04-25-11 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 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 28, 2011 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 28, 2011 Minutes
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, April 11, 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. Shorewood Yacht Club Multiple Dock Facility License Deputy Clerk’s
Memo
C. Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) Fundraising Event (Dance) Deputy Clerk’s
Temporary 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License and Special Event Permit Memo, Resolution
D. Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Vine Hill Road Mill & Overlay, City Engineer’s Memo
Project 11-02
E. Bill Erickson Addition – Request for Extension to File Final Plat Planning Director’s
Memo
F. Liquor License Renewals Deputy Clerk’s
Memo, Resolutions
G. Public Works Capital Improvement Equipment Purchases – Vehicle Lift and Director of Public
Tractor Backhoe Works memo
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – APRIL 25, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
H. Authorization to Apply for an Organics Collection Grant Administrator’s
memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Park and Planning Commissioner Recognitions Deputy Clerk’s
Memo
B. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Report by representative Report
Ken Hendrickson
7. PARKS - Report by Representative
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accepting Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids Engineer’s memo,
for 2011 Seal coating of Streets Resolution
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Continuation of Zoning Violation Appeal Administrator’s
Appellant: Ron Johnson memo
Location: 5490 Vine Hill Road
B. Excelsior Fire District Budget Administrator’s
memo
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Monthly Budget Report Budget Report
2. Quarterly Investment Report Investment Report
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, 25 April, 2011
7:00 p.m.
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: This is the annual renewal of the Shorewood Yacht Club Multiple Dock
Facility License.
Agenda Item #3C: The Excelsior Fire Relief Association (EFRA) has submitted all the
necessary documentation for its Temporary 3.2 Percent on-sale liquor license and Special
Event Permit for its annual fundraising event on July 15, 2011. All documentation has
been reviewed and approved by appropriate staff, the SLMPD, and the EFD. As in past
years, the EFRA has requested that the $25 temporary liquor license fee be waived, as the
city is a member of the EFD.
Agenda Item #3D:
The City of Shorewood encumbered $133,000 of the operating budget for the road
maintenance of Vine Hill Road for Mill and Overlay with the City of Minnetonka. Staff
recommends approving the advertisement of bids for this mill & overlay project. If approved, bids
will be opened on Wednesday, May 18 at 10:30 a.m.
Agenda Item #3E: Bill Erickson is requesting an extension of the deadline to file the final plat for
properties in the southwest corner of Shorewood. Staff recommends a six-month extension.
Agenda Item #3F: This is the annual liquor license renewal for five establishments in Shorewood. All
five establishments have submitted the necessary documentation, paid the appropriate fee and all
background checks were conducted with no violations within the past year. Staff recommends
adoption of the five resolutions approving the liquor licenses.
Agenda Item #3G: This item considers the acquisition of programmed purchases, with modifications to
line items, as adopted in the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement, Equipment Replacement Fund
Agenda Item #3H: Consideration of a grant application for a pilot program for organics waste
collection.
Agenda Item #5A: There are no scheduled public hearings this evening.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #6A: This is recognition of and presentation of a service plaque to those Park
and Planning Commissioners who served on the commissions. Being recognized this
evening are Planning Commissioners Missy Vilett and William Ruoff; and Park
Commissioners Jeremy Norman and Susanne Gaidos. Ms. Gaidos is not available to be
present this evening.
Agenda Item #6B: Ken Hendrickson, the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
(LMCC) representative, will report on recent LMCC activities.
Agenda Item #7: Park Commissioner Nick Swaggert will report on the recent Park
Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #8: A Planning Commission representative will report on the recent Planning
Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #9A: The City of Shorewood encumbered $233,000 of the 2011 operating
budget for the sealcoat maintenance of roadways within the City. This resolution
approves the plans and specifications for sealcoating maintenance and authorizes the
advertisement for bids. If approved, the bid opening for this project is scheduled for
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 18, 2011.
Agenda Item #10 – There are no items of new business this evening.
Agenda Item #11A: This is a continuation of the March 28, 2011, zoning violation appeal of
Ron Johnson, 5490 Vine Hill Road.
Agenda Item #11B: Council is asked to provide input and direction on the preferred method to
fund the Excelsior Fire District.
Agenda Item #12A.1.: Attached is the monthly budget report.
Agenda Item #12A.2: Attached is the quarterly investment report.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Administrator Heck;
Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen (arrived at 6:12 P.M.); Director of
Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mayor Lizée turned the meeting over to Director DeJong.
Director DeJong stated since he started his employment with the City one goal is to develope a
comprehensive long-range financial management plan for the City. He noted a copy of his first draft is in
the meeting packet. He explained the plan includes all of the City’s various funds. It shows revenues and
expenditures and is projected forward through 2020. He stated this plan will serve as the starting point for
developing the 2012 General Fund Budget, the 2012 Enterprise Budgets and the 2012 - 2016 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). The plan will be updated to reflect what impact the 2012 budgets and CIP
will have on the City’s financial plan through 2020. He noted that not everything in this first draft of the
plan is perfect. He also noted that the 2012 information in the plan will very likely change during the
budgeting process.
Director DeJong stated it’s not very efficient to have employees who don’t have the correct equipment to do
their jobs. The City has to have the financial wherewithal to acquire the necessary equipment and tools
when needed. He commented that sending Public Works staff out with shovels instead of trucks won’t be
efficient or effective.
DeJong noted that he and Administrator Heck will revisit the plan again prior to the start of the 2012
budget process which will start after the 2010 audit has been completed. He stated Council can obviously
change any of the assumptions used when creating the plan
DeJong stated the City has a lot of financial resources. Its fund balances are healthy. There are some funds
that are running deficits and if those funds are projected out without changes, the financial picture does not
look very good for a few funds. He noted that Staff is not charged with deciding how to make the deficits
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 2 of 6
disappear. It is Staff’s responsibility to provide Council with options for correcting deficit situations and to
implement the decisions Council makes to correct the situations in the future.
DeJong stated the General Fund projects a 2 percent increase each year for revenues and expenditures
starting in 2012. In the capital funds the 2 percent increase does not start until 2016. He stated the CIP
factors in an in inflation. The Street Reconstruction Fund has a 2 percent inflation factor built into the
transfer in from the General Fund starting in 2012; that may not be enough if oil prices continue to remain
high. Revenues in the other capital funds have an inflation factor built in starting in 2016. He stated
Council may want to change some of the inflation factors incorporated into the plan.
DeJong stated the League of Minnesota Cities, the State Economist, and the State Demographer have stated
because of the State’s aging population, the State’s revenues going forward may not be able to fund the
social services needs with the existing formulas. The State Senate and House of Representatives are
proposing cuts to aids to cities. There could be cuts to police and fire pension aid, general aid for police,
police and fire training, Minnesota State Aid funding for roadways, and so forth. There is also the
possibility that cities’ 2012 and 2013 levies cannot be any higher than their 2011 levies.
Administrator Heck stated it’s his understanding that the property tax bill put forward by the House
extends the current levy limits for two years. Heck explained that the levy limit for 2011 could not have
been less than zero. It could not have been higher than the lower of either 3.9 percent of the 2010 allowable
levy or the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD). The last time he checked the IPD was approximately 1.8 percent.
Therefore, the allowable levy limit increase at this time would be a maximum of 1.8 percent over the 2011
levy. In the past cities were not penalized for not levying the total amount allowable under levy and he’s not
sure if that will carry forward.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that in the past if the City did not levy the maximum allowed under levy
limits the City could include in the next year’s levy the difference between the amount that could have
levied and the actual amount actually levied for each past years that occurred. The City could therefore
levy more than the levy limit allows. He noted the City has not increased its levy for the last three years.
Administrator Heck stated if the levy limits remain as they were in 2011 the City could increase the levy to
what the Department of Revenue says the City can levy.
Director DeJong stated Council doesn’t have to make any decisions on the financial plan now. Council does
need to understand what the impact of the budget and tax levy will be on the plan. He cautioned against
making big changes based on one financial year because they could have a significant impact.
DeJong explained a few things in the financial plan are different from the City’s financial statements with
regard to Enterprise Funds. The accounting for Enterprise Funds is similar to that for businesses. The
accounting for Enterprise Funds doesn’t track cash position like the General Fund and the Capital Funds
do. The accounting tracks the value of the enterprise. The enterprise value equals the cash it has on hand
plus the assets purchased. In the plan he took depreciation out of the plan and put in the capital outlay
amounts identified in the CIP for the enterprises. The plan projects whether or not there will be enough cash
on hand to fund larger capital projects. For enterprise operations that project income losses, the City may
have to consider raising utility rates at the same time it’s increasing its property taxes.
DeJong stated the meeting packet included two tables prepared by the Office of the State Auditor (OSA).
One table is titled Classification of Expenditures for All Government Funds for the Year Ended December
31, 2009. The other is titled Percent Change of Unreserved Fund Balances in the General Fund and
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 3 of 6
Special Revenue Funds Unreserved Fund Balance as a Percent of Total Current Expenditure for the Year
Ended December 31, 2009.
DeJong explained the City calculates its Fund balance by comparing the balance to the next fiscal year’s
operating expenditures, capital outlay, and transfers out of the General Fund. Based on that calculation, the
City’s Fund Balance is approximately 62 percent; just over the targeted Fund Balance Policy of between 55
and 60 percent. The OSA compares the Fund Balance to the current year’s operating expenditures; capital
outlay and transfers are not considered. Based on OSA calculation, the City’s Fund balance is over 94
percent. He stated it’s difficult to generate any sympathy from the City’s representatives to the State
Legislature when it appears as if the City has enough Fund Balance to pay all of the upcoming year’s
expenditures. He then stated Staff may want Council to consider putting the budget together somewhat
differently so the City’s financials would more closely reflect the way the OSA looks at things. He noted
the OSA pays attention to the City’s General Fund balance. He also noted a healthy fund balance helps to
maintain the City’s good bond rating.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City’s Fund Balance Policy allows for the City to fund slightly more
than six months of its operations with cash on hand. He noted the City receives tax revenue from Hennepin
County twice a year and therefore it needs that amount of cash.
Director DeJong explained residents have to pay one half of their property taxes to Hennepin County by
th
May 15. The City gets some of that money the end of June. In the past three years on average there have
only been three months in each year when the City has a positive cash flow.
With regard to the General Fund, DeJong stated the plan is broken down by department. He reiterated a 2
percent increase in revenues and expenditures is factored in starting in 2012. He noted that salary and
benefit increases were programmed in separate from the general expenses. He explained there were no
increases in health insurance costs the last two years. That’s unlikely to remain that way for long so health
insurance increases should be programmed in at some point. He stated the plan for elections needs to be
adjusted to reflect the election cycle.
DeJong explained that in order to make this plan look more like the OSA’s information, he pulled out
capital outlay and transfers from individual departments and put them in the respective separate categories
titled Capital Outlay and Transfers Out. He then explained for a number of years the General Fund Budget
included a transfer in of $40,000 from the Liquor Fund. In 2010, the funds in the Liquor Fund were put
into the Community Investment Fund in order to comply with Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) Standard 54. This financial plan no longer programs such a transfer into the General Fund.
Administrator Heck stated there had been a history of transferring $40,000 from the Liquor Fund to the
General Fund prior to the City selling its liquor operations. After the sale, the council decided to continue
making transfers The most recent transfer included using about $38,000 in Liquor Fund principal in the
$40,000 transfer. Staff wants Council to provide some direction on how it would like to resolve the impact
of eliminating that transfer.
Councilmember Zerby asked if the Police Capital Outlay line item is for the police public safety facility.
Administrator Heck and Director DeJong responded that is correct. DeJong explained that some of the
police and fire debt service will be retired in 2022 and the remainder in 2023. There was a short discussion
about refunding debt service bonds. Zerby asked what the City Engineer Capital Outlay is for. Heck
explained it’s to purchase tools and equipment. DeJong noted those purchases could be funded out of the
Technology Fund. Zerby asked why the Technology Fund is not under the Capital Outlay category. DeJong
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 4 of 6
stated the City has generally had a $5,000 limit for capitalizing purchases and the engineering capital items
individually don’t satisfy that limit.
After discussion there was consensus to at some point address capitalizing purchases.
Director DeJong explained the Fund Balance Policy suggests a targeted Fund balance equal to 60 percent
of the next year’s total expenditures, capital outlay and transfers. The General Fund financial plan
calculates both the dollar amount and percent level through 2020. The plan also calculates what the percent
level would be if it was calculated using the OSA’s method.
Administrator Heck explained the Fund Balance Policy recommends a level of 55 – 60 percent. Any
balance in excess of 60 percent is to be used to reduce the levy amount until a level of 55 – 60 percent is
reached. He said using the Fund balance to fund general operations is delaying the impact on the City’s
taxpayers. Continuing down that path will result in the potential for a significant tax increase when the
desired level is achieved. He suggested taking a percent of the excess using it to fund CIP funds. He
recommended Council discuss the current Policy and decide if it should be refined.
Mayor Lizée stated continuing to help fund general operations with the use of Fund balance is sort of like
kicking the can down the road. She stated the City has really not held to a zero percent increase the last
three years because it used General Fund balance and Liquor Fund balance to offset costs. She agreed that
Council needs to discuss how it wants to use the $1.8 million dollars in the Community Investment Fund.
Director DeJong explained that the only City tax debt in the Debt Service and Capital Outlay plan is the
bonded debt for the renovation of City Hall. The bonds for the public safety facilities are accounted for in
the General Fund. The water bonds are accounted for in the Water Fund plan.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the bonds for City Hall can be recalled in 2016. He then stated Council
could consider taking cash to retire some of those bonds to save on the interest costs.
With regard to Municipal Buildings Fund, Director DeJong explained there is $20,000 budgeted for
improvements in 2011 and then there is nothing budgeted for that purpose until 2016 when $10,000 is
budgeted. A 2 percent inflation factor is applied starting in 2017. There will still be a fund balance at the
end of 2020.
With regard to the Park Improvement Fund, DeJong explained the 2 percent inflation factor was applied to
the transfer in amount starting in 2016. The park improvement capital costs for 2011 – 2015 were taken
from the 2011 – 2015 Park CIP. The plan reflects expenditures were adjusted to balance with revenues on
an annual basis.
With regard to the Equipment Replacement Fund, DeJong explained the Miscellaneous Income line item in
2011 – 2015 is for the payments the City will receive from the Excelsior Fire District for the City’s loan to
the District for the purchase of the District’s self contained breathing apparatus. The plan programs a
$50,000 transfer from the General Fund beginning in 2011. There is a 2 percent inflation is factored in
stating in 2016. Prior to 2016, the actual replacement costs include an inflation factor as well as revenues
from the sale of old equipment. He noted that in every year going forward, with the exception of 2018,
equipment replacement capital purchases exceed the amount transferred in.
With regard to the Street Maintenance Fund, DeJong explained Council reviewed the proposed 20-Year
Pavement Improvement Plan in 2010. The amounts in this plan were taken from that Plan and the amounts
already include inflation. Transfers in from the General Fund also include 2 percent inflation starting in
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 5 of 6
2012. The Eureka Road project scheduled for 2019 is an extremely costly project and it’s very likely that
an alternative method of financing that project will have to be used.
DeJong stated the City has three different types of equipment funds; Municipal Buildings Fund, Equipment
Replacement, and Technology. He suggested combing the three Funds for ease of use. He commented he
did not think the City would keep buying computers because there are funds in the Technology Fund and
stop buying trucks because the funds in the Equipment Replacement Fund have been depleted or vice versa.
He noted if the Funds were combined there could be separate line items for each of equipment types.
With regard to the Community Investment Fund, Councilmember Zerby stated there must be an error in
that plan because the interest earnings seem unreasonably low. Director DeJong stated he thought he
factored in interest earnings of 0.5 percent for the 2011 budget. Zerby questioned earning only 0.5 percent.
DeJong explained that in order to achieve a rate of return of 2 percent the investments have to be for a 4 –
5 year maturity. Most of the investments available in the shorter investment time period have earnings of
0.5 – 2.0 percent. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the overall plan project a conservative rate of return
until Council decides how to use Fund.
Administrator Heck reiterated Council need to establish a policy on how it would like to use the
Community Investment Fund. He stated Council has to decide if it wants to keep separate the $800,000 in
the Investment Fund that was transferred in from the Liquor Fund and use it for other purposes. He noted a
previous council wanted resident feedback on how to use the funds from the Liquor Fund. He suggested the
City provided a limited number of uses for residents to provide feedback on. He clarified he was not
suggesting the funds from the Liquor Fund or the other funds in the Community Investment Fund have to
be spent. He did think there needs to be a plan for their eventual use.
Mayor Lizée recommended the City start to solicit that feedback this spring before 2012 budget discussion
begin. She noted the issue of how to use the funds from the liquor operations has been out there for years.
She also noted that funds from the Liquor Fund have been used to balance prior years budgets. She stated
now is the time to plan for the responsible use of those funds. She suggested Council have a work session in
late April or early May to discuss the use of Liquor Fund as well as the $1 million in the Community
Investment Fund.
Administrator Heck recommended discussions about the policy decisions he mentioned earlier in the
meeting should be completed before 2012 budget discussions begin.
Councilmember Siakel recommended that the work session be scheduled for longer than one hour to allow
Council adequate time for the discussions. Siakel stated that the summary of ideas generated during the
Council and Staff retreat could be used as a starting point for the discussion on how to use some of the
funds from the Liquor Fund. She then stated that she would like to have a longer term strategic plan.
With regard to the Southshore Community Center Fund, Director DeJong explained he did not spend a lot
of time on it because the City’s current agreement to run the Center is through 2012. Administrator Heck
noted that the operation of the Center will have to be subsidized as long as the City runs it.
With regard to the Enterprise Funds, DeJong explained that even though the Water Fund loses money some
years it’s projected to have a very healthy balance through 2020. He noted the plan reflects a $2 million
expenditure for a water treatment plant in 2020. He explained the challenge in the Sewer Fund is with the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services treatment fee. Due to the economy, the city’s MCES fees
increased to help pay bonds for system expansion. The City’s 2011 fee increased about 20 percent over its
2010 fee. The Recycling Fund loses a little bit every year. The recycling utility rates only cover the cost of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 6 of 6
collection. The City is using up the cash in its Stormwater Management Fund fairly quickly. An alternative
method for funding stormwater management projects will have to be identified.
Administrator Heck explained all of the rates in all of the Enterprise Funds include a 2 percent inflation
factor starting in 2012. He suggested taking out the inflation factor before Council reviews the plan again.
Director DeJong explained that the combined fund balances for all of the funds is projected to drop
approximately $8.5 million by the end of 2020, noting there is not much new regarding equipment or
services other than the water infrastructure in the plan. He noted he did not think the City wants to be in
that position.
Councilmember Woodruff commented he considered roadway improvements long-term investments that are
using up the City’s reserves. Director DeJong stated he did not think the average pavement rating will go
up, and that staff thinks the City will be primarily maintaining its roadway system if it continues with the
20-year Pavement Improvement Plan. Woodruff stated he did not think the rating would go down. DeJong
stated the City would have to invest in its roadways more than planned to increase the average pavement
rating.
3. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of March 28, 2011, at
7:03 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
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 28, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane;
City Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director
of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 14, 2011
Hotvet moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of March 14,
2011, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Siakel abstaining due to her absence at the meeting.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2011
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
March 14, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Siakel abstaining due to her absence at the
meeting.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motion Contained on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. County Road 19 Trail Options
(This was moved to Item 11.C under Old Business.)
C. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Sewer Back-up
(This was moved to Item
11.D under Old Business.)
Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 2 of 14
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association, Report on Milfoil Treatment
Mayor Lizée stated Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) Executive Director, is present to
give a report on the herbicide treatment of Phelps Bay in Lake Minnetonka for Eurasian Watermilfoil
(Milfoil) and Curly Leaf Pondweed (Pondweed).
Mr. Osgood noted he emailed another page to the report he submitted in advance of this meeting. The
original two page report is included in the meeting packet.
Mr. Osgood noted the Cities of Minnetrista, Mound, and Shorewood all abut Phelps Bay. Phelps Bay is
one of bays in the 3-Bay Herbicide Treatment Demonstration Project for Milfoil and Pondweed. This year
is the fourth year of a five year project. He explained Shorewood also abuts Gideon Bay. The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) approved Gideon Bay and St. Albans Bay for treatment in
2011.
Mr. Osgood stated the LMA and the bay captains that help the LMA raised private funds to be used for
the treatments. Because the first three years of treatments have proved to be reasonably effective, the
LMA and its membership continue to support the original effort and support the 2011 treatment of
Gideon Bay and St. Albans Bay.
Councilmember Siakel asked why two more bays will be treated in 2011. Mr. Osgood responded that a
couple of years ago the LMA asked its members through its newsletter if there were property owners with
property fronting other bays on Lake Minnetonka if they were interested in the treatment program.
Owners of properties fronting Gideon Bay and St. Albans Bay expressed interest. Those property owners
began raising money for the treatment. At that time, the MnDNR decided not to allow the treatment of
bays other than the original three bays pending further results. After the completion of the 2010 season,
the MnDNR’s concerns with the previous treatments had been reduced and it is now comfortable with
allowing these two bays to be treated in 2011.
Councilmember Woodruff clarified the treatment of Gideon Bay and St. Albans Bay are not included in
the original 5-year, 3-bay program. With the exception of the LMA, all of the organizations consider only
the original three bays to be part of that program. He stated the LMA wanted to increase the number of
bays it sponsors for treatment to five. Mr. Osgood stated the original program has a number of sponsors
and partners; the LMA, the LMCD, cities abutting the three bays, and property owners. The additional
two bays have a subset of those partners.
Councilmember Woodruff asked Mr. Osgood to explain the range of treatment costs for Phelps Bay for
2011 identified in his document. Mr. Osgood stated three proposals were received from applicators and
the one accepted is from Professional Lake Management. Professional Lake Management proposed a
range of concentrations for the chemical product. Osgood explained the concentrations that were
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 3 of 14
proposed are 1 part per million, 1.25 parts per million, and 1.5 parts per mission. That applicator offered
performance guarantees on all three concentrations. The LMA is working with the residents on Phelps
Bay, who are raising a large portion of the funds for the treatment, to determine what level of
concentration they desire; concentration levels impact cost. He then explained the concentration will have
to be permitted. He expressed he doesn’t anticipate any issue with permitting form the MnDNR because
the MnDNR has established a cap of 2 parts per million.
Mayor Lizée stated the City contributed $6,000 in 2008, 2009 and 2010 toward the treatment of Phelps
Bay. She expressed concern that Mr. Osgood’s document indicates the City will contribute only $4,000
toward the 2011 treatment. She asked that Council consider restoring the level of funding for the effort
because it has been a successful program. She stated that can be discussed during a future meeting. She
then stated this successful treatment program has been supported by the residents, the cities, the MnDNR,
and other entities. She asked if there is any plan to consider treating all of Lake Minnetonka.
Mr. Osgood stated that to his knowledge there is no plan in place to move forward with treating the entire
Lake after the 5-year, 3-bay demonstration project is done. Osgood stated the LMA would find it
desirable to take a more comprehensive look around the Lake as well as have a long-term plan for
managing Milfoil and Pondweed. He expressed he hopes this demonstration model will serve as a model
for that.
Mayor Lizée stated it would be nice to have one agency be responsible for putting together an ongoing
plan. Having residents have to raise funds every year and asking the different communities to help fund
such an effort doesn’t seem to be the appropriate way to move forward.
Mr. Osgood stated the LMA’s position supports that. He noted the LMA is not a government agency and
therefore doesn’t initiate these programs. He noted private funding is not sustainable in the long run.
Mayor Lizée stated this falls under the umbrella of aquatic invasive species (AIS). She explained that a
few weeks ago the mayors of the cities in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) met with
the MCWD to discuss AIS issues with Milfoil being one of the issues. It was clear to the attendees that no
one agency has assumed responsibility for AIS issues. She stated is imperative that one agency, perhaps
the MCWD, take the lead.
Mr. Osgood sated this treatment program has been a demonstration effort. He agreed that some agency
has to take the lead on future strategic efforts.
Councilmember Zerby asked if Mr. Osgood had a breakout of how many Shorewood properties had
Gideon Bay lake front and how much shoreline is in Shorewood? Something similar to what’s has been
provided for Phelps Bay. Mr. Osgood stated he did not. Zerby stated based on the information about
Phelps Bay it appears that the City is not paying its fair share for the treatment of the Bay. Osgood stated
he will get the data for Gideon Bay.
Administrator Heck stated there are a few pieces of pending legislation specific to AIS. He asked Mr.
Osgood what his understanding is about the pending legislation. Mr. Osgood responded that Governor
Dayton and the MnDNR proposed a bill dealing with AIS. The bill emphasizes prevention, which would
have no impact on the demonstration program, and control. That bill and a related budget bill proposed
will roughly double the MnDNR grant dollars for AIS control.
Councilmember Siakel noted that until a non-elected City resident can be identified to represent the City
on the LMCD Board she is filling in in that capacity. She stated it appears the focus for LMCD is
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 4 of 14
centered on preventing the spreading zebra mussels to other lakes. She recommended there also be a
focus on preventing AIS from entering the Lake as well as on maintaining the Lake. Mr. Osgood
responded prevention has to be the number one priority because for AIS other than Milfoil or Pondweed
there is no way to treat or control the other types of AIS.
Mayor Lizée asked when the 2011 treatments will be done. Mr. Osgood explained for bays that are
relatively self contained the treatment will occur in mid-May when the water temperature is 50 – 60
degrees. For other bays the treatment will occur then the plant height is 2 – 4 feet and that should be in
late May or early June.
Mayor Lizée thanked Mr. Osgood for coming.
7. PARKS
No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City Council
regular meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2011.
8. PLANNING
No report was given on the March 15, 2011, Planning Commission meeting.
A. Zoning Violation Appeal
Applicant: Ron Johnson
Location: 5490 Vine Hill Road
Mayor Lizée explained Ron Johnson has appealed a zoning violation notice he received for property he
owns at 5490 Vine Hill Road. Tonight is Mr. Johnson’s opportunity to address the Council on his notice
of appeal. She noted that Mr. Johnson is not present this evening. She asked Council what it wants the
next step in this process to be.
Director Nielsen expressed his concern about Mr. Johnson not being present this evening. He noted that
Mr. Johnson has forwarded a fair amount of correspondence relative to this. He explained Staff
recommends Council consider two viable options. Option 1 is for the City to pursue an enforcement
action in district court. Option 2 is to issue an administrative citation giving Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Eastman, who resides at 5490 Vine Hill Road, 10 days to comply with the zoning violation notices, after
which they would be fined based on the current fee schedule in the Municipal Code. If Council chooses to
move forward with Option 2, it does not preclude this from being resolved in district court. He noted the
City has received a lot of correspondence from residents in the area around the property expressing their
frustration about the property.
Nielsen stated Staff recommends moving forward with the administrative enforcement approach.
Councilmember Zerby highlighted the issues identified in four of the emails received from residents,
noting those names could not be disclosed. The first email states the person has been a resident for 20
years. It expresses concern about the property becoming more and more of an eye sore. There are various
vehicles and storage modules on the property, there appears to be some sort of repair business run out of
the garage based on the number of different vehicles and a vehicle lift in the garage, and there is a rumor
that farm animals may be brought onto the property. The second email expresses concern about the trash
and containers on the property, the junk cars, burning of garbage, and the rumor about farm animals. The
third email expresses concern about the number of cars and storage boxes as well as a possible repair
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 5 of 14
business run out of the garage. The forth email expresses concern about there having been as many as ten
vehicles parked in front of the property and some hidden behind the house, the lift in the garage and the
large number of wooden boxes. All of these residents have asked the City to take action and enforce the
City’s Zoning Code. He clarified that the zoning violation notice is about the wooden crate/containers on
the property. He stated he thought it would be relatively easy for Mr. Johnson to address the issue of
containers. He commented that there appears to be a number of other issues relative to the property that
the residents are concerned about.
Councilmember Zerby stated he supports moving forward with the administrative enforcement process if
that will be the most expeditious way of getting the violations taken care of.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she supports moving forward with the administrative enforcement process.
She then stated there are zoning ordinances for a reason and they should be enforced. She suggested
Council have a future discussion about rental policies. She stated she drove by the property recently and it
doesn’t look good.
Director Nielsen stated the copies of the photographs in the meeting packet were taken when the City
received the original complaint. There were 5 – 6 of the containers on the front of the property. More
have been placed on the property since then. Some of the containers were painted gray after the
photographs were taken. He noted there is a continuing investigation about the possible vehicle repair
business on the property. He explained that the City has advised residents complaining about the fires on
the property that they should call the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. He noted residents have
to have a recreational burning permit to have a fire.
Director Nielsen stated some of the residents are concerned about the rumor that farm animals may be
brought onto to the property. He noted the only restrictions the City has on animals are related to dogs
and horses.
Mayor Lizée reiterated this evening the discussion is about the zoning violations of containers on the
property.
Councilmember Siakel asked if taking the administrative enforcement approach will likely result in a
positive outcome.
Director Nielsen noted that both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastman will be issued citations. He also noted that
the City doesn’t know who brought the containers onto the property, but the owner is ultimately
responsible for the property.
Councilmember Siakel stated if this issue eventually ends up in district court she asked how much time is
lost by going through the administrative enforcement process first. Director Nielsen explained he has
recommended issuing civil citations giving Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastman an additional 10 days to
comply with the zoning violation notices, noting there has already a sufficient time to do that. The
violation notices could be appealed and an administrative hearing asked for. The hearing would occur
within 30 – 45 days. If the issue was not resolved, it can move on to district court.
Councilmember Woodruff commented that the City hasn’t had the need to use its administrative
enforcement process yet. He stated if there is an administrative hearing the City would have to pay the
cost of the administrative enforcement officer. He explained Mr. Johnson objected to having his
opportunity to appeal to the City Council scheduled for tonight because in the March 18, 2011, zoning
violation notice from the City he was told his opportunity would be scheduled for April 25, 2011.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 6 of 14
Woodruff asked if the City is in compliance with its rules. Director Nielsen explained Mr. Johnson had 10
days to appeal the notice; he appealed it within 1.5 days. That enabled the City to schedule his appeal to
Council for this evening. Nielsen noted that Mr. Johnson is well aware of this meeting.
Councilmember Woodruff recommended the City move forward with enforcement action in district court.
He stated that from his vantage point it’s very likely the City will end up there anyway. Moving forward
with the administrative enforcement approach first would most likely be a waste of time and ultimately
delay the resolution of residents’ concerns.
Amy Hinkel, 19660 Waterford Place, stated her property abuts the right-of-way to the pond. She
explained she has a very clear view of Mr. Johnson’s property. She noted she has lived on her property
for close to 21 years. She also noted that she has not had a problem with Mr. Johnson personally. She
stated after the 5490 Vine Hill Road property was occupied, things in the neighborhood escalated. People
walking around the neighborhood comment about what’s going on with the property. She noted there are
more storage containers down on the property. She expressed concern about the acrimonious relationship
between Mr. Johnson and the City. She questioned how to resolve the situation because he keeps taking
the City to court. She noted Mr. Johnson has staked out his land much farther out than he has in the past.
It shows his property almost coming on to the common land behind the pond. She commented she did not
foresee the situation getting smaller. She stated she doesn’t have a problem with Mr. Johnson personally
and she asked if there is a way she can be of some help.
Mayor Lizée stated the emails the City receives from residents are entered into the City record. She
explained the City relies on residents to let the City know what is going on in residential neighborhoods.
Ian Kerr, 19435 Waterford Place, stated he had sent an email to the City about the property. He then
stated he thought the property has become a dumping ground. He commented that he doesn’t know very
many private property owners who have a vehicle lift in their garage. He stated the police and various
other people have been to the property. There have been notations about different cars. People driving
away have been confronted. He commented that you can only play it’s my relative or friend so long. He
stated he believes the person living on the property does crossbow shooting on the property. He noted
there are a lot of wild turkeys in the area at various times during the year. He related that another resident
in the area had told him that a wild turkey with a crossbow arrow lodged in it had landed on his property.
Mr. Eastman eventually came to that individual’s property with hunting clothes on. He clarified that no
one saw him with a crossbow. He stated he thought shooting a crossbow in a residential area is an issue; it
can be dangerous. He stated the City needs tax revenues and property values have been going down for
other reasons. The residents don’t need anything else causing their property values to decline further.
Mayor Lizée asked Council to pass a motion directing Staff to issue an administrative citation
immediately giving Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastman until April 11, 2011, to comply.
Woodruff moved, directing Staff to issue a civil citation to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastman for the
matter of the storage containers on the property located at 5490 Vine Hill Road.
Attorney Keane stated he has discussed with Director Nielsen the pros and cons of moving forward with
the two enforcement options. He expressed his recommendation is to move forward with the City’s
administrative enforcement procedure. He explained that procedure starts at the City level. It provides for
due process and an opportunity to be heard. The objective in this situation is to have the property come
into compliance with the City’s Zoning Code. Moving forward with the administrative enforcement
approach will make it easier to keep the discussions and actions focused on the zoning violation of the
containers on the property. He noted he thought it will be worth the effort to take that approach first.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 7 of 14
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his perspective the City will inevitably end up in district court over
this matter.
Woodruff withdrew his motion.
Councilmember Zerby expressed his concern about the zoning violation notice dated March 18, 2011,
stating Mr. Johnson’s opportunity to appeal to Council would be on April 25, 2011, yet that hearing was
rescheduled for this evening. Director Nielsen reiterated Mr. Johnson had 10 days to appeal the notice; he
appealed it within 1.5 days. That enabled the City to schedule the appeal to the City Council for this
evening. Nielsen noted a copy of Mr. Johnson’s appeal was included in the meeting packet.
Attorney Keane noted that per the City Code it was appropriate to reschedule the day when Mr. Johnson
could appeal to Council. Keane explained the zoning violation notice date and the respective appeal date
dictate the schedule. He noted that Mr. Johnson was fully aware that his appeal to Council was
rescheduled for this evening. He explained Council can discuss continuing this to April 25, 2011, if
Council wants to exercise an abundance of caution.
Director Nielsen stated if Council has concerns about having changed the date this can be continued to
April 25, 2011.
There was ensuing discussion about changing the date of Mr. Johnson’s opportunity to appeal to Council,
and about the benefits of going through the administrative enforcement process.
Attorney Keane asked Director Nielsen if, in accordance with the City Ordinance relating to
administrative enforcement of Code regulations, the City can proceed with the administrative
enforcement proceeding and continue the hearing on the notice of appeal.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it’s his understanding that under the City’s administrative enforcement
process it’s the City’s prerogative to start and stop that process at any point in time. Attorney Keane
explained the City manages that process. Woodruff questioned if the City could notice Mr. Johnson that
it’s going to start the enforcement process but delay the start of it until after April 25, 2011.
Director Nielsen stated the City can issue an administrative citation giving Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastman
until April 26, 2011, to comply with the City’s zoning regulations.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing Staff to initiate the administrative enforcement
process by issuing administrative citations to Ron Johnson and Jerry Eastman regarding the zoning
violations on property located at 5490 Vine Hill Road, giving them until April 26, 2011, to comply
with the zoning violation notices and continuing the hearing on the notice of appeal to April 25,
2011.
Councilmember Zerby stated although he would prefer not to delay this he’s more comfortable making
sure a technicality will not interfere with resolving this to the City’s satisfaction. He stated he thought that
Mr. Johnson has taken matters between he and the City very personally. This is not personal from his or
the other Councilmembers perspectives. He clarified it’s the Council’s responsibility to make sure
residents concerns are heard and addressed appropriately.
Motion passed 4/1 with Lizée dissenting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 8 of 14
Mayor Lizée explained the reason she opposed the motion is because the City needs to enforce the City
Ordinance consistently and fairly throughout the City. Mr. Johnson is no different than any other resident
and giving him the extra time to bring his property into compliance is special treatment.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
None.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
None.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. City Identification Signs
Administrator Heck explained that during the 2011 budgeting process Councilmember Zerby expressed
his desire to install City identity signs along Highway 7, where there aren’t any, and replace the existing
identity signs. The 2011 budget includes funding for seven identity signs. During that discussion Zerby
suggested the signs display the 2010 census population results for the City. He asked if Council wants the
population information on signs that could say Welcome to Shorewood.
Councilmember Siakel stated she would support that. She then stated during the recent community
visioning sessions there was discussion about branding. She asked how Council felt about putting “A
South Lake Community” on the signs as well. Director Brown stated he thinks those types of signs can be
tailored. Director Nielsen noted that the County Road 19 Corridor Study talks about having some type of
South Lake identity on the bottom of identity signs.
Councilmember Woodruff expressed concern that if the population number is put on the signs they will
immediately be obsolete and will remain that way for 10 years. He recommended not putting the
population information on the signs; he didn’t think there is any benefit to doing that. He stated he is
willing to discuss having the South Lake Community branding on the signs.
Councilmember Zerby stated the reason he requested having population information on the signs last year
is because it ties into the South Lake identity. He noted that the Cities of Excelsior, Minnetonka and
Tonka Bay display population numbers on their identity signs. Population figures give people a
perspective on a city’s size. He stated there are people who think Shorewood is smaller than Excelsior. He
stated population is important; it provides a sense of scale. He commented he could support putting a
population range or more than a certain number on the signs so they aren’t obsolete right away. He wants
scale to be conveyed.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought Welcome to Shorewood is nice.
Mayor Lizée stated the City has to find out what the Minnesota Department of Transportation will allow
on the signs. It also has to determine what is readable when going past them at 30 – 40 miles an hour and
even faster on Highway 7. She stated the signs could say Welcome to Shorewood, the 2010 population is
some number and A Southlake Community. She suggested Staff create some mockups the size of the
signs allowable.
Director Nielsen noted the City’s boarders change back and forth a few times along Highway 7.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 9 of 14
Councilmember Siakel stated she is for simple yet effective signs.
There was Council consensus to have Staff create some mockups of signs.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it’s not uncommon to have population figures displayed on a separate
smaller sign and asked that there be a mockup for that also.
B. Measurable Management
Administrator Heck explained that during its March 14, 2011, meeting Council authorized Staff to move
forward with Fritz Partners’ Measurable Management Program. He noted Councilmember Siakel was not
in attendance during that meeting. He stated Councilmembers Hotvet and Siakel have each had additional
discussion with him about the Program and they requested this be brought back before Council for
additional discussion and possibly reconsideration.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she supports outcome based packages. She supports streamlining City
operations and reducing costs. She commented there is a new normal now. She explained that after voting
in support of moving forward with the Program for a cost of about $31,000 she had a change of heart. She
was not comfortable with spending that much money on such a program at this time. She stated the
outcomes of the Council and Staff retreat last month provided significant data and direction. She
suggested time be taken to shape that information into some sort of substantial plan. She sensed there was
a renewed energy at City Hall after the retreat. She stated she thought there are opportunities that haven’t
been explored yet and that there are new programming ideas. She then stated Staff was on the frontier of
implementing a number of things and she wasn’t comfortable adding something else to the list of things
to do. She noted there is a desperate need to formulate a strategic plan.
Councilmember Siakel expressed her appreciation for Administrator Heck bringing this back for
discussion. She stated she wanted Council and Staff to make decisions based upon an agreed on strategic
plan. She then stated she thought good steps were taken during the community visioning sessions with the
three cities and during the Council and Staff retreat. She went on to state that from her vantage point
Council and staff should take the ideas brought out during the sessions and implement one of them.
Siakel clarified she was not saying no to the Measurable Management Program for ever; she just wasn’t
sure now is the right time. She stated the facilitator of the retreat did an excellent job. She also did an
excellent job providing feedback on the retreat and identifying areas that could be considered first. She
stated the feedback from Fritz Partners representatives (they facilitated the community visioning sessions)
was about Measurable Management. She recommended taking the some of excellent ideas about strategic
issues that came out of the retreat and implement them. She stated she wants to know what is expected to
be achieved as a result of the Measurable Management Program before deciding to spend $31,000 on the
program. She also wants to know how it relates back to strategic planning.
Administrator Heck expressed appreciation with Councilmembers Hotvet and Siakel desire not to move
forward too quickly with Measurable Management. He stated the City needs a methodology that will
drive the City towards being a continuous improvement organization. A methodology that helps
employees take a serious look at operations. A methodology that is focused on outcomes not outputs. He
then stated there are a lot of operational redundancies in the City and among the Cities of Excelsior,
Shorewood and Tonka Bay.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 10 of 14
Heck explained his rationale for recommending the Measurable Management Program. The public sector,
the City, is very good at tracking statistics. The City needs to transition to an outcome based organization.
The Measurable Management Program would help the staff implement outcome based measures that can
be tracked over time. He commented there are certainly other types of programs that can help do the same
things. He clarified there is a different between a strategic plan and the implementation of a strategic plan.
The Measurable Management Program is below the level of a strategic plan. The Program would help
staff achieve the goals and objectives identified in the plan. He stated there is more work to be done with
the outcomes of the retreat. Council and staff have to have serious discussions about the priorities
identified. He stated it’s imperative that there be full Council support for moving forward with any such
program; without it a program will not be as successful. He recommended that at some point serious
consideration be given to some type of continuous improvement program.
Councilmember Zerby stated when he supported moving forward with the Measurable Management
Program he did so for Administrator Heck. He is not aware of any other thing that Heck has put on the
agenda three different times to talk about. He commented that if that doesn’t covey how much he wants to
move forward with something he’s not sure what does. He hasn’t observed that kind of commitment to
other things. He noted that Heck deals with the staff and City operations on a daily basis; Council does
not. He explained that Council’s role is to support staff and Heck is the leader of the staff. Heck has
conveyed that he thinks the program will help immensely help staff and his ability to manage staff.
Because of Heck’s strong support for moving forward with the Program he strongly supports doing so.
Zerby explained that because there is a money back guarantee on the Program there is no risk.
Councilmember Hotvet stated before moving forward with some type of results focused program Council
and staff need to decide what they want to accomplish. Once that goals and priorities have been identified
efforts can focus on identifying how to measure if the goals and priorities are being achieved. She thought
moving forward with the Measurable Management Program now is putting the cart before the horse.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she would like to be supportive of Administrator Heck, noting she did
support him on the community visioning sessions and the Council and staff retreat. She again clarified
that she’s not saying no to Measurable Management for ever. She stated she wants to follow through with
something before going down that road. She again asked what it is people want to measure.
th
Mayor Lizée stated during the March 14 Council meeting Council affirmed that it wanted the city to
participate in the Measurable Management Program on a 4/0 vote. If there is a desire to reconsider that
someone needs to make that motion. She then stated the Measurable Management Program isn’t
completed over night. Administrator Heck noted the Program takes 6 – 7 months. Lizée stated during that
time Council will be working with staff to refine the vision for the City and update the goals and
priorities. The training with Measurable Management will provide staff with the tools needed to come up
with solutions. She then stated participating in the Program will help with building a more cohesive staff
for Heck and Council to work with.
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, reconsidering the motion authorizing Staff to move forward
with Fritz Partners’ Measurable Management Program.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he voted in support of moving forward with the Measurable
Management Program because of Administrator Heck’s strong desire to do so. He noted he did so less
than enthusiastically. He expressed his skepticism about a money back guarantee because it will be
difficult to show there are tangible savings in some instances. He then stated he looks at the $31,000 cost
as a sunk cost with the worst case being no recovery. He went on to state he earlier heard Heck talk about
measuring how the organization works. He has not heard that in the three presentations from Fritz
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 11 of 14
Partners. If that is one of the objectives he’s not convinced it will be achieved through the Program. He
did think an outcome of the Program would be a process that allows staff to brainstorm about how to do
things more effectively and to implement and measure the results. That’s different than determining how
the organization should run and establishing metrics to measure that.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought she understood the Measurable Management Program to be
about achieving operational efficiencies. To her that equates to paying $30,000 for $30,000 of savings.
She stated if the outcome of the Program is better relationships with staff or better teamwork among staff
she questioned if this is the best Program to achieve that.
Administrator Heck explained the Program addresses relationships, leadership, teamwork,
communications, problem solving, operational efficiencies, outcomes and savings. It’s a holistic type of
program.
Motion passed 3/2 with Lizée and Zerby dissenting.
Mayor Lizée asked for a Council to support directing Staff to look into programs, including the
Measurable Management Program, which would keep this idea moving forward. She would like the
evaluation of programs to happen on an accelerated timeline and she asked for Council’s backing on that.
She stated time is of the essence. She noted the previous and current Council have talked about this. There
is somewhat of a set timeline. The 2012 budget process will start in June and it will consume a lot of the
staff’s time.
Councilmember Siakel stated that earlier in the meeting Council agreed to have a work session during
which it would outline some of the City’s strategic initiatives. She then stated there needs to be agreed
upon goals. If the benefits from the Measurable Management Program help achieve a goal so be it. She
stated she is a member of the Personnel Committee and the Committee has not met in 2011. She asked if
there are other issues that need to be discussed and addressed.
Administrator Heck stated he agrees with Councilmember Siakel’s recommendation that Council needs to
identify key priorities. Once that is done key metrics to measure the success in achieving them can be
developed. He then stated he will continue to push staff to do that and he will continue to push continuous
improvement. He noted there are other programs out there; the Measurable Management Program is one
of the better fits.
C. County Road 19 Trail Options
This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff’s request.
Councilmember Woodruff stated Council is reconsidering a resolution acknowledging that Shorewood
wants Hennepin County and the Three Rivers Park District to continue to work on some kind of County
Road 19 Trail. He noted he voted against this item during the March 14, 2011, Council meeting. He
explained he will vote for it this time because the resolution as prepared isn’t advocating the specific
concept design plan be adopted. It’s about having the County look at putting a trail along County Road 19
and he can support that.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-009, “A Resolution to Support
the Recommendations of the County Road 19 Trail Concept Design Plan.” Motion passed 5/0.
D. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Sewer Back-up Coverage
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 12 of 14
This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff’s request.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the document from Director DeJong about this item included in the
meeting packet identifies three coverage and premium options for increasing sanitary sewer backup
coverage. He stated it’s unclear to him if the premiums are just for the additional coverage or is it the
premium for all of the sewer backup coverage.
Director DeJong explained the premium for sanitary sewer backup coverage is a percent of the full
liability premium for the City. The cost is 8.5 percent of the full premium for $10,000 of sewer backup
protection, it’s 10.5 percent for $25,000 of protection, and it’s 12.5 percent for $40,000 of protection. In
order for the City to be covered for any sewer backups caused by a water main break the resolution in the
meeting packet must be adopted. The resolution is based on the model resolution prepared by the League
of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). He stated Staff recommends Council adopt the sewer
backup coverage at the $25,000 level. He noted that it doesn’t take much sewer backup damage to cause
over $10,000 in repairs.
Administrator Heck explained the City currently has sewer backup coverage caused by sewer main
problems at the $10,000 level. The LMCIT has added coverage for backups caused by water main breaks.
Councilmember Woodruff stated based on the information in the meeting packet it appears the additional
cost to increase the coverage level to $25,000 from $10,000 is $755 per year. He asked if that is correct to
which Director DeJong responded it is.
Woodruff then stated the meeting packet contains a letter from the LMCIT Administrator and Associate
Administrator talking about 2009 – 2010 coverage changes. Under the item Incentive Programs/Future
Changes in Coverage for Sanitary Sewer Backups it states “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 operation..”. He asked if the City is in compliance with the standards.
Administrator Heck responded the City is in compliance. Director DeJong explained what the LMCIT is
talking about is mandatory, regular inspections and correcting issues found within the sewer line.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-010, “A Resolution
Establishing Limited Clean-Up and Property Damage Protection for Sewer Back-Ups and Water
Main Breaks for Water and Sewer Customers” which also includes increasing the sanitary sewer
backup coverage to a level of $25,000, and authorizing the additional funding of $755 for the
additional coverage. Motion passed 5/0.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck stated he and Councilmember Hotvet attended a joint legislative conference on
March 24, 2011, sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), Association of Counties,
Minnesota School Boards Association, and Minnesota Association of Townships. He noted they spoke
with both of the City’s legislative representatives. He stated the Metro Cities annual meeting is scheduled
for April 14, 2011, noting that Governor Dayton will be the guest speaker. He encouraged the
Councilmembers to attend. Councilmember Woodruff stated he plans on attending the meeting and noted
there will be a vote for officers. Mayor Lizée and Councilmember Hotvet stated they may attend it also.
Heck stated he will make sure that meeting is posted.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 13 of 14
Director Nielsen stated the Trail Committee meeting that was being planed for April has been moved to
nd
Monday, May 2. He then stated the joint Council, Park Commission and Planning Commission meeting
rd
is scheduled for May 3.
rd
Director Brown stated on March 23 Excelsior Fire District Chief Gerber and South Lake Minnetonka
Police Department Chief / Emergency Management Director Litsey hosted a training session with the
Hennepin County on a software product called WebEOC. WebEOC is a web based crisis information
management system. The product is available for use at no cost by every community in the County. He
noted he is very impressed with WebEOC.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Siakel stated she has been serving as the City’s interim representative to the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board the past few months. She reported on more recent
LMCD Board activities. She stated the LMCD Board’s major focus has centered on the Woodland
Development near Halstead Bay. The Board voted to approve 117 dock slips. Forty of the slips are tied to
the Homeowners Association; there was healthy debate about what that should like that. She commented
that she thought there would be other homeowners associations around Lake Minnetonka seeking creating
planning from the LMCD. The LMCD is watching the level of Lake Minnetonka along with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The Lake is at the high water mark which is 930.02 feet.
The damn in Grays Bay is being bubbled so water can flow through.
Siakel then stated she has attended some MCWD meetings. During one meeting the MCWD brought in
people who were awarded grants for pilot projects. A professor from the University of Minnesota spoke at
on of the meetings about the types of things that grow on green roofs. She noted that the City of
Minneapolis leads the way with green roofs. She suggested green roofs be discussed with regard to a
potential coordinated redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing. She stated the City of Burnsville conducted
a five-year pilot project with rain gardens and its city engineer spoke about the project at one of the
meetings. She explained the first couple of years the gardens were very effective. Over time the sediment
builds up in the catch basin so they designed the gardens to make it easier to clean the sediment out.
Siakel went on to state that she personally is concerned that the focus of aquatic invasive species (AIS)
related activities are about stopping AIS from leaving Lake Minnetonka. There needs to also be a focus
on keeping new forms AIS from entering the Lake. The additional funding from the State for AIS
mitigation does not mean that any of it will be directed toward the Lake. AIS needs to be managed in the
Lake and Council needs to help secure funding to help prevent new forms of AIS from entering the Lake
as well as to help mitigate the impacts of the AIS currently in the Lake. She noted there is a list of about
38 other forms of AIS that could be a potential threat.
Councilmember Zerby stated he attended the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board meeting held on March
rd
23. The EFD’s auditor gave a report on the EFD’s 2010 audit and the Board accepted the audit. EFD
Chief Gerber gave a 2010 Year-In-Review presentation. The Board approved a change to the EFD’s
Employee Handbook regarding funeral leave for the paid-on-call firefighters. Gerber briefly discussed the
EFD’s 2012 operating budget. Gerber’s proposed budget reflects a 1.2 percent increase over the 2011
budget. Because EFD fund balances have been used the past two years to help reduce the municipal
contributions and because that will not happen in 2012 the increase in the municipal contributions will be
about 6 percent.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 14 of 14
Mayor Lizée stated she received a hardcopy of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office 2010 Annual
Report. She will leave that at City Hall. She noted there is a lot of interesting information in the Report.
Lizée noted the Friends of the Excelsior Library is holding its annual spring book sale on April 9, 2011, at
Mount Calvary Church.
13. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March 28, 2011,
at 8:55 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, APRIL 11, 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, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane; City
Administrator Heck; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Mayor Lizée requested Item 2 be moved to the April 25, 2011, City Council meeting agenda because the
draft copy of the minutes had not been included in the meeting packet. She also requested Item 11.B
Discussion of Allocation of Additional Funds for the 2011 Eurasian Watermilfoil Treatment Program be
added to the agenda.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 28, 2011
This item was moved to the April 25, 2011, City Council meeting agenda.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 28, 2011
This item was moved to the April 25, 2011, City Council meeting agenda.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Personnel action – Light Equipment Operator Appointment
Councilmember Woodruff stated the verified claims list shows two claims for the March 17, 2011, Excelsior
Chamber luncheon for Mayor Lizée. Mayor Lizée explained that she paid for Administrator Heck and herself
to attend the luncheon. Heck explained he also paid for himself to attend the luncheon. Woodruff asked the
check be pulled from the verified claims list until this can be checked into.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 11, 2011
Page 2 of 7
Motion passed 5/0 subject to check number to 51566 in the amount of $30 to Mayor Lizée being pulled
from the verified claims list.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Jeff Casale Report on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board Activities
Mayor Lizée introduced Jeff Casale, a Shorewood resident who is on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District’s (MCWD) Board of Managers, and is present to provide an update on MCWD Board activities.
Mr. Casale explained there are 29 communities located in the MCWD. He stated he would talk about the
Lake Minnetonka (the Lake) and Minnehaha Creek (the Creek) water level issues and MCWD partnership
projects during the last year. His goal is to stimulate thoughts about potential projects where the MCWD and
the City of Shorewood could collaborate.
Mr. Casale stated the MCWD defrosted the Grays Bay dam in order to get the gates on the dam working. He
th
said the dam was opened on March 17; normally it’s not opened until the ice is out of the Lake. He noted
the Lake was over the normal high water mark in late October 2010. The dam was fully open until the ice
started to form in late November 2010. The amount of water discharged to date equals about 4.5 inches of
water. Approximately another 3 inches will be discharged by the time the ice goes out. At a water level of
930.2 feet, the Lake is about 2.5 inches above the top of the dike at the dam. He noted MCWD staff is
working 7 days a week to lower the Lake level so properties that front the Lake won’t flood while making
sure the land downstream is not flooded. He stated a lot of properties in Edina have water on them.
Mr. Casale explained that in 2009 the MCWD worked with the State of Minnesota, the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board, the Minneapolis Veterans Home, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) to accomplish the goals of stormwater management, natural resources restoration/preservation and
historical resources restoration/preservation.
Mr. Casale described a project to repair/replace Works Progress Administration (WPA) walls installed along
the Minnehaha Creek bank during the great depression. The project included the installation of new riprap
and structures to slow the rate of water flow to reduce erosion.
Mr. Casale displayed a map of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. He explained that water within the upper
watershed flows into the Lake and eventually into the Creek.
Mr. Casale highlighted a partnership between the City of Hopkins and the MCWD called the Urban Creek
Corridor Partnership. The project involves the area around the intersection of Highway 169 and Highway 7.
He explained that as the area was developed, the Creek was ditched to flow under Highway 7 and then to
take a slightly different route. He displayed pictures of the project area, including pictures of how the area
looked in the 1930s and how it changed over the decades.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 11, 2011
Page 3 of 7
Mr. Casale reviewed the objectives for the Urban Creek Corridor Initiative. They include stormwater
management; restoring nature; parks spaces and open access to the Creek; recreation and public access;
transportation; economic development and housing; and, community participation. He displayed pictures and
drawings of how the area will look after the revitalization has occurred.
Mr. Casale displayed pictures of Cottageville Park in Hopkins and the two apartment buildings Hopkins
asked the MCWD to purchase as part of the Initiative. He explained the majority of stormwater in that area
of Hopkins flows into the Creek. The plan is to redirect that stormwater into a new stormwater treatment
system developed in the Park
Mr. Casale explained another project with the City of St. Louis Park to restore Minnehaha Creek and some
wetland areas.
Mr. Casale noted Hennepin County has granted the MCWD a revolving line of credit so it can purchase land
if the land has sensitivity to water resources. The MCWD has done quite a bit of that for the Painter Creek
Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Mr. Casale commented the MCWD has recently worked on low impact development projects with the Cities
of Excelsior, Minnetonka, and Wayzata for some of those Cities’ street redevelopments. The MCWD
awarded the Cities grants to install grit chambers and water treatment where storm water is collected.
Mr. Casale explained the MCWD provides grants for street sweeping efforts and a citizen grant program for
storm water management best management practices.
Mr. Casale then explained the MCWD is working on a proposed parking lot program, which would involve a
municipality granting easements to the MCWD to hold storm water in underground storage tanks. The
MCWD is assessing how to do an outreach program in the City of Minneapolis for churches and schools that
have large parking lots. The MCWD worked with St. Mary’s Church near Lake Calhoun on such a program.
Mr. Casale stated the MCWD has a Low Impact Development Program. For the West End development
project in St. Louis Park the LID Program funded installing engineered soils which is something that is
above what is required by code. Engineered soils allow trees to grow to a mature state. The Program also
partially funded the green roof on top of the Rainbow Store in that development.
Mr. Casale discussed the Wayzata Bay Center development. He indicated the developers plan to restore the
wetland hydrology. To do this, they will create a granite bottom lake underneath the redeveloped area, the
roads will be more like bridges, and the buildings will be built on stilts. Because the capacity of the storm
sewer system will be greater than what the development needs, the MCWD is talking with the City of
Wayzata about redirecting the storm sewers east of the development into the development’s system.
Mr. Casale concluded his presentation by expressing he hoped that he has stimulated ideas for how the City
of Shorewood and the MCWD can work together on projects.
Councilmember Zerby asked about Pleasant Avenue in Tonka Bay. He thought the road passed through a
wetland and if the wetland will be restored when the road is rehabilitated. He asked Mr. Casale if the MCWD
has heard of that potential project. Casale responded that project has not come before the MCWD Board.
Zerby stated he thought that project should be discussed.
Councilmember Zerby asked if there are resources available to identify the City’s water resources; those that
are visible today as well as those that were once there. Zerby stated there are hints of creeks in the City and
he questioned if they were actual creeks many, many years ago. Mr. Casale responded there are aerial maps
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 11, 2011
Page 4 of 7
that may be beneficial. Zerby stated the City could use help in that area. Zerby then stated that Badger Creek
runs under County Road 19 and on towards the Lake. Maybe Badger Creek needs to be restored. Zerby cited
another creek that runs below Manitou Forest. Zerby related that he has read that creeks should be identified.
Casale noted that Hennepin County has a mission to preserve open creeks. It has a desire to restore what he
terms “daylight creeks” when opportunities present themselves.
Councilmember Zerby stated if the creeks were identified as protected bodies of water that could be
addressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Siakel thanked Mr. Casale for sharing the information about the MCWD. She stated she has
attended a few MCWD Board meetings and has found them very informative. She then stated there is an area
near Grant Lorenz Road heading toward the Lake that resembles the riprap restoration project in the Creek
that Casale talked about earlier. There is major erosion in that area.
Director Brown noted the City has 1966 topographic maps and Engineer Landini has made use of the
University of Minnesota’s historical maps. Hennepin County and the MCWD also have useful information.
He stated the area off Grant Lorenz Road that Councilmember Siakel referred to is a prime example of an
area that desperately needs stabilization. He explained that years ago the City investigated if it had the
easements and if it was feasible for the City to acquire the easements necessary to stabilize the area. He noted
the area drains nearly one-third of the City by the times it gets to Sleepy Hollow Road and down to
Edgewood Road. Councilmember Siakel noted the erosion in that area has escalated in the last few years.
Mr. Casale suggested Council identify areas where the City and the MCWD could partner and to provide the
MCWD with that information. He explained the MCWD has a substantial 10-year Capital Improvement
Plan. He noted the projects are not specific projects; they are placeholder projects, which identify what is
needed in different areas. He stated the CIP could be amended to include newly identified projects. The plan
amendments have to be approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soils Resources, Hennepin County
and the State to give the MCWD the authority to address new requests.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the MCWD partners with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or any
other agencies on soil cleanup. Mr. Casale responded the MCWD frequently partners with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and the MPCA. The State has identified the MCWD as a regional resource
that needs a regional focus. The MCWD is a delegated arm of Hennepin County. He commented that 90
percent of the MCWD’s budget is for capital projects.
Councilmember Zerby suggested Staff be directed to identify a wish list of six or so projects to partner with
the MCWD on. Mayor Lizée stated Council could also discuss potential projects during a future Council
work session.
Mayor Lizée thanked Mr. Casale for his presentation this evening.
7. PARKS
No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City Council
regular meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2011.
8. PLANNING
Commissioner Hasek reported on matters considered and actions taken at the April 5, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 11, 2011
Page 5 of 7
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
None.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Proclaiming April 16, 2011, Healthcare Decisions Day
Administrator Heck stated the City has been asked to proclaim April 16, 2011, Healthcare Decisions Day.
The purpose of doing so is to make the public aware of the importance of preparing a healthcare directive.
The directive provides medical professionals and family members with guidance about the type of care a
th
person wants to receive. He noted Minnesota Governor Dayton signed a proclamation making April 16
Healthcare Decisions Day for the State of Minnesota. He stated a copy of a draft resolution is in the meeting
packet.
Mayor Lizée stated Attorney Grathwol, with the Grathwol Law Office, contacted her about this matter. She
th
noted that on April 15 an event is scheduled at the Southshore Community Center from 10:00 A.M. – Noon
where there will be professionals present to discuss advanced healthcare directives with individuals and their
families. She asked the Councilmembers to join her in making the proclamation.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-011, “A Resolution Proclaiming
April 16, 2011, to be Healthcare Decisions Day.”
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought doing this is a fantastic idea. She noted that of two-thirds of the
dollars an individual spends on health care during their life time is during the last two years of their life. She
stressed the importance of conveying one’s end of life health care wishes to families and medical
professionals. She stated most medical systems allow people to have a directive attached to a person’s
medical records.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought this is a good idea. He suggested the adopted resolution be
placed on the City’s website.
Motion passed 5/0.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Street Sign Policy
Administrator Heck stated that during Council’s March 14, 2011, meeting Council discussed a street sign
placement policy. Council directed Staff to draft an update to the City’s current policy to reference the
Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices in the policy. A draft of that updated policy is in the
meeting packet.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, adopting the City of Shorewood’s Street Sign Policy.
Councilmember Zerby indicated the Policy stated that requests received during the winter months will be
st
processed by May 31. He asked what the reason for that delay is. Administrator Heck responded if a request
is for installation of a new sign traffic counts may have to be taken; it is more difficult to do that during the
winter. In addition, it is difficult to install a sign when the ground is frozen. Heck explained if the request is
for a winter related sign that would be processed during the winter. He stated the City can be flexible when
addressing the requests about signage. Director Brown explained that in the past a yield sign rather than a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 11, 2011
Page 6 of 7
stop sign was installed to forewarn drivers of icy roadways. Brown stated the City can be flexible when
processing requests and for those requests that require a sign be installed the processing of the request can at
least be started during the winter.
Motion passed 5/0.
B. Discussion of Allocation of Additional Funds for the 2011 Eurasian Watermilfoil
Treatment Program
Mayor Lizée stated she asked to add this item to the agenda. She explained that during Council’s March 28,
2011 meeting, Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) Executive Director, gave a report on the
herbicide treatment of Phelps Bay in Lake Minnetonka for Eurasian Water Milfoil. She noted that the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has approved the treatment of Gideon Bay and St. Albans Bay
during 2011. She asked Council to consider restoring the City’s contribution to the treatment efforts during to
$6,000. The City’s 2011 budget allocates $4,000. She stated she has spoken to quite a few residents on
Enchanted Island about the City’s contribution amount. She noted Lake Minnetonka is an amenity for all of
the residents.
Councilmember Siakel expressed her support for considering all ways to combat Milfoil and she thought
th
increasing the amount by $2,000 is fair. She stated that during the March 28 meeting Mr. Osgood’s
information indicated that $2,000 of the City’s contribution would go toward the treatment of Gideon Bay.
She asked if increasing the $4,000 contribution to $6,000 was enough.
Mayor Lizée stated she at least wanted the funding level to be the same as in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Councilmember Woodruff explained he had recused himself from discussions about treatment contribution
amounts and motions to consider funding levels for the 2008 – 2010 herbicide treatments. He noted his
residential property is located on Enchanted Island. He stated he will not recuse himself this year. He stated
the $6,000 contributed each of the past three years was to go toward the treatment of Phelps Bay. He
explained the treatment of Phelps Bay will cost more this year than it did last year because more acreage will
be treated. He stated from his perspective he thinks the City is short changing the residents of Phelps Bay
because $2,000 of the $6,000 will go toward treating Gideon Bay. He expressed his concern about increasing
the contribution amount for 2011 treatment over what is budgeted for 2011.
Administrator Heck explained the budget Staff proposed for 2011 included a contribution of $4,000 under
the assumption that the treatment costs would be less in 2011 than they had been in the past. He noted it was
not known at that time if the treatment of Gideon Bay would be approved.
th
Councilmember Zerby stated the amount discussed during the March 28 meeting presentation was about
putting $2,000 toward the treatment of Phelps Bay and $2,000 toward the treatment of Gideon Bay. He can
support increasing the contribution.
Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, increasing the amount the City will contribute toward the 2011
herbicide treatment of Phelps Bay and Gideon Bay in Lake Minnetonka for Eurasian Watermilfoil
and Curly Leaf Pondweed to $6,000; an increase of $2,000 over the amount budgeted. Motion passed
5/0.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 11, 2011
Page 7 of 7
1. Excelsior Fire District Board Meeting Update
th
Administrator Heck stated he attended the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board work session held on April 6
to discuss the proposed EFD 2012 Operating Budget and the 2012 – 2032 EFD Capital Improvement
Program. He explained that the proposed overall budget reflects an increase of 1.2 over the 2011 budget.
Because EFD fund balances have been used the past two years to help reduce the municipal contributions
and because that is not proposed again for 2012 the increase in the municipal contributions will be about 6.2
th
percent. He stated another work session is scheduled for April 20.
Other
Administrator Heck stated the Metro Cities annual meeting is scheduled for April 14, 2011. He stated that
Councilmembers Hotvet and Woodruff and he plan to attend the meeting.
Director Brown stated Staff met with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) nearly two weeks ago to
commence the Wellhead Protection Program (WPP). He explained the schedule for the WPP was based on
the size of municipalities. Under policies adopted by the MDH performs the WPP for municipalities that
serve less than 3,300 people. The City serves 3,370 people. Originally, the MDH stated the City would be
responsible to prepare its own WPP. From a resource perspective the WPP represents about two years worth
of work for a cost of about $80,000 – $100,000. Brown reported he received a call from the MDH explaining
they will prepare the WPP for the City. He noted Staff will work with the MDH as it prepares the report.
B. Mayor and City Council
None.
13. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of April 11, 2011, at
8:19 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Finance April 25, 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 51589 through
51656 totaling $306,462.62.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
4/21/2011 1:00 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 4/12/2011 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 4/12/2011 000000 11,856.34
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 4/12/2011 000000 2,104.69
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 4/12/2011 000000 1,092.39
00086 AFSCME COUNCIL 5 R 4/12/2011 051589 267.68
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 4/12/2011 051590 1,423.50
16625 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS R 4/12/2011 051591 32.00
00052 PERA R 4/12/2011 051592 7,067.93
00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN R 4/25/2011 051594 408.00
01250 AHLSTROM, SANDRA M. R 4/25/2011 051595 100.00
01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 4/25/2011 051596 187.00
03550 BROWN, LAWRENCE R 4/25/2011 051597 67.09
04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 4/25/2011 051598 125.19
17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 4/25/2011 051599 1,821.75
1 CHOICE PLASTICS, INC R 4/25/2011 051600 55.60
07600 CITY OF EXCELSIOR R 4/25/2011 051601 4,691.66
17400 CITY OF MINNETONKA R 4/25/2011 051602 330.53
22820 CITY OF SHOREWOOD R 4/25/2011 051603 394.17
24600 CITY OF TONKA BAY R 4/25/2011 051604 1,189.07
29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 4/25/2011 051605 786.33
05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 4/25/2011 051606 146.14
06000 DALE GREEN COMPANY R 4/25/2011 051607 1,141.44
29363 DeJONG, BRUCE R 4/25/2011 051608 42.33
4/21/2011 1:00 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 4/12/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
06575 DELL MARKETING L.P. V 4/25/2011 051609 107.26
06575 DELL MARKETING L.P.
06575 DELL MARKETING L.P.
C-CHECK DELL MARKETING L.P. VOIDED V 4/25/2011 051609 107.26
06630 DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON DEV V 4/25/2011 051610 9.45
06630 DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON DEV
06630 DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON DEV
C-CHECK DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECOVOIDED V 4/25/2011 051610 9.45
07480 EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING R 4/25/2011 051611 268.99
12125 FEDEX KINKO'S R 4/25/2011 051612 19.31
08712 G & K SERVICES V 4/25/2011 051613 1,048.43
08712 G & K SERVICES
08712 G & K SERVICES
C-CHECK G & K SERVICES VOIDED V 4/25/2011 051613 1,048.43
29324 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, I R 4/25/2011 051614 2,257.75
27400 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. R 4/25/2011 051615 67.29
10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 4/25/2011 051616 128.00
11055 INFRATECH R 4/25/2011 051617 525.00
29330 INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS, L R 4/25/2011 051618 41.04
29279 J. BECHER & ASSOC., INC. R 4/25/2011 051619 537.44
29291 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES R 4/25/2011 051620 2,585.33
12135 KIRCHER, LUCINDA R 4/25/2011 051621 100.00
21340 LOCAL LINK R 4/25/2011 051622 69.95
13750 LUGOWSKI, JOSEPH R 4/25/2011 051623 23.00
14459 MARIEN, NORMA R 4/25/2011 051624 100.00
4/21/2011 1:00 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 4/12/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
00079 MEDICA R 4/25/2011 051625 14,972.19
15176 MENARDS R 4/25/2011 051626 156.51
15501 METRO COUNCIL ENV.(SAC) R 4/25/2011 051627 42.00
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC R 4/25/2011 051628 627.97
29320 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES, INC. R 4/25/2011 051629 6,998.18
00085 MINNESOTA LIFE R 4/25/2011 051630 433.91
17050 MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH R 4/25/2011 051631 2,182.00
17025 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY R 4/25/2011 051632 70.00
18092 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS, INC R 4/25/2011 051633 2,786.00
15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 4/25/2011 051634 26.44
29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 4/25/2011 051635 685.10
1 PERFORMANCE PLUS LLC R 4/25/2011 051636 235.00
20950 POTTS, KENNETH N. R 4/25/2011 051637 2,291.66
1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 4/25/2011 051638 781.26
26100 QWEST R 4/25/2011 051639 551.66
29389 READY WATT ELECTRIC R 4/25/2011 051640 1,450.00
22345 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON, INC. R 4/25/2011 051641 131.52
22476 SAFETY SIGNS R 4/25/2011 051642 411.60
22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 4/25/2011 051643 251.13
23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 4/25/2011 051645 83,621.66
29388 SOUTH METRO RENTAL, INC. R 4/25/2011 051646 514.20
29201 SPANNAUS, BARBARA R. R 4/25/2011 051647 100.00
4/21/2011 1:00 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 5
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 4/12/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 4/25/2011 051648 40.04
24700 TONKA EQUIPMENT CO R 4/25/2011 051649 23,069.24
70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 4/25/2011 051650 81.41
29152 WAGNER, LISA - GIRL SCOUT TROO R 4/25/2011 051651 100.00
29269 WARNER CONNECT R 4/25/2011 051652 2,800.00
28350 WOODRUFF, RICHARD R 4/25/2011 051653 49.00
06575 DELL MARKETING L.P. R 4/25/2011 051654 107.26
06630 DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON DEV R 4/25/2011 051655 9.45
08712 G & K SERVICES R 4/25/2011 051656 1,048.43
03325 BOYER FORD TRUCK, INC. E 4/25/2011 999999 336.18
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 4/25/2011 999999 2,509.00
06572 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA D 4/25/2011 999999 681.23
10473 HENN CTY PUBLIC RECORDS E 4/25/2011 999999 5.00
10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 4/25/2011 999999 229.51
15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER E 4/25/2011 999999 59,486.26
19435 SPRINT E 4/25/2011 999999 131.77
* * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED
REGULAR CHECKS: 63 173,625.33 0.00 173,625.33
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 4 15,734.65 0.00 15,734.65
EFT: 6 62,697.72 0.00 62,697.72
NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
VOID CHECKS: 3 VOID DEBITS 1,165.14
VOID CREDITS 1,165.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ERRORS: 0
VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 76 252,057.70 0.00 252,057.70
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 76 252,057.70 0.00 252,057.70
REPORT TOTALS: 78 252,057.70 0.00 252,057.70
04-21-2011 12:52 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDORS - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 4/25/11 STAPLES General Fund Municipal Buildings 229.51_
TOTAL: 229.51
AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 4/25/11 MAY-UNION DENTAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 408.00_
TOTAL: 408.00
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 267.68_
TOTAL: 267.68
AHLSTROM, SANDRA M. 4/25/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 4/25/11 PARK COMM REG MTG-04/12/11 General Fund Parks & Recreation 187.00_
TOTAL: 187.00
BOYER FORD TRUCK, INC. 4/25/11 STRAP-HARDWARES General Fund Public Works 302.91
4/25/11 LAMP General Fund Public Works 33.27_
TOTAL: 336.18
BROWN, LAWRENCE 4/25/11 ELECT RELAYS LS#5 EXP REIM Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 67.09_
TOTAL: 67.09
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 4/25/11 FILTERS-BATTERIES-LAMPS General Fund Public Works 112.67
4/25/11 FILTERS General Fund Public Works 12.52_
TOTAL: 125.19
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 General Fund Municipal Buildings 308.86
4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 General Fund Public Works 935.75
4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 General Fund Parks & Recreation 271.24
4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 Water Utility Water 116.78
4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 Water Utility Water 189.12_
TOTAL: 1,821.75
CITY OF EXCELSIOR 4/25/11 1ST QTR WATER USAGE Water Utility Water 4,691.66_
TOTAL: 4,691.66
CITY OF MINNETONKA 4/25/11 5366 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 46.41
4/25/11 5350 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 1.00
4/25/11 5490 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 40.41
4/25/11 5366 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 110.29
4/25/11 5350 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 100.57
4/25/11 5490 VINE HILL RD Water Utility Water 31.85_
TOTAL: 330.53
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 4/25/11 SSCC - UTILITY PAYMENT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 394.17_
TOTAL: 394.17
CITY OF TONKA BAY 4/25/11 WATER Water Utility Water 811.93
4/25/11 SEWER Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 377.14_
TOTAL: 1,189.07
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 4/25/11 AUG-C.H. SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 469.87
4/25/11 APR SVC General Fund Public Works 316.46_
TOTAL: 786.33
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 4/25/11 PCS-04/11-04/22 General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,250.00
04-21-2011 12:52 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDORS - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
4/25/11 SSCC ASSISTANT-04/11-04/21 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 259.00_
TOTAL: 2,509.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 4/25/11 DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 61.39
4/25/11 SALT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 84.75_
TOTAL: 146.14
DALE GREEN COMPANY 4/25/11 PUL MIX General Fund Streets & Roadways 570.72
4/25/11 PUL MIX General Fund Streets & Roadways 570.72_
TOTAL: 1,141.44
DELL MARKETING L.P. 4/25/11 DELL 2130 IMAGING DRUM KIT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 107.26_
TOTAL: 107.26
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 4/25/11 MAY-DENTAL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 681.23_
TOTAL: 681.23
DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON DEV 4/25/11 1ST QTR-NANCY STELLMAKER General Fund Administration 9.45_
TOTAL: 9.45
DeJONG, BRUCE 4/25/11 MILEAGE EXP General Fund Finance 42.33_
TOTAL: 42.33
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,905.54
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,194.96
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 757.80
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Council 127.10
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 29.74
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 252.07
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 58.95
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 435.49
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 101.85
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 278.39
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 65.10
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 286.75
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 67.06
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 201.90
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 47.21
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 190.69
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 44.60
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 504.06
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 117.88
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 97.58
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 22.83
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 298.12
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 69.71
4/12/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 113.97
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 26.66
4/12/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 30.80
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 7.21
4/12/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 159.69
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 37.35
4/12/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 128.27
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 30.01
4/12/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 21.44
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 5.01
04-21-2011 12:52 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDORS - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
4/12/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 113.92
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 26.63_
TOTAL: 11,856.34
EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING 4/25/11 PLATGUE-WILETT-RUNOFF-NORM General Fund Council 268.99_
TOTAL: 268.99
FEDEX KINKO'S 4/25/11 PLANS COPY General Fund Protective Inspections 19.31_
TOTAL: 19.31
G & K SERVICES 4/25/11 CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 122.42
4/25/11 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 878.77
4/25/11 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 47.24_
TOTAL: 1,048.43
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 4/25/11 MAR-SMITHTOWN WAY ST SW RE Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,257.75_
TOTAL: 2,257.75
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 4/25/11 WATER METER PARTS Water Utility Water 67.29_
TOTAL: 67.29
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 4/25/11 FEB RADIO General Fund Public Works 64.00
4/25/11 MAR-RADIO SVC General Fund Public Works 64.00_
TOTAL: 128.00
HENN CTY PUBLIC RECORDS 4/25/11 QUIT CLAIM DEED 02/04/11 Water Utility Water 5.00_
TOTAL: 5.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,075.00
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 348.50_
TOTAL: 1,423.50
INFRATECH 4/25/11 TELEVISE SAN SW ON DELLWOO Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 525.00_
TOTAL: 525.00
INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS, LLC 4/25/11 LABELS General Fund General Government 41.04_
TOTAL: 41.04
J. BECHER & ASSOC., INC. 4/25/11 C.H. SECURITY MONITOR General Fund Municipal Buildings 537.44_
TOTAL: 537.44
JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 4/25/11 GRASS SEED BULK General Fund Streets & Roadways 1,292.67
4/25/11 GRASS SEED BULK General Fund Parks & Recreation 1,292.66_
TOTAL: 2,585.33
KIRCHER, LUCINDA 4/25/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
LOCAL LINK 4/25/11 MAY-WEBLINK General Fund Municipal Buildings 69.95_
TOTAL: 69.95
LUGOWSKI, JOSEPH 4/25/11 2011 WATER CERT. REIM Water Utility Water 23.00_
TOTAL: 23.00
MARIEN, NORMA 4/25/11 2011-FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
04-21-2011 12:52 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDORS - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
MEDICA 4/25/11 MAY-MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 14,972.19_
TOTAL: 14,972.19
MENARDS 4/25/11 LUMBER-TRAILER General Fund Public Works 26.15
4/25/11 SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 130.36_
TOTAL: 156.51
METRO COUNCIL ENV.(SAC) 4/25/11 AUG -2011 SAC - ADDT'L Sanitary Sewer Uti NON-DEPARTMENTAL 42.00_
TOTAL: 42.00
METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 4/25/11 MAY-WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 59,486.26_
TOTAL: 59,486.26
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 4/25/11 MAY NEWSLETTER POSTAGE General Fund General Government 500.00
4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC Water Utility Water 38.39
4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 38.39
4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC Recycling Utility Recycling 25.59
4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 25.60_
TOTAL: 627.97
MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES, INC. 4/25/11 CIP-PICNIC TABLES REPLACEM Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 6,998.18_
TOTAL: 6,998.18
MINNESOTA LIFE 4/25/11 MAY-MN LIFE General Fund Unallocated Expenses 433.91_
TOTAL: 433.91
MISC. VENDOR CHOICE PLASTICS, INC 4/25/11 FLOURIDE PIPING WA PLANT Water Utility Water 55.60
PERFORMANCE PLUS LLC 4/25/11 GREG FASCHING-MEDICAL EXAM General Fund Public Works 235.00_
TOTAL: 290.60
MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4/25/11 1ST QTR STATE SURCHARGE Water Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,113.00
4/25/11 CERT CLASS C#10322-C POUND Water Utility Water 23.00
4/25/11 CERT-CLASS C #10323-D RAND Water Utility Water 23.00
4/25/11 CERT-CLASS C #8008-B STARK Water Utility Water 23.00_
TOTAL: 2,182.00
MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 4/25/11 24200 SMITHTOWN RD General Fund Public Works 20.00
4/25/11 24100 SMITHTOWN RD Water Utility Water 50.00_
TOTAL: 70.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 4/12/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,104.69_
TOTAL: 2,104.69
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 4/12/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32.00_
TOTAL: 32.00
MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS, INC. 4/25/11 DRINKING FOUNTAIN REPAIR-P General Fund Parks & Recreation 216.00
4/25/11 CIP-DRINKING FOUNTAIN SKAT Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 2,570.00_
TOTAL: 2,786.00
OFFICE DEPOT 4/25/11 P.W. SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 26.44_
TOTAL: 26.44
ON SITE SANITATION INC 4/25/11 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
4/25/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
4/25/11 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13
04-21-2011 12:52 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDORS - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
4/25/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
4/25/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
4/25/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13_
TOTAL: 685.10
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,272.19
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 304.66
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 510.52
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 336.25
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 368.28
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 263.43
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 223.71
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 599.59
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 120.87
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 368.98
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 139.10
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 36.01
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 200.27
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 157.76
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 25.07
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 141.24_
TOTAL: 7,067.93
POTTS, KENNETH N. 4/25/11 MAR PROSECUTIONS General Fund Professional Svcs 2,291.66_
TOTAL: 2,291.66
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 4/25/11 MAY-LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 781.26_
TOTAL: 781.26
QWEST 4/25/11 APR SVC Water Utility Water 315.23
4/25/11 APR SVC Water Utility Water 236.43_
TOTAL: 551.66
READY WATT ELECTRIC 4/25/11 C.H. SIREN MAINT General Fund Municipal Buildings 1,450.00_
TOTAL: 1,450.00
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON, INC. 4/25/11 SWEEPER PARTS General Fund Public Works 131.52_
TOTAL: 131.52
SAFETY SIGNS 4/25/11 TRAFFIC LIGHT-7932 EUREKA General Fund Streets & Roadways 411.60_
TOTAL: 411.60
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 4/25/11 BAITBITS General Fund Public Works 17.08
4/25/11 PARTS General Fund Public Works 5.95
4/25/11 MAIL BOX REPAIR General Fund Public Works 42.73
4/25/11 SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 37.69
4/25/11 PARTS General Fund Public Works 5.95
4/25/11 PAINT General Fund Public Works 8.75
4/25/11 HARDWARE General Fund Parks & Recreation 4.92
4/25/11 BULBS Water Utility Water 13.39
4/25/11 CHEM FEED PIPE Water Utility Water 62.43
4/25/11 PARTS Water Utility Water 10.01
4/25/11 BATTERY Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 42.23_
TOTAL: 251.13
SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 4/25/11 1ST QTR -CO General Fund Police Protection 751.74
04-21-2011 12:52 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDORS - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 6
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
4/25/11 HENN CTY PROCESSING FEE General Fund Police Protection 227.92
4/25/11 MAY-OBE General Fund Police Protection 82,642.00_
TOTAL: 83,621.66
SOUTH METRO RENTAL, INC. 4/25/11 BOOM TRUCK General Fund Tree Maintenance 514.20_
TOTAL: 514.20
SPANNAUS, BARBARA R. 4/25/11 SOUTHSHORE CENTER General Fund Parks & Recreation 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
SPRINT 4/25/11 SVC 03/13-04/12 Water Utility Water 65.88
4/25/11 SVC 03/13-04/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 65.89_
TOTAL: 131.77
SUN NEWSPAPERS 4/25/11 SHOREWOOD PONDS AGE 04/14 General Fund Planning 40.04_
TOTAL: 40.04
TONKA EQUIPMENT CO 4/25/11 CIP-REPLACEMENT OMRON PANE Water Utility Water 23,069.24_
TOTAL: 23,069.24
VERIZON WIRELESS 4/25/11 BRAD N. - SVC 03/11-04/10 General Fund Planning 81.41_
TOTAL: 81.41
WAGNER, LISA - GIRL SCOUT TROOP 12846 4/25/11 FREEMAN PLAZA General Fund Parks & Recreation 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
WARNER CONNECT 4/25/11 MAY MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 2,800.00_
TOTAL: 2,800.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 1,092.39
WOODRUFF, RICHARD 4/25/11 CHAMBER LUNCHEON 03/17 General Fund Council 15.00
4/25/11 ASSN. METRO MEETING 04/14 General Fund Council 34.00_
TOTAL: 49.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 2,050.00
General Fund Administration 4,202.23
General Fund General Government 7,041.54
General Fund Finance 4,637.98
General Fund Planning 5,079.78
General Fund Protective Inspections 3,633.56
General Fund City Engineer 3,085.60
General Fund Public Works 8,270.16
General Fund Streets & Roadways 1,667.20
General Fund Tree Maintenance 5,089.44
General Fund Parks & Recreation 1,918.53
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 496.74
Water Utility Water 2,762.22
04-21-2011 12:52 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDORS - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 7
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,175.89
Recycling Utility Recycling 345.83
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,948.22_
TOTAL: 54,404.92
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 191,865.59
402 Park Capital Improvements 9,568.18
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 1,463.18
601 Water Utility 35,493.44
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 63,135.93
621 Recycling Utility 422.94
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 4,513.36
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 306,462.62
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 7
04-21-2011 12:53 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 1
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
NON-DEPARTMENTAL General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FEDERAL W/H 4,905.54
4/12/11 FICA W/H 2,194.96
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 757.80
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,272.19
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,075.00
4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 348.50
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES 267.68
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 4/12/11 STATE W/H 2,104.69
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 4/12/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS 32.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 803.94_
TOTAL: 15,762.30
Council General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 127.10
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 29.74
EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING 4/25/11 PLATGUE-WILETT-RUNOFF-NORM 268.99
WOODRUFF, RICHARD 4/25/11 CHAMBER LUNCHEON 03/17 15.00
4/25/11 ASSN. METRO MEETING 04/14 34.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,050.00_
TOTAL: 2,524.83
Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 252.07
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 58.95
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 304.66
DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON DEV 4/25/11 1ST QTR-NANCY STELLMAKER 9.45
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,202.23_
TOTAL: 4,827.36
General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 435.49
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 101.85
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 510.52
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 4/25/11 MAY NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 500.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 288.45
INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS, LLC 4/25/11 LABELS 41.04
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 7,041.54_
TOTAL: 8,918.89
Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 278.39
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 65.10
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 336.25
DeJONG, BRUCE 4/25/11 MILEAGE EXP 42.33
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,637.98_
TOTAL: 5,360.05
Professional Svcs General Fund POTTS, KENNETH N. 4/25/11 MAR PROSECUTIONS 2,291.66_
TOTAL: 2,291.66
Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 286.75
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 67.06
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 368.28
SUN NEWSPAPERS 4/25/11 SHOREWOOD PONDS AGE 04/14 40.04
VERIZON WIRELESS 4/25/11 BRAD N. - SVC 03/11-04/10 81.41
04-21-2011 12:53 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 2
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,079.78_
TOTAL: 5,923.32
Municipal Buildings General Fund CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 4/25/11 DRINKING WATER SVC 61.39
G & K SERVICES 4/25/11 CH SVC 122.42
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 4/25/11 STAPLES 229.51
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 308.86
LOCAL LINK 4/25/11 MAY-WEBLINK 69.95
WARNER CONNECT 4/25/11 MAY MAINT SVC 2,800.00
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 4/25/11 AUG-C.H. SVC 469.87
J. BECHER & ASSOC., INC. 4/25/11 C.H. SECURITY MONITOR 537.44
READY WATT ELECTRIC 4/25/11 C.H. SIREN MAINT 1,450.00_
TOTAL: 6,049.44
Police Protection General Fund SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 4/25/11 1ST QTR -CO 751.74
4/25/11 HENN CTY PROCESSING FEE 227.92
4/25/11 MAY-OBE 82,642.00_
TOTAL: 83,621.66
Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 201.90
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 47.21
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 263.43
FEDEX KINKO'S 4/25/11 PLANS COPY 19.31
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,633.56_
TOTAL: 4,165.41
City Engineer General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 190.69
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 44.60
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 223.71
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,085.60_
TOTAL: 3,544.60
Public Works General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 504.06
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 117.88
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 599.59
BOYER FORD TRUCK, INC. 4/25/11 STRAP-HARDWARES 302.91
4/25/11 LAMP 33.27
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 4/25/11 FILTERS-BATTERIES-LAMPS 112.67
4/25/11 FILTERS 12.52
G & K SERVICES 4/25/11 PW SVC 878.77
MISC. VENDOR PERFORMANCE PLUS LLC 4/25/11 GREG FASCHING-MEDICAL EXAM 235.00
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 4/25/11 FEB RADIO 64.00
4/25/11 MAR-RADIO SVC 64.00
MENARDS 4/25/11 LUMBER-TRAILER 26.15
4/25/11 SUPPLIES 130.36
OFFICE DEPOT 4/25/11 P.W. SUPPLIES 26.44
MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 4/25/11 24200 SMITHTOWN RD 20.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 935.75
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON, INC. 4/25/11 SWEEPER PARTS 131.52
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 4/25/11 BAITBITS 17.08
4/25/11 PARTS 5.95
4/25/11 MAIL BOX REPAIR 42.73
4/25/11 SUPPLIES 37.69
4/25/11 PARTS 5.95
4/25/11 PAINT 8.75
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 4/25/11 APR SVC 316.46
04-21-2011 12:53 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 3
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 8,270.16_
TOTAL: 12,899.66
Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 97.58
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 22.83
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 120.87
DALE GREEN COMPANY 4/25/11 PUL MIX 570.72
4/25/11 PUL MIX 570.72
SAFETY SIGNS 4/25/11 TRAFFIC LIGHT-7932 EUREKA 411.60
JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 4/25/11 GRASS SEED BULK 1,292.67
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,667.20_
TOTAL: 4,754.19
Tree Maintenance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 298.12
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 69.71
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 368.98
SOUTH METRO RENTAL, INC. 4/25/11 BOOM TRUCK 514.20
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,089.44_
TOTAL: 6,340.45
Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 113.97
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 26.66
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 139.10
AHLSTROM, SANDRA M. 4/25/11 SILVERWOOD PARK 100.00
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 4/25/11 PARK COMM REG MTG-04/12/11 187.00
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 4/25/11 PCS-04/11-04/22 2,250.00
KIRCHER, LUCINDA 4/25/11 CATHCART PARK 100.00
MARIEN, NORMA 4/25/11 2011-FREEMAN PARK 100.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 271.24
MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS, INC. 4/25/11 DRINKING FOUNTAIN REPAIR-P 216.00
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 4/25/11 HARDWARE 4.92
WAGNER, LISA - GIRL SCOUT TROOP 12846 4/25/11 FREEMAN PLAZA 100.00
SPANNAUS, BARBARA R. 4/25/11 SOUTHSHORE CENTER 100.00
JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 4/25/11 GRASS SEED BULK 1,292.66
ON SITE SANITATION INC 4/25/11 BADGER PARK 45.96
4/25/11 CATHCART PARK 45.96
4/25/11 FREEMAN PARK 266.13
4/25/11 SILVERWOOD PARK 45.96
4/25/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE 45.96
4/25/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS 235.13
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,918.53_
TOTAL: 7,605.18
Unallocated Expenses General Fund MEDICA 4/25/11 MAY-MEDICAL PREM 14,972.19
MINNESOTA LIFE 4/25/11 MAY-MN LIFE 433.91
AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 4/25/11 MAY-UNION DENTAL PREM 408.00
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 4/25/11 MAY-DENTAL 681.23
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 4/25/11 MAY-LIFE INS 781.26_
TOTAL: 17,276.59
Park Capital Improveme Park Capital Impro MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS, INC. 4/25/11 CIP-DRINKING FOUNTAIN SKAT 2,570.00
MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES, INC. 4/25/11 CIP-PICNIC TABLES REPLACEM 6,998.18_
TOTAL: 9,568.18
Senior Community Cente Southshore Communi EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 30.80
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 7.21
04-21-2011 12:53 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 4
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 36.01
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 4/25/11 SSCC ASSISTANT-04/11-04/21 259.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 4/25/11 SALT 84.75
DELL MARKETING L.P. 4/25/11 DELL 2130 IMAGING DRUM KIT 107.26
G & K SERVICES 4/25/11 SSCC SVC 47.24
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 4/25/11 SSCC - UTILITY PAYMENT 394.17
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 496.74_
TOTAL: 1,463.18
NON-DEPARTMENTAL Water Utility MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4/25/11 1ST QTR STATE SURCHARGE 2,113.00_
TOTAL: 2,113.00
Water Water Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 159.69
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 37.35
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 200.27
CITY OF EXCELSIOR 4/25/11 1ST QTR WATER USAGE 4,691.66
MISC. VENDOR CHOICE PLASTICS, INC 4/25/11 FLOURIDE PIPING WA PLANT 55.60
HENN CTY PUBLIC RECORDS 4/25/11 QUIT CLAIM DEED 02/04/11 5.00
LUGOWSKI, JOSEPH 4/25/11 2011 WATER CERT. REIM 23.00
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC 38.39
MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 4/25/11 24100 SMITHTOWN RD 50.00
MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4/25/11 CERT CLASS C#10322-C POUND 23.00
4/25/11 CERT-CLASS C #10323-D RAND 23.00
4/25/11 CERT-CLASS C #8008-B STARK 23.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 116.78
4/25/11 GAS-02/18-03/21 189.12
CITY OF MINNETONKA 4/25/11 5366 VINE HILL RD 46.41
4/25/11 5350 VINE HILL RD 1.00
4/25/11 5490 VINE HILL RD 40.41
4/25/11 5366 VINE HILL RD 110.29
4/25/11 5350 VINE HILL RD 100.57
4/25/11 5490 VINE HILL RD 31.85
SPRINT 4/25/11 SVC 03/13-04/12 65.88
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 4/25/11 BULBS 13.39
4/25/11 CHEM FEED PIPE 62.43
4/25/11 PARTS 10.01
CITY OF TONKA BAY 4/25/11 WATER 811.93
TONKA EQUIPMENT CO 4/25/11 CIP-REPLACEMENT OMRON PANE 23,069.24
QWEST 4/25/11 APR SVC 315.23
4/25/11 APR SVC 236.43
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 4/25/11 WATER METER PARTS 67.29
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,762.22_
TOTAL: 33,380.44
NON-DEPARTMENTAL Sanitary Sewer Uti METRO COUNCIL ENV.(SAC) 4/25/11 AUG -2011 SAC - ADDT'L 42.00_
TOTAL: 42.00
Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 128.27
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 30.01
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 157.76
BROWN, LAWRENCE 4/25/11 ELECT RELAYS LS#5 EXP REIM 67.09
INFRATECH 4/25/11 TELEVISE SAN SW ON DELLWOO 525.00
METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 4/25/11 MAY-WASTEWATER SVC 59,486.26
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC 38.39
SPRINT 4/25/11 SVC 03/13-04/12 65.89
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 4/25/11 BATTERY 42.23
04-21-2011 12:53 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - APRIL 25, 2011 PAGE: 5
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
CITY OF TONKA BAY 4/25/11 SEWER 377.14
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,175.89_
TOTAL: 63,093.93
Recycling Recycling Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 21.44
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 5.01
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 25.07
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC 25.59
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 345.83_
TOTAL: 422.94
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Managem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 4/12/11 FICA W/H 113.92
4/12/11 MEDICARE W/H 26.63
PERA 4/12/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 141.24
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 4/25/11 1ST QTR UTILITY SVC 25.60
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 4/25/11 MAR-SMITHTOWN WAY ST SW RE 2,257.75
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 4/11/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,948.22_
TOTAL: 4,513.36
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 191,865.59
402 Park Capital Improvements 9,568.18
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 1,463.18
601 Water Utility 35,493.44
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 63,135.93
621 Recycling Utility 422.94
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 4,513.36
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 306,462.62
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 5
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Multiple Dock Facility License -Shorewood Yacht Club, 600 West Lake St
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen, City Planner
Attachments: Multiple Dock Facility License Application
Policy Consideration: The City Code section 1201.24, Subd. 10, requires the Shorewood Yacht Club,
located at 600 West Lake Street, to apply for a Multiple Dock Facility License.
Background: This is the Shorewood Yacht Club’s annual multiple dock facility license application. City
Code section 1201.24, Subd. 10 states that renewal of the license shall be granted provided the
operation is in conformance with the terms of the conditional use permit. As indicated on the
application, the owner agrees to arrange for necessary inspections to ensure that the property is in
compliance with the city code. A site inspection will be conducted when weather permits and the slips
are occupied in the spring. Per the CUP, the applicant has submitted a plan showing where the five non-
rental boats will be moored.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee for the license is $2.00 per boat slip. The applicant has
117 boat slips and has paid the fee of $234.00.
Options: As the license requirements have been met, and the owner has agreed to a site
inspection, which will be conducted when weather permits, approval of the Multiple Dock Facility
License application for 2011 is in order.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the Multiple Dock Facility License application for
the Shorewood Yacht Club for the year 2011.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will issue the License for the Multiple Dock Facility for the
Shorewood Yacht Club for the year 2011 upon completion of a successful site inspection when weather
permits.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Inspection of the site for compliance with the city code requirements
satisfies the mission of providing quality public service, and providing a healthy environment for
residents and users of the Shorewood Yacht Club.
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
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association Fundraising Event-Friday, July 15, 2011
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Attachments: Resolution approving Temporary 3.2 Malt Liquor License and Special Event
Permit Application
Policy Consideration: City Code Chapter 401-Liquor Regulations and Chapter 505-Special Event
Registration and Permit, provides for consideration of the licensing and permitting of this request from
the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association for its annual fundraising event (dance) at the Fire Station
located at 24100 Smithtown Road.
Background: The Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) has submitted the following
documents in support of its annual fundraising event at the Fire Station located at 24100 Smithtown
Road on Friday, July 15, 2011. The event will take place between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and midnight.
This will be the 27th year that the EFRA has held this fundraising event. This will be the seventh year
this event has been held at the Fire Station at 24100 Smithtown Road. It is the EFRA’s only fundraising
event, and has historically been profitable.
1) Temporary 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License This is a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent
malt liquor on the day of the event, July 15, 2011, between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and midnight.
Prior to the event, the individuals serving alcohol will be attending an alcohol training session
provided by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. The Certificate of Liquor Liability
Insurance has been received. The EFRA is requesting the $25 license fee be waived, as in past
years (as the City is a member of the Excelsior Fire District). A resolution is attached for Council
consideration.
2) Special Event Permit. The applicant has submitted a Special Event Permit application. The
applicant proposes to provide shuttle service to the site from downtown Excelsior municipal
lots. Parking is also available at Shorewood City Hall and the Southshore Center parking lots. As
in past years, on-street parking will not be allowed on Echo Road, Shorewood Lane or
Minnetonka Drive. The Special Event permit has been approved by the Zoning Administrator,
the EFD Fire Chief, and the SLMPD. As in past years, the EFRA will coordinate additional law
enforcement needs with the SLMPD. A copy of the Special Event Permit application is attached.
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
Financial or Budget Considerations: The EFRA is requesting the $25 temporary 3.2 percent malt
liquor license fee be waived, as in past years, as the City is a member of the Excelsior Fire
District.
Options:
1) Approval of the license and permit as recommended below
2) Denial of the license and permit request
Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the following in support of the Excelsior Firefighters
Relief Association annual fundraising dance on July 15, 2011, from 4:00 P.M. to Midnight, at 24100
Smithtown Road:
1)Adopt a Resolution approving the Temporary 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License, and waiver of the
$25 license fee (as the City is a member of the Excelsior Fire District);
2)Approval of the Special Event Permit
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will issue the Temporary 3.2 Malt Liquor License and approved Special
Event Permit to the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association.
Connection to Vision / Mission: The EFRA annual fundraising dance provides a fun community event
widely supported and attended by residents of the South Lake community. This fundraising effort
supports providing residents with quality public service.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-______
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEMPORARY 3.2 PERCENT “ON-SALE”
MALT LIQUOR LICENSE
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Section 402 provides for the licensing of the sale
of 3.2 percent malt liquor in the City; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, and shall
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and;
WHEREAS,
the applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has fulfilled the
requirements for the issuance of a temporary license for the "on-sale" of 3.2 percent malt liquor:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a temporary license for the "on-sale" of 3.2 percent malt liquor be issued to the
Excelsior Fire Fighters Relief Association, for its fundraising event on July 15, 2011 from
4:00 P.M. to Midnight, at 24100 Smithtown Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that the
Temporary 3.2 Percent malt liquor license fee be waived.
ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of April, 2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#3D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Mill and Overlay of Vine Hill Road
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Ad for Bid
Policy Consideration:
Background: As part of the Operating Budget, funds are set aside each year for Road Maintenance.
Vine Hill Road was chosen for a Mill and Overlay in 2011 in partnership with the City of Minnetonka. The
City Council entered into a joint powers agreement for this project on 11/8/2010.
The City of Minnetonka authorized the attached advertisement for bid on 4/18/2011. The City of
Shorewood should concur with the City of Minnetonka by approving the attached advertisement for bid.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The 2011 budget has $133,000 earmarked for Vine Hill Road.
Options:
1.Authorize the Advertisement for Bids for Mill & Overlay of Vine Hill Road.
2.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the attached advertisement for bids.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Improves service to Vine Hill Road users.
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 Minnetonka Legal Notice
Advertisement for Bids
Vine Hill Road Rehabilitation Project
City Project No. 11405
Bid No. 2011-004-ENG
Overview:
Sealed bids will be received and will then be opened publicly and read aloud for the furnishing of
all labor, material, and equipment for construction of the following approximate major quantities:
Quantities:
Item Quantity
Mill Bituminous Surface 16,000 SY
Remove Casting 24 EA
Bituminous Pavement 1,965 TON
Joint Adhesive (Mastic) 9,780 LF
Casting Assembly 24 EA
Erosion Stabilization Mat 32 SY
4” Solid White Epoxy Striping 10,500 LF
4” Double Solid Yellow Epoxy Striping 5,200 LF
Instructions:
Digital copies of the Bidding Documents are available at http://www.questcdn.com and
http://www.eminnetonka.com/engineering/street_management/street_projects.cfm for a fee of
$20. These documents may be downloaded by selecting this project from the BIDDING
DOCUMENTS link and by entering bid document No.1565472 on the SEARCH PROJECTS
page. For assistance and free membership registration, contact QuestCDN at 952.233.1632 or
info@questcdn.com.
Contractors may examine or obtain an optional paper set of Proposal Forms, Plans, and
Specifications from the city of Minnetonka, for $50.00 per set. Checks should be made out to City
of Minnetonka. No refunds. Copies of the plans and project manuals may also be examined at
the office of the City Engineer, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN.
All proposals must be made on forms similar to those attached to and made a part of the
proposed contract documents and must be addressed to Lee Gustafson, City Engineer, City of
Minnetonka, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka, MN 55345-1597, and endorsed with the name
of the bidder, project title, city project number and bid number (at top of this notice).
Each proposal must have with it a certified check or bid bond payable to the city of Minnetonka in
the amount of five [5] percent of the bid as a guarantee the bidder will enter into a contract with
the city of Minnetonka in accordance with the terms of the bid, in case the bidder is awarded the
contract.
The city reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids and to waive minor irregularities.
Bid Deadline:
10:30 am local time Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Location:
Minnetonka City Council Chambers, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. Minnetonka, MN
Signed:
Lee Gustafson, City Engineer
City of Minnetonka Project No. 11405 AB-1
#3E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Erickson, Bill – Extension of Deadline to File Final Plat
Meeting Date: 25 April 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council grant a further extension to Mr. Bill Erickson for the
filing of his final plat?
Background: Bill Erickson owns three properties in the southwest corner of Shorewood. He and his
neighbors have joined together to purchase a large parcel of land that was in foreclosure for the
purpose of rearranging and enlarging their existing properties. Essentially they propose to make five
lots into four. In the process, they are cleaning up a number of nonconformities that currently exist.
Through Mr. Erickson, they have requested approval of a preliminary plat. Aside from improving zoning
compliance, the City also obtains drainage and utility easements around the new lots, as well as a
conservation easement over the wetland on the property. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on 4 August and voted unanimously to recommend approval, commending the
owners for their efforts.
Since then, the Council has granted two extensions of the deadline for filing a final plat. The delay has
been caused by a inconsistencies in survey and legal descriptions for some of the parcels involved.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Approval of the extension has no financial impact on the City.
In fact, the City has only to gain by obtaining the drainage and utility easements associated with the plat.
Options: Approve the extension or deny the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends a six-month extension.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon resolution of the title issues, Mr. Erickson will file a final plat
which is subject to approval by the City Council.
Connection to Vision / Mission: This action is viewed as providing quality public service and also
contributes to a healthy environment through the acquisition of wetland, drainage and utility
easements.
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
#3F
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Liquor License Renewals
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Attachments: Resolutions (5) approving Liquor Licenses for five establishments in Shorewood
Policy Consideration: City Code Chapter 401-Liquor Regulations provides for consideration of the
licensing of establishments requesting on- and off-sale liquor licenses.
Background: The Minnetonka Country Club and the American Legion Post #259 currently hold on-
sale liquor licenses in the City. Cub Foods currently holds a 3.2 percent off-sale malt liquor license. Park
Square Subway (dba Shorewood Liquor) and The Cellars Wines and Spirits of Shorewood, Inc. both hold
an off-sale intoxicating liquor license. All licenses expire on May 31, 2011.
All licensees have submitted appropriate liquor license documentation and license renewal fees.
Background checks were processed, and there were no disclosable records for convictions within the
past year of any violation of laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor for these five establishments.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Appropriate liquor license fees have been received and
deposited into the corresponding license revenue fund.
Options:
1) Adopt the Resolutions approving the liquor license for the five establishments in Shorewood
2) Denial of the license requests
Recommendation / Action Requested: Adopt the following five Resolutions:
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor and Special Sunday Sales license for the Minnetonka Country Club and the
American Legion Post #259; 3.2 percent off-sale Malt Liquor license for Cub Foods; and off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses for Park Square Subway (dba Shorewood Liquor) and The Cellars Wines and
Spirits of Shorewood, Inc.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will issue the licenses to the establishments and forward appropriate
documents to the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement division for their records and approval.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Licensing of these establishments provides residents with quality
public service by following the state laws on the licenses of establishments.
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-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE ON-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR & SPECIAL SUNDAY SALES
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Sections 402.02, 403.05, 1300.01 and 1300.02,
provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor in the City and requires a special license
for Sunday sales; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, shall
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and shall pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS,
the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and
for a special license for "Sunday Sales".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and a special Sunday License for
sales be issued for a term of one year, from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012, consistent with
the requirements and provisions of Chapter 400 of the Shorewood City Code, to the
following applicant:
Applicant Address
Minnetonka Country Club 24575 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of April,
2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE ON-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR & SPECIAL SUNDAY SALES
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Sections 402.02, 403.05, 1300.01 and 1300.02,
provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor in the City and requires a special license
for Sunday sales; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, shall
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and shall pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS,
the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and
for a special license for "Sunday Sales".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and a special Sunday License for
sales be issued for a term of one year, from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012, consistent with
the requirements and provisions of Chapter 400 of the Shorewood City Code, to the
following applicant:
Applicant Address
American Legion Post #259 24450 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of April,
2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.2 PERCENT “OFF-SALE”
MALT LIQUOR LICENSE
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Sections 402.05 provides for the licensing of the
sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor in the City; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, shall
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and shall pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS,
the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "off-sale" of 3.2 percent malt liquor
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "off-sale" of 3.2 percent malt liquor be issued for a term of one
year, or that portion thereof, from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012, consistent with the
requirements and provisions of Chapter 400 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following
applicant:
Applicant Address
Shorewood 2001 L.L.C, 23800 State Highway 7
Dba, Cub Foods Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of April,
2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Chapter 401, provides for the licensing of the
off-sale of intoxicating liquor in the City; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that the applicant shall complete an application for a
liquor license, fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, have a favorable
financial credit background check and a criminal history background check; and pay a licensing
fee;
WHEREAS,
the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "off-sale" of intoxicating liquor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "off-sale" of intoxicating liquor be issued for a term of one year, or
that portion thereof, from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012, consistent with the requirements
and provisions of Chapter 401 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicant:
Applicant Address
Park Square Subway, Inc. 23670 State Hwy. 7
DBA Shorewood Liquor Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of April,
2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Chapter 401, provides for the licensing of the
off-sale of intoxicating liquor in the City; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that the applicant shall complete an application for a
liquor license, fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, have a favorable
financial credit background check and a criminal history background check; and pay a licensing
fee;
WHEREAS,
the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "off-sale" of intoxicating liquor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "off-sale" of intoxicating liquor be issued for a term of one year, or
that portion thereof, from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012, consistent with the requirements
and provisions of Chapter 401 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicant:
Applicant Address
The Cellars Wines & Spirits 19905 State Hwy. 7
of Shorewood, Inc. Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of April,
2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#3G
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Public Works Capital Improvement Purchases – Vehicle Lift and Tractor Backhoe
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Larry Brown
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, Bruce DeJong
Attachments: 1. Excerpt CIP 2. State Contract – 4 Post Vehicle Lift
3. State Contract Runway Lift System 4. Quote – Used Tractor Backhoe
5. Pictures Used Tractor Backhoe.
Policy Consideration:
This item considers the acquisition of programmed purchases, with modifications to line items, as
adopted in the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement, Equipment Replacement Fund
Background:
As part of the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Staff has budgeted three purchases
for 2011, through the Equipment Replacement Fund. These are:
Vehicle lift for the mechanic’s bay $ 50,000
Replacement of the 1987 Ford Backhoe $ 75,000
Replacement of one single axle dump truck. $142,000
Attachment 1 is an excerpt from the CIP for these items.
Typically, staff would ask the City Council to consider these purchases individually. However, in this
instance, staff would like to modify the individual budgeted amounts for the vehicle lift and
backhoe, while still remaining within the budget provided in the CIP. A description of each
purchase is as follows.
Vehicle Lift Mechanics Bay
Currently the mechanics bay is without any vehicle lift. All of the vehicles that are serviced are
manually jacked up and braced in place with jack stands, and our Shop Technician wheels under the
equipment via a creeper. This includes every piece of equipment; from the sweeper to the loader,
to the riding lawn mowers. This is not only inefficient and time consuming, it is not ergonomic, and
presents a greater risk to the City’s employees.
Staff had budgeted $50,000 within the CIP from pricing obtained from the State Contract last year
when the CIP was prepared and adopted. This amount was and is a valid budget number for the
State Contract price for the lift pictured in Attachment 2. This lift system, as shown, is what is
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
referred to as a “4 Post Portable Lift.” Simply, a single portable post lift is placed under each tire of
the vehicle. Current State contract pricing for this system is $43,909.94 for four posts.
Having stated that, at that time, staff had not considered an alternative lift system that has entered
into this year’s State contract that is far more versatile. This is shown in Attachment 3, and is
known as a “Runway Lift System.” The vehicle is driven onto the “rail or runway” system and the
entire rail is lifted. The current State Contract pricing, with a center frame lift, is $67,564.25.
As staff reviewed the substantial increase in the amount between the two lift systems, it became
imperative to examine the versatility of each lift system. After considerable review, the Runway
Lift System proved to be far more versatile for the following reasons:
A 4 Post Lift System requires the vehicle to be lifted by placing the lift under the tire of the
vehicle, making it impossible to remove the tire to do tire, brake, or axle work.
Under the 4 Post System, staff will be required to remove the wing plow of any dump truck
that has a wing installed, as it becomes an obstruction for placement of one of the post lifts.
While possible, this is very time consuming and laborious.
A 4 Post Lift System will raise a single axle dump truck, pickup truck, or other single axle
vehicle. (Note: the designation of number of axles refers to the number of rear axles only).
Therefore, to lift the City’s grader (tandem axle), or other vehicles that may very well become
a possibility in the future (i.e. a tandem axle dump truck i.e. Excelsior’s tandem axle, or any of
the Fire Engines), an additional set of posts would be needed.
While vendors have assured staff that the 3.25% cross slope on the floor of the shop “should
not be an issue” with a 4 Post Lift System, staff still has some reservations regarding this.
The Runway Lift System will accommodate all of the City’s equipment and foreseeable
equipment.
The Runway Lift System, with the specified frame lift, which slides along the interior of the
runways, allows the frame to be raised and the wheels to be removed to perform brake and
axle repairs.
The Runway Lift System will allow all of the vehicles to be properly lifted without having to
remove wing plows or other equipment.
After consideration of the above items, staff felt that the differences and versatility of the latter
system were significant enough to explore all alternatives to determine how the Runway Lift
System could be obtained, while staying within what was budgeted within the CIP.
As mentioned above, the replacement of the 1987 Ford Backhoe was also programmed in as a 2011
purchase. Staff reviewed the subtotal of the amounts budgeted for the lift system and backhoe
together. The two items together of $50,000 for the Vehicle Lift, and $75,000 for a Tractor
Backhoe equals $125,000.
Staff began to research if a used backhoe with low hours could be obtained for the amount
remaining from the $125,000, if the Runway Lift System was purchased. We are pleased to report
that staff was able to locate a used backhoe that will fit the City’s needs well.
Tractor Backhoe
Staff reviewed approximately 15 used tractor backhoes and determined that the best deal is a
machine that is currently owned by St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. Attachment 4 is the quote for the
used backhoe. The amount in total, with sales tax and including trade in of our existing machine is
$52,395.46. It is noted that even if the lift were not an issue, staff would still recommend
purchase of this used machine as the replacement.
Therefore, the proposed total of the preferred lift system and the used backhoe is $119,959.71, as
shown below:
Runway Lift System $ 67,564.25
Used Tractor Backhoe $ 52,395.46
Total $ 119,959.71
This is less than the $125,000 that was programmed in for the total of the two items together in
the CIP.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The proposed purchases are less than the programmed total amount budgeted.
Options:
1.Authorize the expenditure of funds for the proposed lift system and tractor backhoe.
2.Authorize the purchase of either of the pieces of equipment, separately, as proposed.
3.Direct staff to seek other alternatives.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff is recommending Option 1, which authorizes the purchase of the Runway Lift System and
Used Tractor Backhoe, as proposed, be approved.
Next Steps and Timelines:
No further action is required by the City Council, after consideration of this item.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Staff believes that these purchases are vital equipment to allow personnel to perform their jobs
efficiently and safely.
#3H
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Organics Collection Grant
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Julie Moore, Communications Coordinator, Twila Grout, and Pat Fasching,
Administrative Assistants
Attachments: 2011 Grant Application
Policy Consideration: Should the City pursue a grant to conduct a pilot Organics Waste Collection?
Background: Last year staff found and proposed an application for a grant from Hennepin County to
pilot an organics collection program. The application requested funding of approximately $25,000 to
“buy down” the cost of the program to the residents who elected to participate.
This grant is again available and staff is looking for authorization to apply for the grant. If awarded, the
city would contract with a local organics collection and recycling firm to run a pilot program. Interested
residents would sign up for the program and the collector would provide the service during the pilot at a
reduced rate with the grant making up the difference.
If the program is successful in diverting more solid waste from the landfill or burner, the city can keep
the program going. Residents interested in continuing or beginning organics collection would arrange for
the collection with the hauler. Billing for the service will be arranged between the hauler and the
resident.
Financial or Budget Considerations: staff time to monitor the program, manage the grant, and matching
funds of approximately $1,000.
Recommendation / Action Requested: staff recommends submitting an application for the grant.
Next Steps and Timelines: if authorized, staff will submit the grant, which is due on April 29. If the grant
is awarded, staff will work with the hauler to promote the pilot in the community and get the program
underway.
Connection to Vision / Mission: addresses the desire for a healthy environment and visionary
leadership.
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
2011 Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Grant Application Form
2011 Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Program
Application Form
Application Due – 5:00 PM, Friday, April 29, 2011
(Grant applications must be submitted on this form – All sections must be completed)
E-mail Copy to:
john.jaimez@co.hennepin.mn.us
Mail Signed Copy to:
John Jaimez
Hennepin County Dept. of Environmental Services
th
417 N. 5 St., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-1309
(612) 348-5893
Applicant Information:
Public Entity: City of Shorewood
Contact Person: Julie Moore Title: Communications and Recycling Coordinator
Address: 5755 Country Club Road
City, State, Zip: Shorewood, MN 55331
Phone: 952.960.7906 E-Mail: jmoore@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Project Title: Organic Waste Pilot Program
Grant Request: $24,540 Matching Funds: $1,000 Total Project Cost: $25,540
Authorizing Signature
Signature: ___________________________________________________________
Brian Heck Title: City Administrator
1. Project Description:
The City of Shorewood is interested in offering a section of the city organic waste recycling
through a contract with Organic Disposal. The services would cost $8 per household/per month
for organics waste, or $11 per household/per month for a mixed waste of yard waste and
household organics. Because residents already use garbage haulers for the yard waste, we will
propose that for the pilot program, we collect only the household organic waste.
The City is interested in this pilot program to see how the program works in our city. We have a
variety of household types and locations and face challenges with some pick up locations and
2011 Public Entity Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Grant Application Form
driveway lengths in the city. Should the program work, we would introduce the program as an
option for residents in an organized collection system.
To initiate the program the city will pay for 50% of the service to the first 500 participants
through the grant funds. Additional participants can still have organic collection in the pilot area,
but will be expected to pay full price and will not participate in our survey. For the first year, the
grant will cover the haulers license fee for the city. After the pilot is complete, the hauler will be
expected to pay their own license fee. A contract with the city to continue to offer service in the
city will be expected before the contract period beings.
2. Innovation and Early Adoption:
Although other cities do offer organic waste recycling, in our area there are very limited options
and currently no hauler offers the service to Shorewood residents. In an effort to reduce the
number of trucks on our roads, the city would like to try an organized approach to the service as
we do with our recycling program.
3. Proposed Project Tasks, Work Plan, and Timeline:
The following timeline is dependent upon if and when we receive grant approval from Hennepin
County.
Research/Project Design:
The Recycling Coordinator will work with planning department staff to determine the exact
section of the city which will receive the service from the pilot program. We anticipate offering
the service to approximately 500 residents on the west portion of the city. We have already
discussed the program with Organic Disposal and having a collection on our garbage collection
day would work for their company. We would collect weekly during warmer weather portion, and
then in November begin to test a bi-weekly collection through the winter months. If this does not
prove to work well with residents, we would continue with weekly collections.
July 11, 2011
Approval of Organic Disposal as organic recycling contract for period of the pilot program .
July 18, 2011:
Sign contract with Organics Disposal for service to begin September 7, 2011.
July 19, 2011:
Begin education campaign to selected portion of the community. We will have residents sign-up
directly with Organics Disposal.
September 7, 2011
Collection begins:
Weekly collection will take place on Wednesdays through November 9.
Then Organics Disposal will begin collecting bi-weekly through the winter months.
January 4, 2012
2011 Public Entity Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Grant Application Form
Evaluation:
A survey will be mailed to all participating households to determine how the bi-
weekly collection is going and we will evaluate whether or not we need to go back to a weekly
collection during the winter months.
September 7, 2012
An evaluation survey will be sent to participating residents to see how the first year of the
program went.
Evaluation:
Resident input will be the main source of evaluation. The city will consider the desire of
residents to continue the program as the sign of a successful program. After the one year point,
participating residents will have to pay full price for the service.
4. Project Budget:
Matching funds are from the personnel and communications budgets from the City of
Shorewood.
Tasks/Items Costs
Half of service cost for one year of service. $24,000
Mailing of two surveys (500 X .44) $440
Licensing fee for hauler (one time) $100
Total Grant $ $24,540
Match Tasks/Items Costs
Survey printing and development $500
1000 copies
Staff time $500
Total Match $ $1,000
Total Project $ $25,540
5. Environmental Benefits:
Recycling Innovation and Efficiency:
We will work with the hauler to determine the efficiency and necessity of weekly collection
during the cold weather months. We will also determine best collection sites for households not
located right on the public roadway. This will result in less wear-and-tear on the roadway and
fewer emissions.
Hennepin County
Environmental
Services
612-348-3777
2011 Public Entity Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Grant Application Form
Waste Reduction:
Through the introduction of this program we will reduce the amount of food waste and food
tainted paper going into the landfill. We would anticipate a significant reduction in our garbage.
Increased Waste Reduction and Recycling Education:
The vendor will assist us in educating participants on what can be placed in the container.
Participants will be notified upon registration of the survey participation expectation. Ongoing
education will take place by the vendor.
6. Measuring and Evaluating Results
Number of Collections and number of participants
Weight estimates from vendor.
Survey results from participants.
Feedback from vendor.
Once we have all of the data, the City will be able to conclude the success of the program and
the city council will determine whether or not to offer a widespread organized organic waste
recycling program throughout the City of Shorewood.
7. Sharing the Project
A final report will be compiled recording all tonnage, frequency of collection and survey
feedback from participants.
8. Sustaining the Project
Should the city council decide to offer the program as an organized service in the city, residents
will be able to choose whether or not to participate and will contract directly with our licensed
provider.
#6A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Planning Commissioner and Park Commissioner Recognitions
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Attachments: none
Policy Consideration: Council has a policy of recognizing residents who have served on various
commissions/committees.
Background: There are four individuals being recognized for their service on city commissions. Some of
the individuals may be present at the council meeting to receive their recognition plaque in person:
1)Missy Vilett for three years of service on the Planning Commission from March 2008-February
2011.
2)William Ruoff for four years of service on the Planning Commission from March 2007-February
2011.
3)Jeremy Norman for five years of service on the Park Commission from March 2006-February
2011. Jeremy also served as Chair of the Park Commission from October 2008 – February 2011.
4)Susanne Gaidos, for one year of service on the Park Commission from March 2010-December
2011.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The residents serving on the Park and Planning Commissions do
so as a volunteer; therefore, no salary or fee has been paid for their service. The cost of the recognition
plaque is provided in the Mayor and Council miscellaneous supplies budget.
Presentation of the service plaque to those
Recommendation / Action Requested:
commissioners present this evening; the plaque will be mailed to those unable to be present.
Connection to Vision / Mission: The commissioners being recognized this evening have provided
residents with quality public service.
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
April 21, 2011
Brian Heck
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331 ***PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL***
Dear Mr. Heck:
As you know, the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission has been exploring the
desirability and feasibility of building a state-of-the-art fiber optic system (FTTP) that would
serve all premises within the LMCC joint powers area. Potentially, this project would also
include the city of Mound. An important part of that exploration was to commission a
statistically valid residential consumer survey by telephone to gauge the interest of our
citizens in such a service. This survey is now complete and, as promised, we are forwarding
the results for your community to you.
The survey was conducted by a very experienced and highly regarded vendor, CCG
Consulting LLC, who has completed many similar surveys in the past including several in
Minnesota. CCG did a similar survey, for instance, for Monticello. The survey was carefully
designed to ensure a statistical validity of 95%. To achieve this while keeping costs
reasonable, the 17 LMCC member cities were divided into 4 groups, plus Mound, which
because of its size was done separately. The four groups are:
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Deephaven Excelsior Minnetrista Orono
Woodland Minnetonka Beach Victoria Long Lake
Greenwood Spring Park St. Bonifacius Medina
Shorewood Tonka Bay Maple Plain
Loretto
Independence
Enclosed with this letter are the survey questions that were actually used, including the
opening narrative used to put the survey into context for the respondent, the summary
results showing the responses for the five survey groups, and the specific survey results and
report for the group which included your city. We encourage you to review these documents
and share them with your mayor and council.
The survey results are fairly consistent across the five groups, with only a couple of minor
exceptions. One outstanding result is that there is high support (some of the highest the
survey firm has ever seen) for the LMCC to provide a governmentally-owned competitive
service. On average, citizens responded to questions regarding the quality of TV/Cable,
internet, and phone services that they are receiving with Neutral to Somewhat Satisfied
answers. However, there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the perceived value of those
services. This is viewed as indicating a significant opportunity to motivate customers to
change to another service provider. The catalyst for such a move seems likely to be a small
discount (which is consistent with what the consultant has seen in other situations where the
network has actually been implemented).
The task force charged with exploring this concept is carefully studying the results and
shortly will make a recommendation of next steps to the executive committee of the LMCC.
The primary next step, if taken, is to develop a detailed business plan, reflecting among other
things the results of this survey. The business plan will detail the FTTP system to be
proforma
developed and include a detailed financial plan, including how any system
developed would be governed, operated and financed. As always in this process, the task
force is careful to keep moving forward only if there is substantial reason to believe the
financing options available and the business model developed will be sufficiently attractive
to ensure support by the member communities.
The task force is committed to keeping all the member communities informed at each step in
the process, hence the enclosed reports. There will be follow-up by the task force with you
and ample opportunity for you to ask questions and make comments on the project and the
process.
Please feel free to call Sally Koenecke, LMCC executive director, at (952) 471-7125, extension
101 or Dick Woodruff, chair of the FTTP task force at (612) 850-4845 if you have any
questions. Also, lots of information about the FTTP project may be found at
www.tonkaconnect.com.
The LMCC will be contacting you in the next few weeks to discuss this report and the
emerging plans.
Sincerely
Henry Pryor
Chair
Enclosures/4
7712 Stanmore Drive
Beltsville, MD 20705
(301) 210-5200
March 11, 2011
Group 1 Residential Surveys
CCG conducted a residential survey of a statistically valid sample of residents of Group 1 which
consists of Deephaven, Greenwood, Shorewood and Woodland, Minnesota. In this survey we
asked residents questions concerning cable television, data and telephone service.
The survey was given to the following number of households in each city:
Deephaven 108
Greenwood 26
Shorewood 207
Woodland 14
The first step in developing the survey was to determine how many residents must be surveyed
for the results to be considered statistically valid. In our line of work we routinely over the years
have helped clients to determine sample sizes. At CCG we use tools to help us determine sample
size. For several years we have consulted two web sites,
(www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#terminology) and (http://calculators.stat.ucla.edu/) that
have online sample size calculators. The first site is from the web site for Creative Research
Systems, a firm specializing in market research. The second site is from the Statistics
Department at UCLA. Prior to using these sites, I used to perform these calculations manually
and I have tested both of these sites to make sure they produce the same results as my manual
calculations. For both websites the sample size provided by the website has always been the
same or nearly the same (sometimes varied by 1 because of rounding) as the results I obtained by
manual calculation.
In creating the sample size for this survey we first determined, the level of confidence that we
wanted. We selected a sample size that would produce results with a 95% confidence level. In
layman’s terms this means that the results we obtained would be within 5% of the same results
we would expect to obtain if we were able to talk to every resident in these cities. I then
calculated the sample size using the results given by both web sites. There are roughly 4,587
households in the group and to obtain the results we needed we had to talk to 355 households in
the cities.
We determined who to call using a systematic sampling approach. Since we had separate white
pages for each City we first determined how many households to call in each City based upon
their proportionate share of the total group. Then, within each City we called every tenth
resident. If we were unable to get an answer we continued with the tenth household after the one
we missed. This type of methodology isn’t strictly random, but is the approach that almost all
telephone surveyors use and it is a valid sampling technique. Since our callers didn’t know
anybody in the cities, we believe this method achieves the same results as using a pure random
calling pattern.
One thing that we must caution you about is how to interpret this survey. This survey was given
to a group of the four cities and the results are statistically valid for those four cities as a group.
While the results to any given question are interesting when looked at by an individual city
within the group, there is an extremely low statistical reliability of results by given city. Thus, we
caution that results can only be relied upon at the stated significance when looked at as a whole,
and not by individual city.
The survey produced some interesting results. Here are highlight survey results by the different
sections of the survey:
Data (High Speed Internet Access)
Residents were first asked if they could get high speed Internet at their homes. Only 2% said that
they did not, while another 9% didn’t know if they could get high speed Internet. I would note
that this question does not reflect the actual availability of broadband, but rather the perception
of the public about whether it is available.
90% of residences currently have high-speed Internet access of some sort with 30% using DSL
and 60% using cable modem. The nationwide average for broadband penetration today is
estimated to be around 65% of homes by various experts, so this group of cities already has an
extraordinarily high overall broadband take rate today. Only 4% of customers still use dial-up
which is lower than the nationwide average of around 15%. Only 6% of customers have no
Internet access at home compared to the nationwide average of around 20%.
When we asked the households without Internet why they didn’t have it we got the following
reasons: they didn’t want it or need it; it is too expensive, they have no computer, or they use it at
work.
69% of the households with dial-up said they have considered changing to a high-speed
connection.
Only 6% of households have no computer in the home. 23% of houses have one computer; 34%
have two computers; 37% have three of more computers.
25
Page of
Residents were basically satisfied with the current Internet service providers. Only 19% were
dissatisfied with repair response times. Only 14% were dissatisfied with download and upload
speeds. Only 18% were dissatisfied with the reliability of their provider. However, 26% were
dissatisfied with the value they get compared to the price they pay for the service.
An extremely high 90% of households said they would buy Internet access from LMCC. This is
the highest result we have ever seen. 30% said they were willing to pay the same price; 11% said
they would pay a little more while 49% said they would only buy if there was a discount.
Interestingly, the 90% who said they would buy equals all of the households that have high speed
Internet access today (90%). It is clear that a competitor would need to offer a discount to get
customers in these cities.
Cable TV
93% of residents subscribe to cable TV. This is higher than the 75% nationwide average for
cable service. 78% of those with cable use Mediacom while the other 22% use one of satellite
dish providers. The nationwide average penetration for the dish providers is at around 16% of
households, so at 20% these Cities have more dish customers than a ‘normal’ market (calculated
as 22% satellite customers of 93% total cable customers).
People have a lot of TVs in their homes. Only four households reported having no TVs. 17%
have one TV; 35% have two TVs, and 47% have three or more TVs.
Many residents are satisfied with the current cable providers. Only 21% were dissatisfied with
repair response times. Only 16% were dissatisfied with overall customer service. Only 22% were
dissatisfied with the reliability of their provider. However, 30% were dissatisfied with the value
they get compared to the price they pay for the service.
40% of residents said that it is important to have local programming about local schools, local
sports events, community organizations, local government and community events.
A very high 85% of residences said they would buy cable TV from LMCC. 30% said they were
willing to pay the same price; 6% said they would pay a little more while 49% said they would
only buy if there was a discount. This is the one of the highest such response we have ever seen
from this type of survey.
In summary, customers are basically happy with the current service providers, but the vast
majority of the existing cable customers are open to changing to a network operated by LMCC.
Telephone
65% of households with telephone service use Qwest. Another 30% have switched to Mediacom.
5% use a VoIP provider like Vonage or other provider.
Many residents are satisfied with the current telephone providers. Only 17% were dissatisfied
with repair response times. Only 17% were dissatisfied with overall customer service. Only 18%
35
Page of
were dissatisfied with the reliability of their provider. And only 23% were dissatisfied with the
value they get compared to the price they pay for the service.
4% of customers said they were considering dropping landline service for cell phone service in
the coming year. Nationwide it’s estimated that about 85% of households still have a landline
telephone.
An extremely high 90% of residences said they would buy telephone service from LMCC. 31%
said they were willing to pay the same price; 2% said they would pay a little more while 57%
said they would only buy if there was a discount.
General Questions
We asked some general questions about the communications marketplace.
79% of households get some kind of bundle today, meaning they buy a package of at least two of
the services that include telephone, cable TV and Internet Access. 31% of the households buy a
bundle of all three services.
Households reported to us what they pay for service, summarized as follows. We would note that
the actual amounts people pay is often different than what they think they pay. However, overall,
the prices quoted to us seem higher than what we normally find in other communities. It was
reported to us that households pay:
$132 Average for those buying the triple play
$116 Average for those buying TV / Internet bundle
$69 Average for those buying TV / Telephone bundle
$80 Average for those buying Internet / Telephone bundle
$31 Average for those buying telephone outside a bundle
$36 Average for those buying Internet outside a bundle
$69 Average for those buying Cable TV outside the bundle
Only 3% of households say they would work more at home if they had faster Internet. That is
one of the lowest results we have ever seen to that question.
70% of households say that it is important for their communications provider to have a local
office and local support staff. This is the same level of response to this question that we normally
see in other cities we have surveyed.
Finally, we asked households if LMCC should provide a locally-owned competitive choice for
the triple play services.
69% said LMCC should get into the communications business.
11% said LMCC should not get into the communications business
20% were undecided.
45
Page of
Summary
Overall the surveys produced some interesting results.
The four Cities in this group have high-speed Internet available throughout. Only 4% of
household still use dial-up. This group has more high-speed Internet customers than the national
average. The group also has more homes with computers than the nationwide average.
The group has a much higher percentage of households with cable TV service than the
nationwide average. Most people use Mediacom but the penetration of satellite is higher than the
nationwide average. 40% of homes thought that a channel with local programming is important.
30% of households have already switched telephone service to Mediacom. 4% of households are
thinking about dropping landline telephone service.
A large percentage of customers seem satisfied with the current service providers for all three
primary services. But interestingly, while people didn’t dislike the support or the quality from the
incumbent providers, many of them did not perceive a value for these services compared to the
price that they pay.
Only 11% said LMCC should not build a network. However, in the question asked about buying
each service, a vast majority of the respondents say they would buy from LMCC if you could
provide a lower cost competitive alternative.
55
Page of
Group 1 Residential Survey Results
Following are the responses from the survey given to residents of Deephaven,
Greenwood, Shorewood, and Woodland. The survey was given by telephone to 355
randomly selected households in these towns.
The survey was given to the following number of households in each city:
Deephaven 108
Greenwood 26
Shorewood 207
Woodland 14
1. Should the LMCC and local governments provide locally-owned, competitive choice of TV,
Internet and telephone services to every home, business, school, governmental buildings, etc.
in the LMCC area?
Yes 245 69%
No 40 11%
Don’t Know 70 20%
Comments:
Would like better prices 7 16%
Would like more choice 4 8%
Government should not get involved 15 34%
Happy with current providers 1 2%
Need more information 7 16%
Will taxes go up? 1 2%
Depends on quality 1 2%
Doesn’t think LMCC is effective 2 5%
Doesn’t trust government 2 5%
Think it’s a great idea 2 5%
Not needed 2 5%
High Speed Internet
2. Is high speed Internet available at your home today if you wanted to buy it? (Can answer yes
to the first two). Percentages are shown as percent of total households.
Yes, I can get high speed cable model from Mediacom 303 85%
Yes, I can get high speed DSL from my telephone company 179 50%
No 6 2%
Don’t Know 30 9%
3. What kind of Internet service do you have at home?
Don't have Internet 20 6%
Dial-up 13 4%
Cable modem from Mediacom 214 60%
High speed DSL from Qwest 108 30%
High speed DSL from Frontier 0 0%
High speed DSL from other Telephone company 0 0%
Cellular (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) at home 0 0%
Satellite 0 0%
Other 0 0%
4. If you don’t use Internet at home, why not?
Don’t want it / need it 12 60%
Too Expensive 4 20%
No computer 3 15%
Use at work 1 5%
5. If you use dial-up Internet access at home today, have you considered changing to high-speed
Internet access?
Yes 9 69%
No 4 31%
If not, why not? No need, connection not available
6. What is the greatest number of people who might use the Internet at the same time in your
home?
Zero 20 6%
One 83 23%
Two 121 34%
Three 87 24%
Four 34 10%
Five Plus 10 3%
7. Please rate your Internet service provider regarding the following from 1 to 5, where one is
‘extremely dissatisfied’ and five is ‘extremely satisfied’
Amount of time it takes to get problems fixed
Extremely Dissatisfied 10 3%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 51 16%
Neutral 100 31%
Somewhat Satisfied 106 32%
Extremely Satisfied 58 18%
Page 2
Speed
Extremely Dissatisfied 18 5%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 28 9%
Neutral 112 33%
Somewhat Satisfied 105 31%
Extremely Satisfied 72 22%
Reliability
Extremely Dissatisfied 18 5%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 44 13%
Neutral 102 31%
Somewhat Satisfied 111 33%
Extremely Satisfied 60 18%
The value I get compared to the price I pay
Extremely Dissatisfied 19 6%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 66 20%
Neutral 126 37%
Somewhat Satisfied 90 27%
Extremely Satisfied 34 10%
8. If LMCC could bring you Internet with significantly faster speeds, both download and upload
and better customer service than you get today, would you:
Buy from LMCC at the same price 109 30%
Buy from LMCC and pay a little more 38 11%
Buy from LMCC if it cost a little less 173 49%
Not buy 35 10%
Cable TV
9. Do you currently subscribe to cable TV service?
Yes 331 93%
No 24 7%
10. If yes, who is Cable TV Provider?
Mediacom 258 78%
Satellite Dish 59 18%
Other 14 4%
11. How many televisions are used in your home?
Zero 4 1%
One 61 17%
Two 124 35%
Three 97 27%
Four 53 15%
Five or More 16 5%
Page 3
12. Please rate your cable TV provider regarding the following from 1 to 5, where one is
‘extremely dissatisfied’ and five is ‘extremely satisfied’
Amount of time it takes to get problems fixed
Extremely Dissatisfied 18 5%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 53 16%
Neutral 102 31%
Somewhat Satisfied 101 31%
Extremely Satisfied 57 17%
Overall Customer Service
Extremely Dissatisfied 14 4%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 39 12%
Neutral 116 35%
Somewhat Satisfied 102 31%
Extremely Satisfied 60 18%
Reliability
Extremely Dissatisfied 21 6%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 54 16%
Neutral 92 28%
Somewhat Satisfied 112 34%
Extremely Satisfied 52 16%
The value I get compared to the price I pay
Extremely Dissatisfied 22 7%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 75 23%
Neutral 124 37%
Somewhat Satisfied 84 25%
Extremely Satisfied 26 8%
13. How important is it to have access to local programming for things like school events, local
sports events, community organization meetings, city council meetings and community
events?
Very Important 38 11%
Important 100 29%
Not Important 179 52%
No Opinion 28 8%
Page 4
14. If LMCC could bring you TV with better picture quality and better customer service than you
get today, would you:
Buy from LMCC at the same price 105 30%
Buy from LMCC and pay a little more 21 6%
Buy from LMCC if it cost a little less 176 49%
Would not buy 53 15%
Telephone Service
15. Who provides your land line telephone service?
Qwest 233 65%
Frontier 0 0%
Mediacom 107 30%
Internet-based like Vonage or Magic Jack 2 1%
Other 13 4%
16. Please rate your local telephone provider regarding the following from 1 to 5, where one is
‘extremely dissatisfied’ and five is ‘extremely satisfied’
Amount of time it takes to get problems fixed
Extremely Dissatisfied 10 3%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 48 14%
Neutral 81 23%
Somewhat Satisfied 108 30%
Extremely Satisfied 108 30%
Overall Customer Service
Extremely Dissatisfied 15 4%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 46 13%
Neutral 80 23%
Somewhat Satisfied 106 30%
Extremely Satisfied 108 30%
Reliability
Extremely Dissatisfied 15 4%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 51 14%
Neutral 77 22%
Somewhat Satisfied 96 27%
Extremely Satisfied 116 33%
The value I get compared to the price I pay
Extremely Dissatisfied 9 3%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 70 20%
Neutral 123 34%
Somewhat Satisfied 95 27%
Extremely Satisfied 58 16%
Page 5
17. In the next year, do you plan to drop your land line telephone and use only cellular service or
Internet-based telephone?
Yes 15 4%
No 334 94%
Maybe 6 2%
18. If LMCC could bring you telephone service that would include many features in the basic
price would you:
Buy from LMCC at the same price 109 31%
Buy from LMCC and pay a little more 7 2%
Buy from LMCC if it cost a little less 202 57%
Would not buy 37 10%
Pricing
19. Do you buy a bundle of services today that includes TV, Internet and telephone service?
Yes, I get all three 110 31%
Yes, I get cable TV and Internet in a bundle 79 22%
Yes, I get cable TV and telephone in a bundle 16 4%
Yes, I get Internet and telephone in a bundle 77 22%
No 73 21%
20. How much do you pay for the bundle?
$132 Average for those buying the triple play
$116 Average for those buying TV / Internet bundle
$69 Average for those buying TV / Telephone bundle
$80 Average for those buying Internet / Telephone bundle
21. If you have any of these services that are not part of a bundle, how much do you pay?
$31 Average for those buying telephone outside a bundle
$36 Average for those buying Internet outside a bundle
$69 Average for those buying Cable TV outside the bundle
General Questions
22. If you had faster Internet access at home, would you:
Work from home more often than you do now? 11 3%
Work from the home the same as now? 76 21%
Not work at home 268 76%
Page 6
23. Is it important to you for your communication provider to have local customer service and
have a local person to help you with problems?
Yes 249 70%
No 105 30%
Page 7
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution Accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing
Advertisement for Bids for Bituminous Seal coating of Streets in 2011.
Meeting Date: 4/25/2011
Prepared by: JAL
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Ad for Bid, Map
Background: As part of the Operating Budget, funds are set aside each year for Bituminous Seal Coating
of Streets. Streets scheduled for 2011 seal coating are shown on the attached map and are:
rd
3 Ave, Anthony Terrace, Apple Rd, Bayswater Rd, Bracketts Rd, Brand Circle, Cardinal Dr,
Chaska Rd, Christmas Ln, Christmas Lake Rd, Deer Ridge, Division St, Excelsior Blvd, Ferncroft
Dr, Forest Dr, Galpin Lake Rd, Garden Rd, Hillendale Rd, Idlewild Path, Lilac Ln, Manor Rd,
Mayflower Rd, Merry Lane, Minnetonka Blvd, Murray Ct, Murray Hill Rd, Murray St, Oakview Ct,
Parkview Ln, Radisson Entrance Rd, Radisson Rd, Broms Blvd, Shore Rd, St. Albans Bay Rd,
Stratford Pl, Suburban Dr, Summit Ave, Vine St, West Ln, Woodend Pl.
Therefore the attached resolution approves the plans and specifications for such services and authorizes
the advertisement for bids. If approved, the bid opening for this project is scheduled for 10:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, May 18, 2011.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Budgeted $223,000. This schedule may need to change due to
budgetary constraints.
Options:
1.Approve the resolution accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
for Bituminous Seal coating of Streets in 2011.
2.Direct staff to select different roads.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution that
approves the plans and specifications for the Bituminous Seal Coating of Streets for 2011, and
authorizes advertisement for bids.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Maintaining the roads is an environmental and financial sustainability
strategy.
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-___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS
FOR BITUMINOUS SEAL COAT PROJECT 2011
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood designates $223,000 for seal coating; and
WHEREAS
, the Director of Public Works has identified streets within the City that need
bituminous seal coating; and
WHEREAS
, the City Engineer has prepared Specifications and an Estimate dated April 27,
2011 for a project within the City of Shorewood for the 2011 Bituminous Seal Coating of Streets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1.The Specifications and Estimate was prepared by the City Engineer for such
improvement. Said Specifications and Estimate are hereby approved and shall be filed
with the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in
Finance - Commerce an advertisement for bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A, upon
the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published for 2 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall
state that bids will be opened and considered by the Council at 10:00 a.m. (CST), on
May 18, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered
unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s
check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5 percent of the amount
of each bid.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25 day
of April, 2011.
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
________________________________________________________________________________
2011 Bituminous Seal Coating of Streets
For the Cities of Shorewood,
Excelsior and Tonka Bay,
Minnesota
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that sealed proposals will be received at the City Clerk’s Office in
the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota at the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country
until 10:00 A.M. on Wed., the 18th day of May, 2011
Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331,
and will be publicly opened at said time and place by two or more designated officers or agents of the
City of Shorewood. Said proposal to be for the furnishing and placement of Bituminous Material and
all labor for the placement of owner furnished Seal coat Aggregate.
Placement ofOwner Furnished
2,787 TON FA- 2 Grey Granite Seal Coat Aggregate
Contractor Furnished
81,022 GAL CRS – 2P Bituminous Material for Seal Coat
Proposals arriving after the designated time will be returned unopened.
The bids must be submitted on the proposal form provided in accordance with the contract
documents, plans and specifications as prepared by the City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club
Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, which are on file with the City Clerk of the City of
Shorewood.
Copies of Proposal Form Specifications for use by the contractors submitting a bid may be obtained
from City Hall, City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Rd, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, upon a
deposit (non-refundable) of Twenty Five Dollars and No Cents ( $ 25.00 ) per set or a PDF file for
free by email.
BID FOR 2011
No Bids will be considered unless sealed and endorsed upon the outside wrapper, “
BITUMINOUS SEAL COATING OF STREETS
” and filed with the City Clerk of the City of
Shorewood and accompanied by a cashier’s check, payable to the City of Shorewood for 5% of the
amount of the bid to be forfeited as liquidated damages in the event the bid is accepted and the
bidder should fail to enter promptly into a written contract and furnish the required bonds.
The City of Shorewood reserves the right to reject any and all bids. No bids may be withdrawn for a
period of (30) days from the date of opening the bids.
Date: April 26, 2011 BY: ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Brian Heck, City Administrator
thth
PUBLISHED IN: The “Finance-Commerce” May 5 & May 12, 2011
thth
The “Sun Sailor” May 5 & May 12, 2011
_______________________________________________________________________________
2011 Bituminous Seal Coating AFB
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Continuation of Zoning Violation Appeal – Ron Johnson, 5490 Vine Hill Road
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Excerpt of minutes of the March 28, 2011 meeting and
Item #8A of the March 28, 2011 Regular Council meeting
Background: This item is continued from the March 28, 2011 council meeting, see attached for this
item information.
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 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2011
Page 7 of 14
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his perspective the City will inevitably end up in district court over
this matter.
Woodruff withdrew his motion.
Councilmember Zerby expressed his concern about the zoning violation notice dated March 18, 2011,
stating Mr. Johnson’s opportunity to appeal to Council would be on April 25, 2011, yet that hearing was
rescheduled for this evening. Director Nielsen reiterated Mr. Johnson had 10 days to appeal the notice; he
appealed it within 1.5 days. That enabled the City to schedule the appeal to the City Council for this
evening. Nielsen noted a copy of Mr. Johnson’s appeal was included in the meeting packet.
Attorney Keane noted that per the City Code it was appropriate to reschedule the day when Mr. Johnson
could appeal to Council. Keane explained the zoning violation notice date and the respective appeal date
dictate the schedule. He noted that Mr. Johnson was fully aware that his appeal to Council was
rescheduled for this evening. He explained Council can discuss continuing this to April 25, 2011, if
Council wants to exercise an abundance of caution.
Director Nielsen stated if Council has concerns about having changed the date this can be continued to
April 25, 2011.
There was ensuing discussion about changing the date of Mr. Johnson’s opportunity to appeal to Council,
and about the benefits of going through the administrative enforcement process.
Attorney Keane asked Director Nielsen if, in accordance with the City Ordinance relating to
administrative enforcement of Code regulations, the City can proceed with the administrative
enforcement proceeding and continue the hearing on the notice of appeal.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it’s his understanding that under the City’s administrative enforcement
process it’s the City’s prerogative to start and stop that process at any point in time. Attorney Keane
explained the City manages that process. Woodruff questioned if the City could notice Mr. Johnson that
it’s going to start the enforcement process but delay the start of it until after April 25, 2011.
Director Nielsen stated the City can issue an administrative citation giving Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastman
until April 26, 2011, to comply with the City’s zoning regulations.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing Staff to initiate the administrative enforcement
process by issuing administrative citations to Ron Johnson and Jerry Eastman regarding the zoning
violations on property located at 5490 Vine Hill Road, giving them until April 26, 2011, to comply
with the zoning violation notices and continuing the hearing on the notice of appeal to April 25,
2011.
Councilmember Zerby stated although he would prefer not to delay this he’s more comfortable making
sure a technicality will not interfere with resolving this to the City’s satisfaction. He stated he thought that
Mr. Johnson has taken matters between he and the City very personally. This is not personal from his or
the other Councilmembers perspectives. He clarified it’s the Council’s responsibility to make sure
residents concerns are heard and addressed appropriately.
Motion passed 4/1 with Lizée dissenting.
#11B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Excelsior Fire District Budget
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: 2011 Tax capacity; Municipal contribution alternatives; Operating Fund Balance
Policy Consideration: How does the Council recommend the EFD meet its 2012 Budget?
Background: the EFD began budget discussions earlier this month. Chief Gerber presented a budget with
an initial budget proposal with a total operating and capital increase of 1.2%. The budget contemplates
no use of fund balance, which the Board approved in the past two budget cycles, and as a result, the
impact on the contribution to support the department from the member communities results in a 6.2%
increase.
One of the major components to the increase is the mandatory contribution to the Fire Relief
Association. The Relief Association’s investments experienced a decline of over $1.2 million in value.
Under state law, the member communities must make up that loss over a 10 year period. The fire board,
as part of the 2009 budget, needed to allocate $120,000 to cover this new liability. Through cuts in the
operating budget and use of fund balance, the board accomplished this task. The Board faced a similar
task in 2010; however, the liability declined to approximately $80,000. Again, the Board used fund
balance and cuts to balance the budget.
The Board is looking at approximately $80,000 again this year, although as the market recovers, the
liability may actually be less.
The Board asked members to return to their respective Councils to obtain feedback on funding this
$80,000 liability. The Board discussed a few options such as using the potential savings of approximately
$40,000 experienced this year in the bond payments, using additional fund balance, assessing the whole
amount to the Cities, or some combination.
Financial or Budget Considerations: depending on the direction the Board takes, the city could see an
increase in its annual support for the fire department.
Options:
1)Use potential bond savings of $40,000, operating fund balance, and capital/operating budget
cuts;
2)Use potential bond savings and levy the balance;
3)Use only operational budget and capital fund cuts;
4)Use only fund balance
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
5)Give back the potential bond savings, use operating fund balance and levy;
6)Give back the potential savings and levy for the total amount;
7)Some other combination.
Recommendation / Action Requested: the Board representative is seeking input and direction from the
Council on the preferred method to fund the Fire District.
Next Steps and Timelines: the Board representative will take the message from the Council to the next
Board meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 1.
Connection to Vision / Mission: key in this discussion and direction is sound financial management,
public service, and leadership.
Operating Fund Reserve Analysis
2011
20102011AB C
BudgetProjected201220122012
ActualBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
January 1 Fund Reserve317,207280,239273,430273,430273,430
EFD Annual Expenditures
Operating Fund Expenditures719,666778,677805,324805,324805,324
Mandatory Fire Relief Contribution58,55488,55480,00080,00080,000
CEP Fund Transfer155,000160,000165,000165,000165,000
Facilities Fund Transfer552,859553,329554,567554,567554,567
Building Fund Transfer25,0000000
Fire Relief Fund Transfer62,0000000
Total Operating Fund Expenditures 1,573,0791,580,5601,604,8911,604,8911,604,891
EFD Annual Revenues
EFD Municipal Contributions1,481,8861,511,7511,604,8911,564,8911,524,891
Interest Income 3,3940000
Other Revenues10,8310000
Fire Relief Fund Transfer062,000000
Facilities Fund Transfer40,0000000
Total Operating Fund Revenues1,536,1111,573,7511,604,8911,564,8911,524,891
December 1 Fund Reserve280,239273,430273,430233,430193,430
Fund Reserve Percentage32.13%31.53%30.88%26.37%21.85%
A - Assumes a Municipal Contribution of $1,604,891 that funds all
2012 Operating Fund expenses.
B - Assumes that $40,000 of the $80,000 mandatory Fire Relief
Contribution is funded by Operating Fund reserves.
C - Assumes the entire $80,000 mandatory Fire Relief
Contribution is funded by Operating Fund reserves.
Fire District Auditor recommends a Operating Fund Reserve of
20-30% of planned expenditures.
2012 Proposed Budget
Contribution with 2012 JPA Formula
Summary of Percentage Increase by City
2012 Formula
2012 Operting Budget and $165,000 Capital Transfer
% Increase% Increase
City2010 Contribution2011 ContributionIncrease2012 ProposedIncrease
from 2010from 2011
Deephaven$ 408,409.00$ 408,310.00 $ (99.00) -0.02%$ 436,620.00 $ 28,310.00 6.93%
Excelsior$ 157,984.00$ 159,515.00 $ 1,531.000.97%$ 165,043.00$ 5,528.00 3.47%
Greenwood$ 122,510.00$ 127,785.00 $ 5,275.004.31%$ 133,832.00 $ 6,047.00 4.73%
Shorewood$ 570,742.00$ 583,390.00 $ 12,648.002.22%$ 619,829.00$ 36,439.00 6.25%
Tonka Bay$ 222,241.00$ 232,751.00 $ 10,510.004.73%$ 249,567.00$ 16,816.00 7.22%
Total Contribution$ 1,481,886.00$ 1,511,751.00$ 29,865.002.02%$ 1,604,891.00$ 93,140.006.16%
Tax Capacity Informaiton
City2010 Values2011 Values$ Change% Change from 2010
Deephaven$12,067,101$11,178,216($888,885)-7%
Excelsior$4,714,251$4,225,376($488,875)-10%
Greenwood$3,776,525$3,426,333($350,192)-9%
Shorewood$17,241,365$15,868,696($1,372,669)-8%
Tonka Bay$6,878,662$6,389,349($489,313)-7%
Totals$44,677,904$41,087,970-8%
($3,589,934)
City2008 Values2009 Values$ Change% Change from 2008
Deephaven$12,878,297$12,508,003
($370,294)-3%
Excelsior$4,651,191$4,838,446
$187,2554%
Greenwood$3,438,594$3,752,017
$313,4239%
Shorewood$16,935,039$17,479,666
$544,6273%
Tonka Bay$6,225,329$6,806,407
$581,0789%
Totals$44,128,450$45,384,539$1,256,0893%
EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT
2010
STATION 1
FF NAME2010 Average Call %DRILLS of 39BUS.MTG. of 12
Barnes, John0.482267
Berglund, Lee0.580418
Betz, John0.290205*LOA September - December
Bunting, Keith0.4774212
Carney, Brian0.4723410
Duncan, Bruce0.3883212
Firkus, Rian0.3894212
George, Dana0.670318
Gould, Tim0.356289
Graef, Hank0.7503412
Heiland, Mike0.7014411
Hoo, David0.8273412
Kuhnly, Brian0.4923012
Latterner, Jeremy0.677298*LOA September - November, Resigned December
Lugowski, Joe0.6423212
Mahoney, Jim0.303123*Resigned September
Mork, Hoby0.375275
Murphy, Kellie0.4603212
Newell, Lance0.3513410
Parker, Brandy0.362176
Pass, Chris0.439235
Ringate, Gary0.430309
Stern, Alex0.527257
Stern, Kevin0.4253410
Studer, Pete0.622189*Resigned October
Sweeney, Doug0.403327
Uran, Joe0.4683312
Zuehl, Ron0.3573911
Gerber, Scott0.5323210
STATION 2
FF NAME2010 Average Call %DRILLS of 39BUS.MTG. of 12
Aschoff, Darren0.8933410
Blumhoeffer, C0.606349
Cox, Peggy0.7912510
Enger, Eric0.622329
Gammack, Jeff0.451246
Goetz, Jay0.5073210
Jensen, Mike0.6012811
Jenson, Mike0.542319
Lewandowski, C0.430197*LOA November - December
McCarthy, Pat0.9783612
Mckee, John0.8473511
Nagel, Brian0.8143312
Narveson, Karl0.6633011
Narveson, Vicki0.9713011
Roufs, Mark0.5083812
Sorenson, Matt0.7453512
Thompson, Briggs0.472247
*There are Special drills that are over and above required drills & Makeup Drills included in the totals
MEMORANDUM
Date:
April 21, 2011
To:
Mayor Lizee
Council Members
From:
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Re:
March, 2011 Monthly Budget Report
______________________________________________________________
The 2011 General Fund budget has turned out about average at this point in the budget cycle.
Overall expenditures are at 23.8% which is under budget by $5,188.
Several departments exceeded their budget average at this point in the year. They are:
Administration - over because wages are budgeted more closely to expected expenditures
than past years.
General Government - over because wages and materials are higher than previous years’
averages.
Elections - over because materials expenditures are higher than previous years’ averages.
Finance - over because wages and materials expenditures are higher than previous years’
averages.
Planning and Zoning - over because wages are budgeted more closely to expected
expenditures than past years.
Municipal Buildings - over because materials expenditures are higher than previous
years’ averages.
Inspections - over because wages are budgeted more closely to expected expenditures
than past years.
Public Works - over because wages are budgeted more closely to expected expenditures
than past years.
Snow and Ice - over because of all the snow received this winter. There is still a chance
that the overall budget will not be exceeded if snow fall this fall and early winter is
average or below.
Staff has not yet completed the task of budgeting all expenditures by month, but intends to have
the ready for next month’s report.
Please contact me or Mr. Heck if you have any questions.
Attachment: March Monthly Budget Report
Monthly Budget Report
March 31, 2011
YTDYTD2011% of 2011ExpectedVariance
2010MarchAdoptedAnnual% of 2011(Negative)
Year to Date OverviewActual2011BudgetBudgetBudgetor Positive
REVENUE
Property Taxes - - 4,763,319 0.0%0.0%
Licenses and Permits 27,429 42,615 98,200 43.4%22.0%
Intergovernmental 32,324 - 69,401 0.0%47.2%
Charges for Service 21,928 23,688 35,075 67.5%48.6%
Fines and Forfeitures 10,881 - 52,000 0.0%19.6%
Miscellaneous 26,962 4,056 63,900 6.3%16.1%
Transfers from other funds - - 40,000 0.0%0.0%
TOTAL 119,523 70,359 5,121,895
1.4%($21,510.51)
EXPENDITURES
Department
Council
Personnel 4,198 3,391 16,80020.2%24.1%
Materials and Supplies 369 93 1,3007.2%52.9%
Support and Services 11,615 16,933 102,43016.5%22.4%
Total 16,182 20,417 120,53016.9%$7,223.78
Administration
Personnel 34,154 35,710 142,82825.0%22.3%
Materials and Supplies - - -0.0%6.6%
Support and Services 557 839 4,76017.6%8.4%
Capital Outlay 1,631 - -21.8%
Total 36,342 36,549 147,58824.8%($4,310.42)
General Government
Personnel 51,763 60,792 226,38726.9%26.0%
Materials and Supplies 3,362 4,055 18,50021.9%19.8%
Support and Services 6,179 4,922 32,35015.2%16.2%
Capital Outlay 1,214 - -48.2%
Total 62,518 69,769 277,23725.2%($2,046.72)
Elections
Personnel 236 254 4,7815.3%4.4%
Materials and Supplies 1,665 1,665 2,30072.4%29.1%
Support and Services 16 - -27.7%
Capital Outlay - - -0.0%
Total 1,917 1,919 7,08127.1%($1,038.30)
Finance
Personnel 40,877 40,219 153,22426.2%23.0%
Materials and Supplies 6,745 6,967 6,950100.2%78.5%
Support and Services 1,153 1,762 6,57526.8%9.4%
Capital Outlay - - - 12.1%
Total 48,775 48,948 166,74929.4%($7,637.08)
Professional Services
64,892 61,575 199,00030.9%39.7%$17,500.97
Planning and Zoning
Personnel 41,958 42,633 170,69425.0%22.6%
Materials and Supplies - 144 65522.0%86.5%
Support and Services 3,973 2,613 11,81022.1%38.3%
Capital Outlay - - 31.6%
Total 45,931 45,390 183,15924.8%($1,798.52)
Municipal Building - City Hall
Materials and Supplies 19,327 18,967 16,500115.0%30.8%
Support and Services 4,237 89,887 157,75057.0%6.1%
Capital Outlay 1,091 - -#DIV/0!1.8%
Transfers - - 103,9500.0%0.0%
Total 24,655 108,854 278,20039.1%($94,143.20)
Police
Materials and Supplies - -0.0%
Support Services 236,960 249,500 995,75025.1%30.8%
Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 57,017 57,517 230,06625.0%24.9%
Total 293,977 307,017 1,225,81625.0%$56,623.48
Fire
Support Services 80,634 84,283 337,13025.0%34.8%
Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 68,157 67,674 270,69725.0%32.5%
Total 148,791 151,957 607,82725.0%$53,185.65
Inspections
Personnel 27,423 27,389 109,09625.1%23.9%
Materials and Supplies 22 154 30051.3%2.3%
Support and Services 1,198 105 6,7001.6%15.3%
Total 28,643 27,648 116,09623.8%($591.23)
City Engineer
Personnel 21,610 24,893 111,10322.4%24.0%
Materials and Supplies - 4 1,2550.3%11.0%
Support and Services 1,569 380 13,3202.9%11.6%
Capital Outlay - - 1,0000.0%33.8%
Total 23,179 25,277 126,67820.0%$3,454.79
Public Works Service
Personnel 62,450 81,887 184,10744.5%24.9%
Materials and Supplies 17,028 22,227 71,20031.2%24.2%
Support and Services 12,729 12,545 41,44030.3%27.9%
Capital Outlay - - -0.0%
Total 92,207 116,659 296,74739.3%($42,021.37)
Streets and Roads
Personnel 15,852 9,622 113,4598.5%14.6%
Materials and Supplies 7,678 6,692 85,0007.9%9.7%
Support and Services 206 412 34,0001.2%0.3%
Capital Outlay - - 700,0000.0%0.0%
Total 23,736 16,726 932,4591.8%$8,145.03
Snow and Ice
Personnel 26,648 37,431 56,56766.2%45.9%
Materials and Supplies 12,594 14,210 45,11731.5%36.3%
Total 39,242 51,641 101,68450.8%($9,295.91)
Traffic control / Street Lights
Personnel - - - 0.0%
Materials and Supplies - 846 5,00016.9%43.7%
Support and Services 7,712 9,313 52,14917.9%20.4%
Total 7,712 10,159 57,14917.8%$2,640.80
Sanitation / Waste Control
Personnel 3,880 - 2,2810.0%53.5%
Materials and Supplies - - 1000.0%0.0%
Support and Services - - 4,4000.0%0.0%
Total 3,880 - 6,7810.0%$1,221.32
Tree Maintenance
Personnel 1,312 2,435 14,02017.4%14.3%
Materials and Supplies - - 1,4250.0%0.0%
Support and Services 4,977 45 13,2500.3%13.7%
Total 6,289 2,480 28,6958.6%$1,351.90
Parks and Recreation
Personnel 45,688 44,051 185,70823.7%30.8%
Materials and Supplies 1,447 2,880 19,80014.5%15.3%
Support and Services 19,795 23,930 91,90026.0%29.8%
Transfers - - 42,0000.0%0.0%
Total 66,930 70,861 339,40820.9%$16,722.78
Unallocated - 65,659 -0.0%
Total Expenditures 5,218,884
1,035,798 1,239,50523.8%$5,188
Net Revenue less Expenditures (96,989)
(916,275) (1,169,146)
Note: The balanced budget includes the estimated use of $150,000 of fund balance in the Transfers line item of the Revenue section.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
April 21, 2011
To:
Mayor Lizee
Council Members
From:
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Re:
March, 2011 Quarterly Investment Report
______________________________________________________________
The City’s cash reserves have been invested in both cash flow type of investments to meet
ongoing expenditure needs and longer-term securities with higher returns than money market
funds. It is important to remember our investment priorities in order of concern:
1.Safety – preservation of principal;
2.Liquidity – having funds available when needed to pay expenses;
3.Yield – earning market rates of return for the amount of principal risk we are willing to
accept.
With the investments that the City currently holds, and with our philosophy of holding
investments to maturity, we are exposed to minimal risk of principal loss. The only expected
change is when investments are marked to market and gains or losses are recognized at year end.
In order to decide what time frames should be targeted for various investments, a cash flow
projection has been prepared. Over the past three years, the city has only had three months
where cash flow is positive – June, July, and December. Those months are when we receive tax
settlements. The rest of the months, need about $500,000 on average to cover operating costs.
This means that the City should have a mix of callable and non-callable investments with both
short-term cash flow needs being met and longer maturities targeting major cash needs over the
investment horizon.
The current investment climate has not changed much since January. We are still finding
investments in the four year and under time frame that return over 1.5%. I am slowly finding
investments to meet cash flow needs for the rest of the year in our targeted months.
We have significantly reduced the amount of funds held in cash and money market funds to
increase the overall portfolio returns, while maintain flexibility to cover ongoing expenditures as
projected using a cash flow estimate.
Please contact me or Mr. Heck if you have any questions.
Attachment: March 2011 Investment Summary
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
2010 INVESTMENT AND INTEREST SCHEDULE
MARCH 2011
INTEREST RECEIVEDTOTAL
Beg of YearPurchaseMARKETMATURITYRECEIVED
INSTITUTIONVALUEPriceVALUERATEDATEJANUARYFEBRUARYMARYTD
Beacon Bank
PrimeVest Govt. Money Mkt Acct0.00
Checking Account 100-0643562,500.570.00%03/31/110.940.94
Money Market Acct 130-0822200,038.400.50%03/31/1192.8188.3138.40219.52
TOTAL762,538.9793.7588.3138.40220.46
4-M FUND
Money Market Account81,552.230.02%03/31/1120.216.652.8229.68
TOTAL81,552.2320.216.652.8229.68
STERNE AGEE
Carlton Co MN BABs196,113.45196,023.751.80%02/01/140.00
Carlton Co MN BABs185,542.05185,477.301.35%02/01/130.00
Carlton Co MN BABs180,230.40180,298.801.05%02/01/120.00
Dist of Columbia BABs224,115.16222,959.000.75%06/01/12
Decatur IL BABs387,979.80388,362.001.75%12/15/120.00
IL State Pension 228,666.53225,843.202.58%06/01/13
Milwaukee Co WI Pension554,382.64544,330.001.75%12/01/13
FNMA500,000.00498,060.001.65%06/30/140.00
FHLB493,495.00495,690.001.63%12/30/150.00
FHLB1,195,860.001,195,524.001.75%12/30/150.00
TOTAL3,139,220.704,132,568.050.000.000.000.00
WELLS FARGO INVESTMENTS
First Sec Bank Missoula MT244,999.97m0.30%03/10/11181.23181.23
Carolina 1st Bnk Greenville-CD100,161.00m1.35%03/11/11669.45669.45
Bank of China, NY - CD49,008.1349,007.350.55%05/12/110.00
Columbus Bnk&Trust, GA-CD144,974.33145,007.100.45%05/12/110.00
Bank Baroda, NY - CD49,016.7049,010.090.60%05/13/110.00
Carolina 1st Bnk Greenville-CD100,837.00100,564.101.75%09/12/11867.81867.81
Beal Bank Las Vegas NV245,000.00244,872.350.35%10/12/11
Columbus Bnk&Trust, GA-CD102,046.80102,038.602.30%09/17/121,140.551,140.55
KS Bnk Smithfield. NC-CD102,463.00102,576.100.03%08/17/13212.33212.33191.78616.44
American Eagle Bnk, Elgin IL-CD102,755.60102,879.402.60%09/18/13220.82220.82199.45641.09
MNSCU 2011B Taxable305,780.80307,403.401.00%10/01/13
FNMA500,000.00496,944.502.00%01/21/15
Wells Fargo Money Market451,656.05451,656.050.01%03/31/1183.6030.8732.26146.73
TOTAL751,262.561,747,436.822,151,959.04516.75464.023,282.534,263.30
PIPER JAFFRAY17,701.770.000.00%03/31/110.00
17,701.770.000.000.000.000.00
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
2010 INVESTMENT AND INTEREST SCHEDULE
MARCH 2011
INTEREST RECEIVEDTOTAL
Beg of YearPurchaseMARKETMATURITYRECEIVED
INSTITUTIONVALUEPriceVALUERATEDATEJANUARYFEBRUARYMARYTD
MORGAN STANLAY SMITH BARNEY)
GE Cap - Comm Paper499,497.22499,325.000.20%09/26/11
FNMA200,948.00200,000.002.38%04/01/140.00
FNMA201,854.00200,906.002.00%07/15/142,000.000.00
FHLB999,999.98993,020.001.13%10/14/150.00
402,802.00999,999.981,393,926.000.06121,470.002,000.000.000.000.00
Cole Taylor Bank, IL96,239.04m4.35%01/28/112,082.282,082.28
Branch Bank & Trust CD96,370.56m2.25%03/25/111,071.121,071.12
CIT Bank - UT CD96,404.16m2.40%03/25/111,142.531,142.53
Bank of India, NY - CD199,926.00199,998.000.60%05/11/110.00
Bank of America, NC - CD199,890.00199,986.000.55%05/12/110.00
Bank of China, NY - CD199,890.00199,986.000.55%05/12/110.00
Bank of Baroda, NY - CD199,924.00199,998.000.60%05/13/110.00
Firstbank of Puerto Rico - CD200,074.00200,058.000.80%05/13/11135.89135.89122.74394.52
Compass Bnk, AL - CD96,689.2896,370.562.15%06/30/110.00
Compass Bnk, AL - CD54,387.7254,208.442.15%06/30/110.00
Citibnk NA-NV CD241,545.60241,190.401.50%12/30/110.00
Citibnk NA-NV CD8,051.528,039.681.50%12/30/110.00
Natl Bnk So. Carolina CD240,835.20241,423.201.60%01/09/122,000.312,000.31
Natl Bnk So. Carolina CD8,027.848,047.441.60%01/09/120.00
Wright Express Fin-UT CD240,230.40240,950.401.35%01/09/121,687.761,687.76
Wright Express Fin-UT CD8,007.688,031.681.35%01/09/120.00
Compass Bnk, AL - CD96,065.2896,056.641.30%05/14/120.00
Amer Exp Bnk, FSB - CD97,771.2097,635.842.60%07/02/121,966.031,966.03
Amer Exp Bnk, FSB - CD54,996.3054,920.162.60%07/02/120.00
Amer Exp Centurion Bnk- CD97,771.2097,635.842.60%07/02/121,966.031,966.03
Amer Exp Centurion Bnk- CD54,996.3054,920.162.60%07/02/120.00
GE Capital Fin, UT - CD99,494.4099,175.683.05%06/25/130.00
GE Capital Fin, UT - CD99,494.4099,175.683.05%06/25/130.00
GE Capital Fin, UT - CD54,929.2054,753.243.05%06/25/130.00
Capmark Bnk, UT - CD99,016.3298,759.043.35%07/01/132,533.152,533.15
Capmark Bnk, UT - CD55,696.6855,551.963.35%07/01/130.00
CIT Bnk, UT - CD99,016.3298,759.043.35%07/01/132,533.152,533.15
CIT Bnk, UT - CD55,696.6855,551.963.35%07/01/130.00
3,151,437.282,861,183.0414,904.60135.892,336.3917,376.88
Money Market Fund3,053,925.323,053,925.320.05%03/31/11285.24274.10247.49806.83
TOTAL3,554,239.284,553,422.527,808,359.3617,189.84409.992,583.8818,183.71
NORTHLAND SECURITIES
Money Fund6,722.540.000.00%03/31/110.000.000.000.00
TOTAL6,722.540.000.000.000.000.00
GRAND TOTAL4,329,926.1514,936,977.650.000.0017,820.55968.975,907.6322,697.15
6,876.60
US BANK TRUSTEE - EDA 2007 BOND FUND (307)
W. Fire- Bond Fund - 2007A2,843.16\0.00
W. Police-Bond Fund - 2007B3,919.640.00
E. Fire- Bond Fund - 2007C1,197.940.00
TOTAL EDA 2007 BOND FUNDS7,960.740.000.000.000.00
Page 2 of 4