sign on Yellowstone Trail would make the intersection safer.
He explained the 1992 resolution specifies the things that must be considered. It also states “BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby incorporates by reference the stop sign warrant
criteria set forth in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.”
Woodruff suggested the policy be reduced to referencing to the stop sign warrant criteria set forth in the
Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and stating the City Council has the responsibility
of making the final determination in the placement of all stop signs within the City.
Councilmember Zerby asked if Hennepin County has a similar manual. Director Brown responded that
counties and cities tend to fall back on the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
because it’s the authority that is accepted in the courts. Brown stated the City can be more restrictive than
the State. In response to a comment from Zerby, Brown explained the standards for sign reflectivity are
federal standards. Zerby asked if all regulations related to signage in the City Ordinance should be
reviewed.
Administrator Heck stated Staff will draft a short policy that references the Minnesota Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. He then stated that once the inventory of signage in the City is completed and
signs have been brought into compliance with the federal reflectivity standards, a sign maintenance policy
will have to be developed. Engineer Landini stated the City could have an all inclusive sign policy.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 7 of 13
C. Franchise Fee
Administrator Heck stated Staff has been working with both CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy over
the last year and a half on the language in the franchise agreements between the City and each of those
companies. Staff would like to make the two agreements as similar as possible. He noted that Council has
not been provided with draft copies of the agreements because Staff has a question it needs Council to
answer. The question is does Council want the City to impose a franchise fee on the two companies; a fee
similar to what is charged to Mediacom.
Heck explained the agreements could be drafted in a way that allows the City to, at some time during the
20-year term of the agreement period, impose a franchise fee. He stated it’s his understanding that in the
past the then Council has not wanted to charge a franchise fee. He asked Council if it wants the
agreements to allow the City the flexibility to impose a fee at a later date but not at this time or to impose
a fee now. He noted the fees received would go into the General Fund. He explained some cities charge
an electric franchise fee to help offset the cost of street lighting if they own their own street lights. The
fees are considered cities’ leases for having the utilities located in the cities’ rights-of-way. He noted the
City does have a right-of-way ordinance.
Heck stated the franchise agreement with Xcel Energy has been reviewed by Attorney Keane and by
Kennedy and Graven. The franchise agreement with CenterPoint Energy is based on the model agreement
developed for the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) by Jim Strommend of Kennedy and Graven. Most
cities use that model franchise. He stated Xcel Energy is not excited about a blanket bond for work in the
rights-of-way.
Attorney Keane highlighted the history of the conversation of the franchise agreements between the City
and the two utility companies. The City has wanted to maintain flexibility as it relates to the City’s ability
to impose a franchise fee. As a policy, the City Council has not elected to impose a fee. Councils have
wanted to preserve the option to impose a fee as a negotiated aspect of franchise agreement. The City also
wants the agreements to preserve the accountability of the utility provider in the performance of its duties
especially in the use of components of the City’s infrastructure and the restoration of those components.
Accountability can be particularly problematic if the utility provider contracts for work to be performed
by people other than its own crews. There needs to be the appropriate accountability in place to ensure the
infrastructure components are properly restored.
Keane explained that in the last decade the City has had to conform to standard accounting principles as it
relates to tracking the value of its real estate assets. Franchise fees are one mechanism for capturing some
consideration for the use of the City’s rights-of-way, which are assets, for the proprietary distribution of
utilities by for-profit utility providers. The LMC has compiled a great deal of information about what
cities are doing regarding franchise fees.
Keane then explained that during that last round of franchise agreement negotiations with Xcel Energy
the City made it clear that it was not intending to impose a franchise fee at that time, but the City insisted
on maintaining the ability to impose a franchise fee up to agreed upon amount.
Councilmember Hotvet asked what the other South Lake cities do. Attorney Keane responded he was not
sure. Administrator Heck stated he will find out what they do. Hotvet stated this could be an opportunity
for collaboration for the South Lake cities.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 8 of 13
Mayor Lizée stated she supports maintaining the City’s flexibility to impose franchise fees in the
franchise agreements.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he also supports maintaining the City’s flexibility to impose a franchise
fee, but he doesn’t think the City needs to impose a fee at this time. He then stated it’s his understanding
that if Xcel Energy were to be charged a fee it could pass the cost of the fee on to its customers in the City
and he thought that could be considered a backdoor tax.
Woodruff explained the old franchise agreement with Xcel Energy gave the City pole rights. The pole
rights would allow the City to string cable from the poles if it wanted to install above ground fiber. He
asked if that is retained in the agreement being negotiated. Administrator Heck responded Xcel Energy
has agreed to retain that in the agreement. Heck explained Xcel Energy has two issues. One is Heck’s
request to have Xcel Energy post a blanket and Xcel Energy wants the City to specify what the franchise
amount would be in either a dollar amount or percent if one were to be imposed.
Councilmember Zerby stated if Xcel Energy were to pass on the cost of a franchise fee to its customers
that could be considered an alternative tax and that concerns him somewhat. He does support moving
toward a usage tax. He expressed his support for maintaining the City’s flexibility to impose franchise
fees in the franchise agreements. He stated if a franchise fee could reduce the tax burden by roughly the
same amount it may be appropriate to consider imposing a fee. He commented that having utility
companies pay for the right to use the City’s assets is a significant responsibility for the utility companies
and somehow that should be incorporated into the City’s financial picture.
Councilmember Woodruff reiterated if a franchise fee were imposed on Xcel Energy the residents would
ultimately end up paying that fee.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing Staff to negotiate franchise agreements with both
CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy that maintain the City’s flexibility to impose a franchise fee
sometime during the 20-year term of the agreement and not including the fee at this time.
Councilmember Zerby stated the cities of Chaska, Mound, and Orono have franchise fees in place.
Motion passed 4/0.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Measurable Management
Administrator Heck stated Molly McDonald and Rebecca Heiderpriem, with Fritz Partners, would
facilitate the Measureable Management Program. He noted that Ms. McDonald came before Council in
2010 and again in January 2011 to present the Program.
Heck explained that as part of the Program line staff would identify areas for improvement, identify how
to make the improvements, implement the changes, and develop methods to measure the benefits gained
from the changes. Staff at the City of Waconia went through the Program and he spoke with the Waconia
City Administrator who explained that Waconia found significant savings in areas they would have never
considered prior going through the Program. The Program is designed to open up discussion among staff,
to build a stronger team and to draw information out from people who actually do the job.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 9 of 13
Heck related that Councilmember Siakel asked him if it was necessary to go through the Program in order
to identify areas for improvement. He stated his initial thought was he thought it could be done in house.
After reflecting further on it, he realized that a very open environment is needed for staff to be
comfortable with identifying and implementing changes. That doesn’t exist at this time. Therefore, he
doesn’t think it could be accomplished without the help of outside resources. He then stated he thought
the Measurable Management Program will provide staff with the necessary tools and assist staff with
achieving some of the goals identified during the Council and staff retreat. He noted that two of the core
values identified during the retreat were leadership and teamwork. The Program will help develop
leadership among all staff and will help achieve improved levels of teamwork.
Heck stated he strongly recommends Council authorize moving forward with the Measurable
Management Program. He noted the cost for the Program is about $30,000, and Fritz Partners guarantees
the City will realize savings equal to that amount or they will refund the difference.
Councilmember Zerby stated he had been on the fence about moving forward with the Program. After
hearing how Administrator Heck’s enthusiasm for the Program as built since the first time the Program
was discussed and after hearing Heck’s comments about dovetailing with the goals discussed during the
retreat he supports moving forward with the Program. He then stated the Program seems to be a very
principled approach.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he has listened to Ms. McDonald’s presentation about the Program
twice. He expressed he whole heartedly embraces the approach the Program takes. It’s a classic approach
and he knows it works. He stated he has some concerns about the cost and the soft savings. He then stated
he was not going to count on the City being compensated by Fritz Partners if $30,000 in hard savings
isn’t realized. He expressed this Program is an investment in the future. He stated he is grudgingly
changing his mind and will support moving forward with the Program. He noted that he is putting
Administrator Heck on the line to make sure the Program works because he knows it can work.
Administrator Heck stated that a long time ago he told Council that his general mode of operation is to
bring ideas from the ground floor up. He then stated Council, City management, and City staff need to
embrace that idea.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she had not been in total support of moving forward with the Program prior
to this evening. But, after hearing Administrator Heck’s strong support for the Program this evening, she
now supports moving forward. She then stated she wants staff to know that she’s looking forward to them
streamlining their jobs and bringing new life into their jobs. She asked that Council be provided frequent
reports on how the Program is progressing.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, authorizing Staff to move forward with Fritz Partners’ Measurable
Management Program. Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Lizée expressed her appreciation for Administrator Heck’s and the staff’s work on this. She stated
this is an opportunity to move things forward and to let the staff blossom and do some creative problem
solving. She then stated the City has retained a good staff for many years and it’s time for the staff to be
given the opportunity to do great things.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 10 of 13
B. County Road 19 Trail
Administrator Heck stated the City of Tonka Bay has asked Council to reconsider a resolution supporting
the concept design for an off-street trail along County Road 19 that would connect the Lake Minnetonka
LRT Regional Trail just north of Smithtown Road with the Dakota Trail in Orono.
Heck explained that in 2010, the Orono, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay City Councils met to discuss the
concept design plan. During that meeting, the Cities of Orono and Tonka Bay passed a resolution
supporting the concept design; the City of Shorewood did not. During the November 23, 2009 Shorewood
City Council meeting,] the Council heard a presentation from a representative from Hennepin County
about the concept design. During that meeting the Shorewood Council chose not to adopt a resolution in
support of the concept design.
Heck stated if Council is in support of adopting a resolution supporting the concept design plan Staff will
provide Council with such a resolution for consideration during its March 28, 2011, meeting. The
resolution would be similar to the one adopted by the Cities of Orono and Tonka Bay.
Mayor Lizée noted that Andrew Gillett was the representative from Hennepin County.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she was a resident volunteer on the consortium of people from the Cities of
Orono, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. She commented that the trail concept is a huge undertaking. She
noted the joint meeting of the three City Councils took place on October 23, 2009. She explained during
that meeting the Orono City Council and the Tonka Bay City Council voted unanimously to adopt a
resolution to proceed with dialogue, noting it was not about agreeing to proceed with any sort of plan. The
dialogue was intended to come up with a trail concept for a trail along County Road 19 that makes sense.
Budget, environment, and geographic characteristics were to be considered. Unfortunately the Shorewood
City Council could not agree to continue the trail planning with Orono and Tonka Bay. She stated she
hoped this Council could regain its position with the other two Cities and revisit the conversation to create
a safe pathway along side of County Road 19.
Councilmember Zerby stated he was also on the citizen board, noting he was not an elected official when
the discussions were started. He then stated that from his vantage point this is a very exciting vision. He
expressed his support for having further dialogue about the concept design plan.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he was at two meetings where the concept design was presented to the
groups Councilmembers Hotvet and Zerby were part of. He commented that there were only three
members present from the Orono City Council and the Tonka Bay City Council when the resolutions
were adopted in October 2009 supporting further discussion about the trail. He stated there were only
three Shorewood Councilmembers present during that meeting and he did not vote for it at that time
because he wanted the full Shorewood Council to have the opportunity to vote on it.
Woodruff then stated he thought it would be a good idea to continue studying a trail and having
representatives from Hennepin County and Three Rives Park District involved. He recommended the
Trail Planning Committee review the concept design plan and really frame what the City wants to ask
Hennepin County and Three Rives Park District to do. He explained when the concept design plan was
presented a year and a half ago there were three cost options: the $100,000 option; the $3 million option;
and, the $15.3 million option and that is the option people spent the most time discussing. The $15.3
option did not include the cost to acquire land to build the trail on or to mitigate the effects on the
environment such as filling in wetlands.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 11 of 13
Woodruff explained that the group that was recommending the concept design plan to Hennepin County
and Three Rives Park District had no idea what it would cost to construct or to operate. He stated that
earlier in the day, he spoke with the Mayor of Orono and she indicated the Orono Council has had no
further discussion about the trail since 2009.
Woodruff noted the Trail Planning Committee, the Planning Commission and the Park Commission have
not had the opportunity to look at the concept design plan.
Mayor Lizée noted that a quorum of a council consists of three members. She stated that during the
October 2009 joint meeting of the Orono, Shorewood and Tonka Bay City Councils each Council had a
quorum present. At that time, all that was being discussed was participation in a concept plan. It was a
good showing of what partnerships can do. It was the three cities working with Hennepin County, Three
Rives Park District, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. She explained County Road 19 is one of the few north/south
traverses around Lake Minnetonka. The traffic volume on it continues to increase. There is poor drainage
off the roadway and that affects water quality. There is very little pedestrian safety. The plans discussed
were not concrete. Voting to continue discussion was the first step in building a partnership and showing
enthusiasm for the partnership.
Mayor Lizée recommended Council direct Staff to prepare a resolution for Council’s consideration during
its March 28, 2011, meeting so that discussion about the concept design plan can be continued among the
three Cities, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Councilmember Zerby stated the concept design plan is more of a vision and this is the time when council
members have to show leadership. He noted that any consideration of a trail and rebuilding of County
Road 19 is much further out. He stated the discussions to date had been a well organized project with lots
of community involvement. He expressed he did not think it was the appropriate time to be the defender
of the tax dollar; that will come at a later date. He stated a leap of faith has to be taken to endorse the
project at the beginning otherwise, nothing will get started.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconding, directing Staff to bring back the resolution supporting the
recommendations of the County Road 19 Trail Concept Design Plan for Council’s consideration.
Motion passed 3/1 with Woodruff dissenting.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck stated the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), Association of Counties, Minnesota
School Boards Association, and Minnesota Association of Townships are co-sponsoring a joint legislative
event on March 24, 2011. If Councilmembers are interested in attending the event, he will sign them up.
Minnesota Governor Dayton has been invited to give the keynote address. The minority and majority
leaders of the Minnesota Senate and House of Representatives have also been invited to provide an update
on the progress of the budget and other legislative issues.
Heck noted he has been following a few interesting bills that are being worked out in committee. One bill
would eliminate all local government aid (LGA) for the metropolitan area for suburbs, it would phase out
LGA for the Cities of Duluth, Minneapolis and St. Paul and it would retain it for greater Minnesota.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 12 of 13
Another is to freeze the 2012 and 2013 levies at the 2011 level and this has a strong likelihood of being
included in the omnibus bill. Also, Senator Ortman, Chair of the Senate Tax Committee, has indicated she
is interested in extending levy limits and removing a number of the exemptions for special levies.
Heck stated the Minnesota House of Representatives is scheduled to pass the variance bill. The House bill
is not the one supported by builders, independent chambers, the LMC and others. The Minnesota Auto
Dealers Association (MADA) and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce support it. There is a provision
in the House bill that prohibits cities from applying conditions on variances. The MADA does not want
the cities to have authority to impose conditions when granting a variance based on protecting the public
interest, health, and safety. In cases where a city might allow and grant a variance with a condition, they
will now not grant a variance. The variance bill in the Senate, which is authored by Senator Gen Olson,
has not moved yet. Another variance bill was introduced today that it allows for the application of
conditions under certain circumstances. He is not sure if the League of Minnesota Cities supports the third
bill.
Heck went on to state that the 2011 Step To It challenge starts the end of April.
Heck noted that noted that Directors DeJong and Nielsen used the new council action form for this
meeting. He also noted that Deephaven City Administrator Young, Excelsior City Manager Luger, Tonka
Bay City Administrator Kohlmann and he are going to be speakers during the March 17, 2011, South
Lake-Excelsior Chamber of Commerce luncheon. There was consensus to post the luncheon because a
quorum of the Council will be in attendance.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Aquatic Invasive
Species (AIS) Task Force met on March 11, 2011, to consider the 2011 3-Bay Chemical Treatment
Program for Eurasian Watermilfoil and Curlyleaf Pond Weed. 2011 will be year four in a five year long
program. He explained the Task Force reviewed the treatments bids the Lake Minnetonka Association
(LMA) had received. He stated the LMA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR)
should have a report available in early April defining what the 2011 treatment efforts will entail. There
will be more treatment in 2011 and therefore it will cost more. He noted that the treatment of St. Alban’s
Bay and Gideon Bay are not part of the 3-Bay Program.
Mayor Lizée stated she attended one of the three meetings the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
hosted for mayors of the cities located in the MCWD. Nineteen people attended the meeting held at the
Southshore Community Center. The MCWD was seeking input about how people viewed AIS, what’s
being done about it, and what people want to pursue. There was consensus AIS is a problem; a problem
bigger than what most groups can take on individually. There is hope that partnerships will be built and
there is hope that there will be leadership. Many people commented that they have questions about AIS
and who is leading the charge the responses they receive from State agencies is another agency or group
is dealing with it. Some attendees thought the MnDNR dropped the ball on AIS, and a lot of those
feelings stemmed from poor communication and lack of funding. Funding for education is not adequate.
She noted that zebra mussels have infested Lake Minnetonka and there has to be a focus on trying to keep
it from spreading to other water bodies. The plan is to continue discussions with the MCWD.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 2011
Page 13 of 13
13. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March 14,
2011, at 8:35 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Finance March 28, 2011 3A
Item Description: Verified Claims
From: Michelle Nguyen
Bruce DeJong
Background / Previous Action
Claims for council authorization. The attached claims list includes checks numbered 51499 through
51538 and EDA check numbered 1219 totaling $195,246.62.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
3/24/2011 11:11 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/15/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 3/15/2011 000000 11,863.01
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 3/15/2011 000000 2,101.93
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 3/15/2011 000000 1,188.54
25848 U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - R 3/28/2011 001219 5,250.00
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 3/15/2011 051499 1,369.11
00052 PERA R 3/15/2011 051500 7,133.43
00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN R 3/28/2011 051502 408.00
29223 AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS, INC R 3/28/2011 051503 39.16
04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 3/28/2011 051504 20.49
04300 CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE R 3/28/2011 051505 424.06
29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 3/28/2011 051506 847.47
29271 DREW KRIESEL R 3/28/2011 051507 591.00
1 EHLERS R 3/28/2011 051508 255.00
27195 GRAINGER, INC R 3/28/2011 051509 413.03
1 GTS EDUCATIONAL EVENTS R 3/28/2011 051510 40.00
07900 HAWKINS, INC. R 3/28/2011 051511 987.53
10760 HYDRA POWER HYDRAULICS R 3/28/2011 051512 150.00
11055 INFRATECH R 3/28/2011 051513 9,050.00
12900 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION D R 3/28/2011 051514 7,810.50
13300 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES R 3/28/2011 051515 80.00
21340 LOCAL LINK R 3/28/2011 051516 69.95
29259 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP R 3/28/2011 051517 177.00
3/24/2011 11:11 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/15/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
15403 MAMA R 3/28/2011 051518 20.00
29380 MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING R 3/28/2011 051519 60.27
15050 MEDIACOM R 3/28/2011 051520 55.84
00079 MEDICA R 3/28/2011 051521 14,972.19
15176 MENARDS R 3/28/2011 051522 56.96
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC R 3/28/2011 051523 500.00
17144 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG R 3/28/2011 051524 914.00
29368 NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE R 3/28/2011 051525 337.75
19750 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP CO R 3/28/2011 051526 60.05
15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 3/28/2011 051527 283.10
29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 3/28/2011 051528 685.10
20283 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. R 3/28/2011 051529 65.49
20805 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS. R 3/28/2011 051530 334.70
22482 SAM'S CLUB R 3/28/2011 051531 346.31
22578 SEELYE PLASTICS R 3/28/2011 051532 96.55
23126 SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED R 3/28/2011 051533 3,068.34
29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 3/28/2011 051534 34.32
17200 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS R 3/28/2011 051535 33.08
25848 U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - R 3/28/2011 051536 318.38
70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 3/28/2011 051537 78.68
29269 WARNER CONNECT R 3/28/2011 051538 2,800.00
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 3/15/2011 999999 2,387.50
3/24/2011 11:11 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/15/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 3/29/2011 999999 1,260.00
09400 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 3/15/2011 999999 242.80
10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 3/29/2011 999999 67.00
13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 3/15/2011 999999 40.00
15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER E 3/29/2011 999999 59,486.26
19435 SPRINT E 3/29/2011 999999 131.47
19445 NGUYEN, MICHELLE E 3/15/2011 999999 72.00
19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 3/15/2011 999999 354.78
19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 3/29/2011 999999 695.00
27590 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E 3/15/2011 999999 684.47
27590 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E 3/29/2011 999999 44.78
* * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED
REGULAR CHECKS: 40 60,236.84 0.00 60,236.84
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 3 15,153.48 0.00 15,153.48
EFT: 12 65,466.06 0.00 65,466.06
NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00
VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ERRORS: 0
VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 55 140,856.38 0.00 140,856.38
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 55 140,856.38 0.00 140,856.38
REPORT TOTALS: 56 140,856.38 0.00 140,856.38
03-24-2011 10:58 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 3/29/11 SVC 02/15-03/15 General Fund Municipal Buildings 67.00_
TOTAL: 67.00
AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 3/28/11 APR UNION DENTAL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 408.00_
TOTAL: 408.00
AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS, INC. 3/28/11 PARTS General Fund Public Works 39.16_
TOTAL: 39.16
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 3/28/11 TRUCK BELT General Fund Public Works 25.44
3/28/11 TRUCK BELT General Fund Public Works 4.95-
TOTAL: 20.49
CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE 3/28/11 BRAKE PADS & ROTORS General Fund Public Works 424.06_
TOTAL: 424.06
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 3/28/11 AUG-C.H. SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 531.01
3/28/11 MAR SVC General Fund Public Works 316.46_
TOTAL: 847.47
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 3/15/11 PCS-02/28-03/11 General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,160.00
3/29/11 PCS-03/13-03/25 General Fund Parks & Recreation 1,260.00
3/15/11 ASSCC ASSISTANT-02/28-03/0 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 227.50_
TOTAL: 3,647.50
DREW KRIESEL 3/28/11 FEB SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 606.00
3/28/11 STOP PYMT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 15.00-
TOTAL: 591.00
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,926.93
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,190.32
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 756.20
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Council 96.10
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 22.49
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 270.24
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 63.20
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 393.73
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 92.09
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Elections 9.08
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Elections 2.12
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 315.69
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 73.82
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 288.86
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 67.56
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 199.81
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 46.73
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 190.69
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 44.60
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 651.87
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 152.45
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 143.84
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 33.66
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 140.79
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 32.92
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 42.65
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 9.97
03-24-2011 10:58 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
3/15/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 167.64
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 39.20
3/15/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 58.61
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 13.71
3/15/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 172.28
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 40.29
3/15/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 54.78
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 12.80
3/15/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 19.06
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 4.46
3/15/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 17.64
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4.13_
TOTAL: 11,863.01
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Water Utility Water 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Water Utility Water 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC Water Utility Water 40.75
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 40.75_
TOTAL: 242.80
GRAINGER, INC 3/28/11 STREET LIGHTS LAMP General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 413.03_
TOTAL: 413.03
HAWKINS, INC. 3/28/11 SNOW REMOVAL General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 987.53_
TOTAL: 987.53
HYDRA POWER HYDRAULICS 3/28/11 REBUILD-PLOW CYLINDER General Fund Public Works 150.00_
TOTAL: 150.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,025.00
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 344.11_
TOTAL: 1,369.11
INFRATECH 3/28/11 LINE GROUNTING Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 6,475.00
3/28/11 I & I SANITARY REPAIR Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,575.00_
TOTAL: 9,050.00
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3/28/11 1ST QTR LEVY General Fund Council 7,810.50_
TOTAL: 7,810.50
LANDINI, JAMES 3/15/11 MAR WELLNESS General Fund City Engineer 40.00_
TOTAL: 40.00
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 3/28/11 LAURA HOTVET-2011 JOINT CO General Fund Council 80.00_
TOTAL: 80.00
LOCAL LINK 3/28/11 APR WEBLINK General Fund Municipal Buildings 69.95_
TOTAL: 69.95
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 3/28/11 REVIEW CODE/EVIDENCE-VINEH General Fund Professional Svcs 111.00
3/28/11 SHWD YATCH CLUB-WATER CONC General Fund Professional Svcs 66.00_
TOTAL: 177.00
MAMA 3/28/11 SCOTT NEAL SPEAKER-02/10 General Fund Administration 20.00
03-24-2011 10:58 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 20.00
MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING 3/28/11 SSCC- GEN SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 23.98
3/28/11 SSCC- GEN SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 36.29_
TOTAL: 60.27
MEDIACOM 3/28/11 SSCC-07/16-08/15 SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 55.84_
TOTAL: 55.84
MEDICA 3/28/11 APR MEDICAL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 14,972.19_
TOTAL: 14,972.19
MENARDS 3/28/11 MAILBOX REPAIR PARTS General Fund Public Works 56.96_
TOTAL: 56.96
METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 3/29/11 APR WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 59,486.26_
TOTAL: 59,486.26
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 3/28/11 APR NEWSLETTER POSTAGE General Fund General Government 500.00_
TOTAL: 500.00
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 3/28/11 HAZARDOUSE WASTE-24200 SMT General Fund Public Works 264.00
3/28/11 OPERATOR CONF-GREG FASCHIN Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 325.00
3/28/11 OPERATOR CONF-DAN RANDALL Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 325.00_
TOTAL: 914.00
MISC. VENDOR EHLERS 3/28/11 2011 PUB FIN SEM-DEJONG-FE General Fund Finance 255.00
GTS EDUCATIONAL EVENTS 3/28/11 2011 LAND USE PLANNING WKS General Fund Planning 40.00_
TOTAL: 295.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 3/15/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,101.93_
TOTAL: 2,101.93
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 3/15/11 FEB MILEAGE General Fund Finance 72.00_
TOTAL: 72.00
NIELSEN, BRADLEY 3/29/11 APA CONF REG-APR 9-12 General Fund Planning 695.00
3/15/11 FEB-EXP REIM General Fund Planning 40.00
3/15/11 APA CONF-AIR General Fund Planning 297.80
3/15/11 CELL BATTERY General Fund Planning 16.98_
TOTAL: 1,049.78
NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE 3/28/11 EDGEWOOD LS.#5 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 337.75_
TOTAL: 337.75
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP CO 3/28/11 HYDRAULIC FITTINGS General Fund Parks & Recreation 60.05_
TOTAL: 60.05
OFFICE DEPOT 3/28/11 GEN OFFICE SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 185.10
3/28/11 PLANNING SUPPLIES General Fund Planning 98.00_
TOTAL: 283.10
ON SITE SANITATION INC 3/28/11 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
3/28/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
3/28/11 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13
3/28/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
03-24-2011 10:58 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
3/28/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
3/28/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13_
TOTAL: 685.10
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3/28/11 SWEEPER BROOMS General Fund Public Works 65.49_
TOTAL: 65.49
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,302.52
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 326.04
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 461.47
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Elections 10.70
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 379.87
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 370.99
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 260.75
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 223.71
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 790.16
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 169.94
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 173.82
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 55.72
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 205.95
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 68.54
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 219.82
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 68.85
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 22.29
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 22.29_
TOTAL: 7,133.43
PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS., LLC 3/28/11 2ND QTR RENTAL General Fund Municipal Buildings 334.70_
TOTAL: 334.70
SAM'S CLUB 3/28/11 CITY HALL General Fund Municipal Buildings 105.27
3/28/11 PUBLIC WORK General Fund Public Works 241.04_
TOTAL: 346.31
SEELYE PLASTICS 3/28/11 WATER PLANT TUBING Water Utility Water 96.55_
TOTAL: 96.55
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 3/28/11 FACILITATION SVC-02/03-03/ General Fund Council 3,068.34_
TOTAL: 3,068.34
SPRINT 3/29/11 SVC 02/13-03/12 Water Utility Water 65.73
3/29/11 SVC 02/13-03/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 65.74_
TOTAL: 131.47
SUN NEWSPAPERS 3/28/11 ORD NO. 474--03/10 General Fund General Government 34.32_
TOTAL: 34.32
SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 3/28/11 ORD NO.#474 03/12 General Fund General Government 33.08_
TOTAL: 33.08
U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - TFM 3/28/11 EDA-2007A-PUB SAFETY FIRE 2007 EDA Ref Debt EDA Ref Debt Service 1,750.00
3/28/11 EDA-2007C-PUB SAFETY FIRE 2007 EDA Ref Debt EDA Ref Debt Service 1,750.00
3/28/11 EDA-2007B-PUB SAFETY POLIC 2007 EDA Ref Debt EDA Ref Debt Service 1,750.00
3/28/11 G.O. WA BOND -1996A Water Utility Water 318.38_
TOTAL: 5,568.38
03-24-2011 10:58 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
VERIZON WIRELESS 3/28/11 SVC 02/11-03/10 General Fund Planning 78.68_
TOTAL: 78.68
WARNER CONNECT 3/28/11 APR MAINT General Fund Municipal Buildings 2,800.00_
TOTAL: 2,800.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 900.09
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 1,188.54
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 3/15/11 TIRES-FORDF250-2004 General Fund Public Works 684.47
3/29/11 TIRES General Fund Public Works 44.78_
TOTAL: 729.25
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,550.00
General Fund Administration 4,497.19
General Fund General Government 6,365.20
General Fund Elections 147.48
General Fund Finance 5,239.63
General Fund Planning 5,117.10
General Fund Protective Inspections 3,596.52
General Fund City Engineer 3,085.60
General Fund Public Works 10,898.73
General Fund Streets & Roadways 2,344.09
General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 2,397.41
General Fund Tree Maintenance 768.48
General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,840.81
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 945.28
Water Utility Water 3,032.08
Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 949.74
Recycling Utility Recycling 307.40
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 307.50_
TOTAL: 54,390.24
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 112,407.25
307 2007 EDA Ref Debt Service 5,250.00
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 2,020.75
601 Water Utility 4,066.53
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 70,797.32
621 Recycling Utility 353.21
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 351.56
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 195,246.62
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 5
03-24-2011 11:02 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 1
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
NON-DEPARTMENTAL General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FEDERAL W/H 4,926.93
3/15/11 FICA W/H 2,190.32
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 756.20
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,302.52
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,025.00
3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 344.11
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 3/15/11 STATE W/H 2,101.93
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 900.09_
TOTAL: 15,547.10
Council General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 96.10
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 22.49
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3/28/11 1ST QTR LEVY 7,810.50
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 3/28/11 LAURA HOTVET-2011 JOINT CO 80.00
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 3/28/11 FACILITATION SVC-02/03-03/ 3,068.34
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,550.00_
TOTAL: 12,627.43
Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 270.24
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 63.20
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 326.04
MAMA 3/28/11 SCOTT NEAL SPEAKER-02/10 20.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,497.19_
TOTAL: 5,176.67
General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 393.73
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 92.09
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 461.47
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 3/28/11 APR NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 500.00
OFFICE DEPOT 3/28/11 GEN OFFICE SUPPLIES 185.10
SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 3/28/11 ORD NO.#474 03/12 33.08
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 288.45
SUN NEWSPAPERS 3/28/11 ORD NO. 474--03/10 34.32
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 6,365.20_
TOTAL: 8,353.44
Elections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 9.08
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 2.12
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 10.70
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 147.48_
TOTAL: 169.38
Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 315.69
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 73.82
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 379.87
MISC. VENDOR EHLERS 3/28/11 2011 PUB FIN SEM-DEJONG-FE 255.00
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 3/15/11 FEB MILEAGE 72.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,239.63_
TOTAL: 6,336.01
Professional Svcs General Fund MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 3/28/11 REVIEW CODE/EVIDENCE-VINEH 111.00
3/28/11 SHWD YATCH CLUB-WATER CONC 66.00_
TOTAL: 177.00
Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 288.86
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 67.56
03-24-2011 11:02 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 2
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 370.99
MISC. VENDOR GTS EDUCATIONAL EVENTS 3/28/11 2011 LAND USE PLANNING WKS 40.00
OFFICE DEPOT 3/28/11 PLANNING SUPPLIES 98.00
NIELSEN, BRADLEY 3/29/11 APA CONF REG-APR 9-12 695.00
3/15/11 FEB-EXP REIM 40.00
3/15/11 APA CONF-AIR 297.80
3/15/11 CELL BATTERY 16.98
VERIZON WIRELESS 3/28/11 SVC 02/11-03/10 78.68
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,117.10_
TOTAL: 7,110.97
Municipal Buildings General Fund ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 3/29/11 SVC 02/15-03/15 67.00
PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS., LLC 3/28/11 2ND QTR RENTAL 334.70
LOCAL LINK 3/28/11 APR WEBLINK 69.95
SAM'S CLUB 3/28/11 CITY HALL 105.27
WARNER CONNECT 3/28/11 APR MAINT 2,800.00
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 3/28/11 AUG-C.H. SVC 531.01_
TOTAL: 3,907.93
Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 199.81
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 46.73
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 260.75
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,596.52_
TOTAL: 4,103.81
City Engineer General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 190.69
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 44.60
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 223.71
LANDINI, JAMES 3/15/11 MAR WELLNESS 40.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,085.60_
TOTAL: 3,584.60
Public Works General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 651.87
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 152.45
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 790.16
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 3/28/11 TRUCK BELT 25.44
3/28/11 TRUCK BELT 4.95-
CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE 3/28/11 BRAKE PADS & ROTORS 424.06
HYDRA POWER HYDRAULICS 3/28/11 REBUILD-PLOW CYLINDER 150.00
MENARDS 3/28/11 MAILBOX REPAIR PARTS 56.96
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 3/28/11 HAZARDOUSE WASTE-24200 SMT 264.00
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3/28/11 SWEEPER BROOMS 65.49
SAM'S CLUB 3/28/11 PUBLIC WORK 241.04
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 3/15/11 TIRES-FORDF250-2004 684.47
3/29/11 TIRES 44.78
AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS, INC. 3/28/11 PARTS 39.16
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 3/28/11 MAR SVC 316.46
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 10,898.73_
TOTAL: 14,800.12
Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 143.84
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 33.66
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 169.94
03-24-2011 11:02 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 3
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,344.09_
TOTAL: 2,691.53
Ice & Snow Removal General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 140.79
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 32.92
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 173.82
HAWKINS, INC. 3/28/11 SNOW REMOVAL 987.53
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,397.41_
TOTAL: 3,732.47
Traffic Control/Str Li General Fund GRAINGER, INC 3/28/11 STREET LIGHTS LAMP 413.03_
TOTAL: 413.03
Tree Maintenance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 42.65
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 9.97
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 55.72
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 768.48_
TOTAL: 876.82
Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 167.64
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 39.20
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 205.95
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 3/15/11 PCS-02/28-03/11 2,160.00
3/29/11 PCS-03/13-03/25 1,260.00
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP CO 3/28/11 HYDRAULIC FITTINGS 60.05
ON SITE SANITATION INC 3/28/11 BADGER PARK 45.96
3/28/11 CATHCART PARK 45.96
3/28/11 FREEMAN PARK 266.13
3/28/11 SILVERWOOD PARK 45.96
3/28/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE 45.96
3/28/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS 235.13
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,840.81_
TOTAL: 7,418.75
Unallocated Expenses General Fund MEDICA 3/28/11 APR MEDICAL 14,972.19
AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 3/28/11 APR UNION DENTAL 408.00_
TOTAL: 15,380.19
EDA Ref Debt Service 2007 EDA Ref Debt U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - TFM 3/28/11 EDA-2007A-PUB SAFETY FIRE 1,750.00
3/28/11 EDA-2007C-PUB SAFETY FIRE 1,750.00
3/28/11 EDA-2007B-PUB SAFETY POLIC 1,750.00_
TOTAL: 5,250.00
Senior Community Cente Southshore Communi EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 58.61
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 13.71
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 68.54
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 3/15/11 ASSCC ASSISTANT-02/28-03/0 227.50
MEDIACOM 3/28/11 SSCC-07/16-08/15 SVC 55.84
DREW KRIESEL 3/28/11 FEB SVC 606.00
3/28/11 STOP PYMT 15.00-
MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING 3/28/11 SSCC- GEN SVC 23.98
3/28/11 SSCC- GEN SVC 36.29
03-24-2011 11:02 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 4
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 945.28_
TOTAL: 2,020.75
Water Water Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 172.28
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 40.29
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 219.82
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC 40.75
SPRINT 3/29/11 SVC 02/13-03/12 65.73
SEELYE PLASTICS 3/28/11 WATER PLANT TUBING 96.55
U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - TFM 3/28/11 G.O. WA BOND -1996A 318.38
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,032.08_
TOTAL: 4,066.53
Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 54.78
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 12.80
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 68.85
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC 40.75
INFRATECH 3/28/11 LINE GROUNTING 6,475.00
3/28/11 I & I SANITARY REPAIR 2,575.00
METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 3/29/11 APR WASTEWATER SVC 59,486.26
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 3/28/11 OPERATOR CONF-GREG FASCHIN 325.00
3/28/11 OPERATOR CONF-DAN RANDALL 325.00
SPRINT 3/29/11 SVC 02/13-03/12 65.74
NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE 3/28/11 EDGEWOOD LS.#5 337.75
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 949.74_
TOTAL: 70,797.32
Recycling Recycling Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 19.06
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 4.46
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 22.29
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 307.40_
TOTAL: 353.21
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Managem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/15/11 FICA W/H 17.64
3/15/11 MEDICARE W/H 4.13
PERA 3/15/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 22.29
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 3/14/2011 - 99/99/9999 307.50_
TOTAL: 351.56
03-24-2011 11:02 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 28, 2011 PAGE: 5
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 112,407.25
307 2007 EDA Ref Debt Service 5,250.00
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 2,020.75
601 Water Utility 4,066.53
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 70,797.32
621 Recycling Utility 353.21
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 351.56
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 195,246.62
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 5
Item #3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: County Road 19 – Resolution Supporting Trail
Meeting Date: March 28, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution #11-009
Policy Consideration: should the city council support a bike and pedestrian trail along County Road 19
from the Hennepin County LRT to the Dakota Trail in Orono?
Background: during 2007 and 2008, the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County met with
elected officials and residents from Tonka Bay, Shorewood, and Orono to discuss and consider options
for creating a safe connection along County Road 19 from the Hennepin County LRT in Tonka Bay to the
Dakota Trail in Orono.
The committee met several times to discuss and review several different options. The outcome was the
development of three possible concept plans. The three cities participated in a joint meeting to review
the concept plans and to consider a resolution supporting the idea of constructing a safe route between
the two trails.
In November of 2009, Hennepin County presented information on the concepts to the Shorewood City
Council and requested the council adopt a resolution of support. The Council did not pass the resolution.
On March 11, 2010, the City of Tonka Bay sent a request for the City of Shorewood to again consider
adopting a resolution in support of a trial link between the LRT and Dakota trails.
Financial or Budget Considerations: at this point, staff does not see any financial impacts associated
with this request.
Options:
1)Adopt the resolution as presented
2)Remove from the Consent and amend the resolution
3)Decline to approve the resolution
Recommendation / Action Requested: staff recommends the council adopt the resolution.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon passage of the resolution, staff will forward copies to the Cities of
Tonka Bay, Orono, and Hennepin County.
Connection to Vision / Mission: connects to providing a health environment and attractive amenities.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-009
A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE COUNTY ROAD 19 TRAIL CONCEPT DESIGN PLAN
WHEREAS
, Hennepin County State Aid Highway 19 (CSAH 19) is a vital north-south
transportation link in suburban Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS
; CSAH 19 also serves as an important bicycle corridor with off-street bicycle trails
extending along much of its northern length; and
WHEREAS
; the segment of CSAH 19 through the Lake Minnetonka Area does not contain off-
street bicycle trails; and
WHEREAS
; Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County see this as a key north / south link
in the overall trail system; and
WHEREAS
; the Cities of Orono, Tonka Bay, and Shorewood submitted a joint application to
Hennepin County for a Community Works Corridor Planning Grant to develop a concept level plan for an
off-street multi-use trail along CSAH 19 linking the Dakota Trail and Minnetonka Regional Trail; and
WHEREAS
; the County Road 19 Trail Concept Design plan is complete;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota, that
it supports a safe bike and pedestrian route between the Hennepin County LRT and the Dakota Trail
along County Road 19.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the City Council of the City of Shorewood will work with
Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, the City of Tonka Bay, and the City of Orono in this
endeavor.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th day of March,
2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: LMCIT Sewer Backup Coverage
Meeting Date: March 28, 2011
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Brian Heck
Larry Brown
Attachments: LMCIT Memo
Resolution
Policy Consideration:
This item will determine the level of insurance coverage for sanitary sewer backups caused by no fault of
the city
Background:
The City of Shorewood has general liability coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT). As part of our coverage, the city has chosen to provide, in addition to our general liability
for sewer backup claims, up to $10,000 coverage for our customers when a backup occurs due to
conditions in the sewer main for which the city is not liable. The LMCIT has chosen to enhance coverage
for no-fault backups by covering situations where a water main break has drained into the sanitary
sewer system and caused a backup.
The city is not liable for damages if we have properly maintained our system and are not negligent in the
operations. This coverage does not apply to backups caused by conditions within the service connection
between the home and the sewer main.
The question that occurred is whether the city should enhance the coverage at this time. Staff asked
LMCIT representatives what coverage levels are available and the associated costs.
The options are:
1.$10,000 coverage $3,169 premium
2.$25,000 coverage $3,924 premium
3.$40,000 coverage $4,905 premium
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The sewer fund could cover the cost of any premium level that is available.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Options:
The City Council should choose the level of coverage that they are most comfortable providing. The
resolution identifies $25,000 for the maximum amount of covered loss, but the City Council may choose
any of the specified levels of coverage.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopts the resolution at the $25,000 level of coverage. This
amount is very affordable with a premium increase of only $755 per year for coverage. This suggestion
to increase the level of coverage is given with the knowledge that the cost to repair damage in a finished
basement may easily exceed the $10,000 level currently authorized.
Next Steps and Timelines:
This resolution should be adopted at least at the current coverage level. If the City Council is
uncomfortable increasing coverage to $25,000, staff can bring back the discussion prior to renewal
which occurs November 1 each year.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This coverage contributes to sound financial management.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
11-010
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LIMITED CLEAN UP AND
PROPERTY DAMAGE PROTECTION FOR SEWER BACK-UPS AND
WATER MAIN BREAKS FOR WATER AND SEWER CUSTOMERS
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood provides water and sanitary sewer services to property within its
jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS
, water main breaks may cause water to enter into property causing damage; and
WHEREAS
, blockages or other conditions in the City of Shorewood's sanitary sewer lines may
cause the back-up of sewage into properties that are connected to those City of Shorewood's sanitary
lines; and
WHEREAS
, water main breaks and sewer back-ups pose a public health and safety concern; and
WHEREAS
, it is often difficult to determine the exact cause and responsibility for water main
breaks and sanitary sewer back-ups, and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Shorewood desires to encourage the expeditious clean-
up of properties that have encountered damage from water main breaks and sewer backups; and
WHEREAS
, the governing body of the City of Shorewood desires to minimize the potential of
expensive lawsuits arising out of water main breaks and sanitary sewer back-up claims; and
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood is a member of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT); and
WHEREAS
, LMCIT has offered the City of Shorewood limited "no fault" sewer coverage and water
main break coverage that will reimburse users of the water and sewer system for certain clean-up
costs and property damage regardless of whether the City of Shorewood is at fault.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, as follows:
The City of Shorewood, as part of the contract for providing water and sewer services to the
customers of the City of Shorewood, and in consideration of the payment of water and sewer bills,
25,000
agrees to reimburse water and sanitary sewer customers for up to $of clean-up costs and
property damages caused by a water main break or sanitary sewer back -up, regardless of whether the
City of Shorewood is negligent or otherwise legally liable for damages, subject to the following
conditions:
Sanitary Sewer Back-Ups. For Sanitary sewer back-ups:
I.
A. The back-up must have resulted from a condition in the City of Shorewood's sanitary
sewer system or lines, and not from a condition in a private line.
B. The back-up must not have been caused by catastrophic weather or other events for
which Federal Emergency Management Assistance is available.
C. The back-up must not have been caused by an interruption in electric power to the
City of Shorewood's sewer system or to any City of Shorewood lift station, which
continues for more than 72 hours.
D. The back-up must not have been caused by rainfall or precipitation that would
constitute a 100-year storm as determined by the National Weather Service.
E. Neither the City of Shorewood nor LMCIT will reimburse any costs which have been
or are eligible to be covered under a property owner's own homeowners' or other
property insurance, or which would be eligible to be reimbursed under a National
Flood Insurance Protection (NFIP) policy, whether or not the property owner actually
has NFIP Coverage.
F. The maximum amount that the City of Shorewood or LMCIT will reimburse is
25,000 p
$er building, per year. In this regard, a structure or group of structures
served by a single connection to the City of Shorewood's sewer system is considered
a single building.
II. Water Main Breaks. For water main breaks:
A. LMCIT will pay for claims presented by the City of Shorewood for water main break
damage to property of others which was not caused by the City of Shorewood's
negligence.
B. Neither the City of Shorewood nor LMCIT will pay for damages or expenses for
which the property owner has been or is eligible to be reimbursed by any
homeowners' or other property insurance.
C. The maximum amount that the City of Shorewood or LMCIT will reimburse is
25,000
$to any claimant, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of
properties affected.
D. Neither the City of Shorewood nor LMCIT will pay more than $250,000 for water
main break damages resulting from any single occurrence. All water main break
damage which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to result
from a single occurrence. If the total water main break damage for all claimants in a
single occurrence exceeds $250,000, the reimbursement to each claimant will be
calculated as follows:
1. A preliminary reimbursement figure is established for each claimant, equal to
25,000.
the lesser of the claimant's actual damages or $
2. The sum of the preliminary reimbursement figures for all claimants will be
calculated.
3. Each claimant will be paid a percentage of his or her preliminary
reimbursement figure, equal to the percentage calculated by dividing
$250,000 by the sum of all claimants' preliminary reimbursement figures.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th day of
March, 2011.
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
00
LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA
CITIES
3/18/11
To: Ken Jarco Insurance Agency
From: Mike Wozniak, LMCIT Underwriting Manager
Re: No Fault Sewer Back Up Coverage
Member: City of Shorewood
Coverage Period: 11/01/10 to 11/01/11
CMC Number: CMC 32464
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
L RECEIVED Z011
REWOOM 7
Beginning with renewals on or after November 15, 2009, the No Fault Sewer Back Up coverage
was expanded to include damage from a water main break up to $250,000 per occurrence. Flue to
this expansion in coverage, a new resolution should be passed.
Attached is:
• A model resolution that can be used for this change.
• A copy of the memo discussing the 2009 -2010 coverage changes.
Please send, fax or e -mail a copy of the completed resolution to Pat Mingee. (Fax: 651 -281-
1298 /Phone: 651- 215- 4081 /E -mail: pmingee lmc.org
Cc: City of Shorewood
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAx: (651) 281-1298
INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEE:WWWLMC.ORG
LlAr2
OF CONNECTING & INNOVATING
MINNESOTA SINCE t913
CITIES
Date: Nov. 23, 2009
To: Members of LMCIT's Property /Casualty and Workers' Compensation programs
From: Pete Tritz, LMCIT Administrator
Ann Gergen, LMCIT Associate Administrator
RE: 2009 -10 Coverage Changes
The LMCIT Board has approved a number of changes in LMCIT's liability, property, workers'
compensation, and other coverages for the 2009 -2010 underwriting year. Most of these changes
will be effective for property /casualty coverage written or renewed on or after November 15, 2009
and for workers' compensation coverage on or after January 1, 2010. However, as noted below,
there are a couple instances in which the changes don't take effect until a later date.
Property coverage changes
Golf course sprinklers
Cities have the option to cover several different kinds of property in the open, including golf
course property. A golf course must be listed on the schedule of "property in the open" in order
for property such as greens, tees, fairways, etc. to be covered. For 2009 -10 the definition of "golf
course property" has been clarified to include underground irrigation equipment.
Green building certification costs
The LMCIT property coverage currently pays for the cost to rebuild a Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certified building as it was if it were damaged or destroyed. The
property coverage has been modified to provide an additional limit of one percent of the loss cost
or $100,000, whichever is less, for the additional costs to maintain LEED or comparable "green
construction" certification after the building is re- constructed and the additional costs to recycle
construction debris. These provisions also apply to the Machinery Breakdown coverage.
Crime coverage
All cities automatically receive $250,000 of coverage for crime losses, as part of the property
coverage. The LMCIT crime coverage has been expanded to reimburse the city for reasonable
audit and accounting costs the city incurs to identify the existence and amount of a claim.
Reimbursement for audit and accounting costs is limited to an amount equal to 25% of the actual
covered loss. This expense reimbursement is in addition to the crime coverage limit. Similar
provisions were added to the LMCIT bond coverage in 2006.
Any elected or appointed official or employee of the city is covered under the OML defense
coverage. This doesn't include officials or employees of a utilities commission, port authority,
HRA, EDA, redevelopment authority, municipal power or gas agency, hospital or nursing home
board, airport commission, or joint powers board unless that board is specifically named in the
Declarations.
The standard OML defense coverage will reimburse a city official for 100% of the defense cost
incurred by the city official in defending an OML lawsuit. The OML Defense Costs
Reimbursement Agreement is limited to $50,000. This is the most LMCIT will reimburse any one
city official for defense costs for OML suits begun during the coverage term, regardless of the
number of suits or the number of actual alleged violations.
Definition of "your work"
The liability coverage document uses the term "your work" in two coverage exclusions. The
definition of "your work" has been narrowed to apply only to any claims arising for the cost to
repair or redo mistakes or problems arising from improvements, alterations or other work the city
performs on the property of others.
Aggregate limit - products / completed operations
The liability coverage has a $2 million annual aggregate limit on coverage for the
"products /completed operations hazard ". The coverage language has been revised so the
aggregate limit now applies only to claims arising from the city's "product ", not the city's "work"
The aggregate limit does not apply to work the city may perform on such products.
Wage reimbursement
The "supplementary payments" section of the liability coverage has been increased to a $200 per
day limit on the amount LMCIT will reimburse a city officer or employee for lost earnings if s/he
is required to miss work in order to testify.
Railroad operations
An exclusion has been added to the liability coverage for bodily injury, property damage, and
personal injury claims arising from the city's ownership, construction, operation, or maintenance
of any railroad tracks or railroad rolling stock.
No -fault sewer backup coverage.
LMCIT offers property /casualty members the option to purchase "no- fault" sewer backup
coverage, which reimburses a property owner for clean -up costs and damages caused by a sewer
backup, irrespective of whether the city was negligent or legally liable for those damages. This
optional coverage has been expanded to also apply to damage from a water main break, up to
$250,000 per occurrence.
Other coverage changes
City staff expenses
The coverage language has been changed to clarify that LMCIT will reimburse the city for city
staff time spent in connection with a claim, but only if it's work LMCIT has requested the city to
perform. The revised coverage language also clarifies that LMCIT will not reimburse the city for
city staff time or other expenses the city incurs to assemble information and documentation to
support the city's claim.
Collections offset.
The collections policy the LMCIT Board approved last March provides that if there are
outstanding and overdue amounts which the city owes to LMCIT, LMCIT may offset those
amounts against any amounts LMCIT owes to the city. Consistent with this policy, the coverage
documents are modified to specify that LMCIT may offset any overdue amounts which the city
owes to LMCIT against any payments LMCIT owes to the city on any first -party property claims.
The collection policy also provides for similar offsets against any other amounts owed to the city,
such as dividends, audit refunds, etc.
Incentive Programs
Future Changes in Coverage for Sanitary Sewer Backups
Beginning November 15, 2010, a mandatory minimum deductible will apply to all liability claims
for sanitary sewer backups unless the city meets specified standards for its sewer operations.
Please review the enclosed materials regarding these changes.
#6A
Phelps Bay Milfoil Treatments – 2011 Report to Minnetrista, Mound and Shorewood
__________________________________________________________________________________
March 1, 2011, updated on March 23
The Lake Minnetonka Association has been the project manager for milfoil treatments in Phelps and other
Bays on Lake Minnetonka since 2008. The three Cities abutting Phelps Bay (Minnetrista, Mound and
Shorewood) have generously contributed funding assistance throughout this project – thank you.
This project is a cooperative demonstration project among the Lake Minnetonka Association, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and several
other agencies and Cities. The results from the first three years of the five-year project have been
encouraging and the Lake Minnetonka Association and our members continue to support this effort.
Indeed, in 2011, two additional bays will be added to the program – Gideon and St. Albans.
Below is an accounting of income and expenses for the Phelps Bay portion of the project, along with
projected revenues and costs for 2011:
Phelps Bay Accounting Summary & Status
2008 2009 2010 2011 (projected)
INCOME
DNR $ 8,333 $11,973 $ 8,333 $16,500 (confirmed)
LMCD $10,000 $10,000 $ 8,820 $10,000 (confirmed)
Mound $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $ 6,000 (budgeted maximum)
Minnetrista $ 6,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 (confirmed)
Shorewood $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 2,000 (+ $2,000 to Gideon)
Private $30,396 $16,280 $18,640 up to $14,955 (to be raised)
Carry-over n/a $ 8,200 [$ 847] $11,645
$72,729 $67,453 $54,793 $56,900
EXPENSE
Treatment $56,112 $61,000 $35,280 $42,200 - $58,200
Permit $ 0 $ 0 $ 750 $ 1,500
Management $ 8,417 $ 7,300 $ 7,118 $ 5,400
$64,529 $68,300 $43,148 $49,100 – $65,100
NET $ 8,200 [$2,697] $ 11,645 $ 0
LMA ◊ P. O. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331 ◊ (952) 470-4449
AKE INNETONKA SSOCIATION
Phelps Bay Milfoil Treatments – 2011 Report to Minnetrista, Mound and Shorewood
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Cities’ contributions have varied – from year-to-year as well as among the Cities. The Lake
Minnetonka Association has been asked to provide a breakdown of the respective Cities’ portion of
treatment costs based on number of residents, contributions of private residents in each City,
contributions of each City, shoreline length or portion of the treatment costs. Of these, the portion of
treatment costs (by City) does not lend itself to analysis because much of the treatment areas have been in
offshore areas of the bay.
The following is an assessment of the proportions (as percentages) of various factors, by City:
Minnetrista Mound Shorewood
Number of Residential Properties 25% 44% 30%
Shore Length 36% 24% 40%
Private Contributions (3 years) 18% 26% 56%
City Contributions (3 years) 19% 53% 28%
I, along with representative(s) from the respective Cities have or will be meeting with each City Council to
answer any additional questions about this project and request continued funding assistance.
Thanks,
Dick Osgood, Executive Director
LMA ◊ P. O. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331 ◊ (952) 470-4449
AKE INNETONKA SSOCIATION
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: City Identification Signs
Meeting Date: March 28, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: should the entry signs to Shorewood include the 2010 census population?
Background: during the budget discussion last year, council member Zerby expressed a desire to
reinstall signage along Highway 7 and County Road 19 to identify entry into the City of Shorewood. He
also expressed a desire to have the 2010 population determined by the census included on the sign.
The city received the 2010 census number and staff needs to know if the Council wants the population
number on the signs.
Financial or Budget Considerations: the 2011 budget included acquisition of the signs.
Options:
1)Order the signs with the 2010 census population
2)Order the signs without the 2010 census population
3)Do not order any signs
Recommendation / Action Requested: staff recommends the purchase and installation of Shorewood
signs.
Next Steps and Timelines: if council approves the purchase of the signs, staff will order the signs and
seek approval from MnDOT and Hennepin County to place signs in the ROW.
Connection to Vision / Mission: promotes the identity of the city.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#11B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Measureable Management
Meeting Date: March 28, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: should the city go through Measureable Management as facilitated by Fritz
Partners?
Background: the council discussed and approved contracting with Fritz Partners to take city staff
through the Measureable Management program at the March 14, 2011 council meeting.
The next day, Council member Hotvet raised a few concerns regarding the program and Council member
Siakel, who was not in attendance at the meeting, also expressed concerns. Both indicated a desire to
have the item brought back for additional discussion and consideration.
Financial or Budget Considerations: the city council included funds for this program in the 2011 budget
and the total cost is $3,500 per employee or approximately $31,000.
Options:
1)Reaffirm participation in the program and direct staff to execute the agreement with Fritz
Partners;
2)Decline the program at this time and bring back for reconsideration later in the year;
3)Direct staff to research and consider other alternative programs;
4)Decline participation in this or other like programs.
Recommendation / Action Requested: staff still recommends the council approve participation in the
program for 2011.
Next Steps and Timelines: if approved staff will execute the agreement with Fritz Partners with a time
line to begin the program in April and ending in August.
Connection to Vision / Mission: supports visionary leadership, sound financial management, and quality
public services. This program also supports the core values of leadership, teamwork, and accountability.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1