05-23-11 CC Reg Mtg AgP C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MAY 23, 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 / Park Commission/Planning Commission Work Session Minutes
Minutes, May 3, 2011
B. City Council Work Session Minutes, May 9, 2011 Minutes
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 9, 2011 Minutes
D. City Council Executive Session Minutes, May 9, 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. Cathcart Park Swing Set Replacement Deputy Clerk’s memo
C. Freeman Park Replacement/Addition of Playground Equipment for the Deputy Clerk’s memo
South Playground
D. Award Contract for Sealcoating, City Project 11-07 Engineer’s memo,
Resolution
E. Approve Plans, Specifications and Estimates and Authorize Advertisement Engineer’s memo,
for Bids for the 2011 Mill and Overlay, City Project 11-08 Resolution
F. Approve Plans, Specifications and Estimates and Authorize Advertisement Engineer’s memo,
for Bids for the Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Project, City Project 10-11 Resolution
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – May 23, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
G. Accept Bids for Vine Hill Road Mill and Overlay, City Project 11-02 Engineer’s memo
H. Adopt the 2011 Supplement 6 to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Deputy Clerk’s memo,
Shorewood Ordinance, Resolution
I. Appointment of Temporary Seasonal Employee for Public Works Director of Public
Works’ memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Terrance Haines, Eagle Scout Project and Request
B. Southshore Center 2010 Annual Report Report
7. PARKS - Report by Representative Minutes
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
A. Shorewood Ponds CUP Amendment Planning Director’s
memo, Resolution
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Stop Sign Request – Glencoe Road Engineer’s memo
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. City of Shorewood Entry Signs Planning Director’s
memo
B. Southshore Center Electronic Sign Administrator’s memo
C. City Hall Signage Administrator’s memo
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Monthly Financial Report Financial 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, 23 May, 2011
7:00 p.m.
A 6:30 p.m. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: Accepting the quote for replacing playground equipment and installation of
equipment at Cathcart Park.
Agenda Item #3C: Accepting the quote for replacing slides and adding a tot piece to the
Freeman Park south playground.
th
Agenda Item #3D: Bids were received, opened, and tabulated on May 18 for the bituminous
seal coating of roadways for the Cites of Shorewood, Excelsior and Tonka Bay. Allied
Blacktop Co. is the lowest bidder with a total bid for all the Cities of $286,629.50. The
City of Shorewood’s (incl. public safety building) portion of this project is
$159,390.25. Staff recommends approval of a resolution that awards a contract of
$159,390.25 to Allied Blacktop Co.
Agenda Item #3E:
The City of Shorewood encumbered $166,000 in the capital improvement plan for
the road maintenance within the City for Mill and Overlay. Staff proposes to mill & overlay Afton
Road, Christopher Road, Fatima Place, Ivy Lane and Rustic Way. Staff recommends adopting a
resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement of bids for this mill &
overlay project. If approved, bids will be opened on Wednesday, June 22 at 10:00 a.m.
Agenda Item #3F: Staff prepared plans and specifications for the 2011 CIP drainage
improvement Murray Hill Rd. Storm Sewer improvement project.
Staff recommends
adopting a resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement of bids for
this drainage improvement project.
Agenda Item #3G:
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 accepting the bids for this mill & overlay project and authorize staff to proceed with
the joint contract with Midwest Asphalt who was the low bidder.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of May 23, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Agenda Item #3H: Approval of the sixth supplement (S-5) to the City Code Book, which
includes all Ordinances through No. 473, is technically needed to formalize their
codification. American Legal Publishing has provided the replacement pages to the City
Code Book for this supplement. Council action includes Adoption of an Ordinance to
enact and adopt the 2011 S-6 Supplement to the Shorewood City Code Book, and
Adoption of a Resolution approving a summary publication of said Ordinance.
Agenda Item #3I: This action is consideration to make the appointment to temporary seasonal
position for the park maintenance crew.
Agenda Item #5: There are no scheduled public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6A: Terrance Haines will be present to discuss his Eagle Scout project
Agenda Item #6B: Kristi Anderson will present and discuss the 2010 Annual Report for the
Southshore Community Center.
Agenda Item #7: Park Commissioner Tom Robb will report on the May 10 Park
Commission meeting and Park Tours.
Agenda Item #8: Planning Commissioner Sue Davis will report on the recent Planning
Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #8A: The Shorewood Ponds Association has requested an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit that would reduce the age restriction for the project from 62 to 55
years of age. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request and voted
unanimously (Commissioner Garelick recused himself) to recommend the amendment in
order to make the project consistent with the revised Federal Fair Housing Act language
which no longer requires “substantial services or facilities, exclusive to the elderly” in
order for a project to qualify as senior housing. A draft resolution approving an
amendment to the Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. Agreement is attached for your
consideration.
Agenda Item #9A: A stop sign was requested on Yellowstone Trail at Glencoe Rd. The
request does not meet the conditions from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices and staff recommends denying the request.
Agenda Item #10: There are no items of new business this evening
Agenda Item #11A: The Council asked staff to prepare alternatives for entry signs to be placed
at strategic entry points into Shorewood. Four (three really) alternatives have been
illustrated.
Agenda Item #11B: Consideration of purchasing a digital monument sign for the SouthShore
Community Center.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of May 23, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Agenda Item #11C: Consideration of purchasing a monument sign for City Hall, Badger Park
and the Southshore Center.
Agenda Item #12A.1. The April 2011 Monthly Financial Report is provided.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PARK COMMISSION & PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M.
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011
MINUTES
1.CONVENE CITY COUNCIL, PARK COMMISSION AND PLANNING
COMMISSION WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M.
A.Roll Call
Present: Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney
Keane (6:10 P.M. arrival); City Administrator Heck (6:10 P.M. arrival); Planning
Director Nielsen
Park Commission Chair Quinlan; Park Commissioners Robb, Edmondson,
Swaggert, Kjolhaug and Hartmann
Planning Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins
Absent: Park Commissioner Trent, Planning Commissioner Chair Geng and Planning
Commissioner Arnst
B.Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 16/0.
2.Strategic Planning (This item was discussed after Item #3 on the agenda).
Mayor Lizée indicated that Administrator Heck would review the strategic planning effort that is
underway.
Administrator Heck stated that Staff and Council met in two one-half day meetings with a
facilitator, and talked about both internal and external forces that impact the services the city
provides. The discussion included core values, key attributes, and broad goal categories. Council
and Staff identified seven broad goal areas. These include:
1) Fostering greater community involvement – how to get our residents involved, and how we
communicate with them.
2) Responding to service needs for changing demographics – what can we do to accommodate
the needs of the community in the future that will include a larger number of retirees.
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 2 of 8
3) Providing safe and diverse transportation – this considers items such as creating a walkable
community, and the best practices for roads. This also ties back to demographics. The city has a
newly formed Trail committee which is discussing trails in the city.
4) Providing and expanding recreational activities – the Park Commission has established many
park programs and activities focused at younger population; the city would like to look at
incorporating more adult park and recreational activities.
5) Environmental issues – Lake Minnetonka was identified as one of our major resources.
Improving and maintaining good lake quality, as well as other natural resources in the city, such
as how to handle emerald ash borer and other tree diseases; zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka
and other lakes, and maintaining quality drinking water.
6) Identify economic development opportunities – the Smithtown Crossing and County Road 19
corridor fits into this area. Resources to promote development and economic redevelopment need
to be identified.
7) Collaboration with other cities – opportunities to collaborate with other cities on city services
are to be identified. For example, there could be opportunities for the Planning Commission to
work with neighboring cities on programs, such as the County Road 19 redevelopment. There are
other collaboration opportunities in providing city services and infrastructure services. Our
services may change with a changing population.
Heck indicated that Council and Staff will meet on Wednesday, May 11 to continue this
discussion and wanted to share this information with the Park and Planning Commissions.
Councilmember Siakel asked the Park or Planning Commissions their thoughts on this topic.
Commissioner Robb indicated he was pleased to see that many of the Park Commission’s goals
were identified. The Park Commission has a meeting planned with the City of Tonka Bay, and
they also hope to meet with the City of Excelsior. He noted the collaboration between the three
cities on the Arctic Fever event. The strategic planning broad goals identified seem to be in line
with many of the Park Commission goals.
Commission Hartmann asked if feedback would be sought from Shorewood residents on what
they would like to see.
Siakel stated the group talked about conducting a survey, and we need to determine what survey
questions to ask.
Discussed ensued on the many methods for conducting a survey. Lizée reviewed some of those
identified, which included a mailing, through the city newsletter, a notice on the utility billing, an
on-line computer survey with a service such as Zoomerang, and a telephone all-call system.
Commissioner Edmondson agreed with the need for community involvement. He stated he is
familiar with responses from the park surveys and they are bleek. He noted the need to create a
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 3 of 8
survey method that will achieve a good response factor.
Heck noted that the City Council has also considered using a more scientific tool, which involves
working with a survey firm that produces this type of survey. We also need to determine if it is
best to conduct a large, all-encompassing survey, or break it into smaller category surveys, such
as parks, planning, and other service areas as identified.
Woodruff noted that the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission recently made a
presentation to the Council, and one of the findings was that there are a large percentage of
people who do not use the internet, so we do need to be careful about what method we choose for
conducting the survey.
3.Sustainability (This item was discussed before Item #2 on the agenda)
Planning Director Nielsen stated that the Planning Commission began to discuss the topic of
sustainability last year. They determined to discuss this topic with the City Council, and the City
Council invited the Park Commission to participate. Sustainability looks at every aspect of life,
the resources needed, and if those resources will be available in the long term future. Nielsen
noted it can be an overwhelming subject. He indicated that he provided many resources on the
topic of sustainability to the Council and Commissions, and encouraged everyone to look at
these materials. He attended a Clean Energy Resource Team (CERT) convergence last year, and
one of the resource items from the CERT meeting that was provided to the Council and
Commissions was the GreenStep City Program. This program has a list of 28 best practices for
achieving sustainability goals. It covers a wide range of activities. It is not expected that all of
the practices will be achieved, but the goal is it achieve as many as possible. He noted that the
Planning Commission is working on a resolution for the City Council to consider which will
enroll the city in the GreenStep City Program.
Nielsen indicated that the Planning Commission discussed using the Comprehensive Plan as a
guide with the GreenStep Cities Program. The Comprehensive Plan includes four elements:
environmental, land use, transportation and community facilities, along with policies and plans
to guide the future development of the city. Each element of the Comprehensive Plan could be
evaluated with the GreenStep City program by looking at the resources being used today and
those needed in the future.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what is involved in being a member of the GreenStep Program
and if there is any cost involved.
Nielsen indicated it is a free program. The city needs to adopt a resolution joining the program.
The city would provide a list of the practices already completed, and if a certain number of
practices have been met, the city would be recognized. Cities can easily join and grow into the
program. The program provides advice for achieving the practices. He indicated that some of the
practices will cost money. He stated an example of one thing the city can do is conduct an energy
audit and make changes that are identified from the audit. He indicated that cities that participate
in the program have eventually saved money.
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 4 of 8
In response to a question from Councilmember Hotvet, Nielsen indicated that there should be
grant money available for some of the items.
Lizée stated she appreciates the work the Planning Commission has done and their initiative to
prepare a resolution. She would like to break down the parts of the 28 best practices. Nielsen
stated that out of the 28 items, the city has already completed 5-6 items.
Zerby asked Nielsen if he is the GreenStep Coordinator.
Nielsen stated it seems to be a planning department effort, and he is willing to do it. He said it
could also be done by a group, but it’s probably better to have an individual be the coordinator. It
was noted that it would be good to have a GreenStep Coordinator job description.
Robb asked if there were any other benefits to the GreenStep Cities program, other than
recognition.
Nielsen indicated there are financial benefits. The projects need to make financial sense. He also
indicated it’s the right thing to do.
Commissioner Hotvet asked if residents in community could participate.
Nielsen indicated with the initial effort, the city would lead by example and identify programs
that residents could participate in.
Commissioner Davis noted that one item the city and residents are cooperating in is local food
growth, noting we have our community gardens.
4.Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission been working on a redevelopment study for County
Road 19 and Smithtown Road. This has been identified as a prime area for redevelopment.
Nielsen outlined the boundary of the area, which includes the north edge of Gideon Glen, which
is a conservation open space. Gideon Glen would not be developed, as the Watershed District is
working on restoring this area, which includes a pond, wetland, and a reforestation area. The
focus of the study is the northwest quadrant of intersection. Internal circulation is a
consideration. Access is an issue as there is limited access off of County Road 19; access would
primarily be from Smithtown Road. Nielsen reviewed a couple of concept plans for the
northwest quadrant drafted by Commissioner Hasek. On the phased plan, the project would
occur in phases. This would require each area to address an independent parking and ponding
area; on the cohesive plan, parking and ponding is shared for the entire area, and there would be
a consistent building design. A similar plan could be developed for the south and east areas of the
study.
Nielsen indicated that last year, on May 4, the Planning Commission met with the City Council
to discuss the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment project. The report contains a vision
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 5 of 8
statement for the property, which is a description of what we have in mind for the property,
recognizing that it may take many years to achieve, especially in the current economy. The
Commission then met with landowners of the area to talk about the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study, and about half of the people came to meeting. There was agreement that
a unified, cohesive approach benefitted them best. Nielsen stated that a panel of developers met
with the Commission and the developers made recommendations on what it would take to get the
kind of development the city is looking for. They didn't think retail was the appropriate market
for this area, but that service-commercial would be better. There was some skepticism about
multiple-family housing; it was thought that perhaps senior housing would be more optimistic.
The Planning Commission toured properties around the metro area to get a sense of various
developments. One of the sites was Glen Lake in Minnetonka; this property included a five-story
facility. This example gives a sense of how a taller building would fit into the area. The city’s
current ordinance has a building height restriction of three stories. Summerwood of Chanhassen
was not as well liked as it had little landscaping or building character. Both of these sites
contained commercial on the lower level with residential above. One site on the tour which was
well-liked by the Commission was the Town Square site in Golden Valley; it had nice public
spaces with outdoor table and chair seating, good bicycle-connections and pedestrian walkways,
and landscaping. The Commons project in Golden Valley was also visited; this site also had nice
public space and landscaping.
Nielsen discussed a concept plan for the County Road 19 corridor project, which was adopted in
2003. This plan addresses streetscaping, pedestrian circulation and access. The Trail Committee
met last night and talked about this area and access to the east to Excelsior and to the north on
County Road 19 and linking to the LRT trail. With the Smithtown Crossing project, the hope is to
extend pedestrian and bicycle circulation westward.
Nielsen noted that one of the recommendations the Planning Commission has made is making
sure the city’s development regulations don't stand in the way of good development. The
Commission has started working on a mixed use ordinance, discussing building height and
possible higher density for the residential housing part of the project. A developer asked if the
city would consider Tax Increment Financing as means of redevelopment. The Commission
strongly recommends the city give serious thought to acquiring properties as they become
available. They noted there is one property in the area that is for sale at this time.
The next step for the Planning Commission is to bring this effort to the City Council for
acceptance, and to then go to surrounding neighborhoods to see what they think. The plan will be
adjusted with feedback from residents.
Hotvet expressed we have a golden opportunity and we are strategically located. She indicated
this is an exciting project and it would be nice to tie it in with our parks and natural resource.
With the changing demographics, it will be important to listen to what the people in Shorewood
want.
Siakel stated we may want to ask residents for input through the survey. She also noted that the
city has funds from the sale of the city owned liquor stores and perhaps those funds could be
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 6 of 8
used for property acquisition, or we could determine if those funds could be used on a project
like this to support the community.
Zerby indicated he agrees with obtaining input from the residents. He would like to see more
alternatives which would include expansion of the green space. He acknowledged the American
Legion wants to improve and expand its building to offer more services. Zerby feels this would
be aimed toward an older demographic. He feels that creating more park/open space in this area
is a better option than a big shopping center.
In response to a question from Robb, Nielsen stated that Gideon Glen is a conservation open
space. An interpretive trail exists in Gideon Glen; however, accessibility is an issue as there is no
parking available for it. Nielsen noted that an outdoor seating area or housing could be situation
to overlook Gideon Glen, taking advantage of the views of this open space.
Lizée noted there is agreement that a cohesive approach to this project would be better than a
phased plan. She asked if drawings of other options could be provided. She also noted that the
City Council needs to consider purchasing properties as they become available.
Edmondson stated he would like to see a corner marquee which would create a gathering space;
he likes the concept of viewing both Gideon Glen and the Minnetonka Country Club to maintain
the large open spaces.
Hotvet indicated she would like to see more of a low tech approach; she doesn’t favor a plan that
includes commercial-service use. She envisions a plan that supports the needs of the residents
who live in the area, the Legion, a trail system to bring people into the area, and perhaps senior
or mixed housing use.
Zerby stated he could see the space used as a temporary event space for community events such
as art fair and a farmers market. He would like to see more green space, less parking lot. He
would like to see some pencil sketches of other development options.
Hasek indicated there are a lot of visions for the property, noting the tricky part will be to
coordinate the wants of the residents in the community with what can be marketed at that
location. He noted a survey will tell us what community wants, and the developer will identify
the needs. He noted a beautiful plan can be put together, but it may be difficult to find a
developer to building it because it’s wrong for the area.
Nielsen stated that the next step would be to take this to the neighbors and the public by way of
an informal open house in order to get feedback from the public.
Lizée expressed that the Council should seriously look at the ownership of the property and
discuss purchasing the property that is for sale. The Legion is a big landowner, and they are
interested in being serious players in the plan. She favors getting concept plans, talking with
neighbors, and discussing with the Park and Planning Commissions.
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 7 of 8
In response to a comment from Zerby, Davis indicated that the American Legion, which owns
the gas station, has a demolition permit to tear down the gas station, and this work will likely be
done soon.
Siakel agreed with Lizée that the city needs to be serious about purchasing property for the
project as it become available. She favors some commercial use in the plan, but does not want to
see a five-story building.
Nielsen asked if the City Council would like to see additional concept plans prior to a public
open house. He noted that a problem with a conceptual design is that people get attached to it,
but it may not be realistic. The Commission’s thought was to get feedback from the residents on
the design elements, without drawing a concept plan.
Lizée agreed it would make sense to get feedback from the residents before creating more
concept sketches. She thought the Smithtown Crossing document would be good to share with
residents and landowners in the redevelopment area.
Hasek referenced a document on redevelopment in the twin cities that was published in 2011,
which reflects what is happening in development community. It includes many points about
mixed use development and how important it is, and flexibility in city ordinances.
Lizée requested that document be shared with everyone.
Commissioner Kohlhaug asked what constraints might exist on the money that the city has and
how much was available.
Lizée stated there is approximately $1.8 million, of which $800K was from the sale from liquor
stores. She indicated that some money has been taken from that fund each year to help balance
the budget. She noted that Council has talked about getting feedback from residents on how this
money should be spent or invested.
Woodruff stated the $1 million was taken from the sewer enterprise fund which had been
overfunded. It was put into a fund, created for needed projects that the Council identified. He
noted that each year, $40K of the liquor store funds had been used to fund the parks capital fund;
and the interest from the $800K supported this; however, the interest in recent times has not fully
funded the park projects, so some of the principal has been used to support the parks capital
fund.
Siakel asked if there were any plans for the rest of County Road 19, noting the Garden Patch site
is for sale.
Nielsen stated that about three years ago, there was a study completed on suggestions for that
end of the corridor, but it was not well received by adjoining landowners. Many of the Timber
Lane residents were concerned about the redevelopment plan. That plan was not adopted and it
was agreed it would be revisited at a later time; this could be done this year.
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 8 of 8
In response to a question from Edmondson, Nielsen indicated the current owner of the Tonka
Bay shopping center has made external improvements, and those improvements have revitalized
that shopping center. It is currently full, so he is not aware of any other redevelopment plans at
this time.
Lizée thanked everyone for coming to the meeting this evening.
Hotvet moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the Work Session of the City Council, Park
Commission and Planning Commission at 7:40 p.m. Motion passed 16/0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jean Panchyshyn, Recorder
_________________________________
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/ Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MAY 9, 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 6:05 P.M.); Director of
Public Works Brown; Engineer Landini; and City Building Official Pazandak
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. RENTAL HOUSING LICENSE PROGRAM
Mayor Lizée noted the City Building Official is present this evening.
Administrator Heck stated a tenant has expressed concern to his landlord about the level of arsenic in the
water in the rental unit. When things were not resolved to the tenant’s satisfaction the tenant approached
the City asking if there is anything the City can to regulate the quality of water for rental properties. That
could potentially be accomplished by requiring drinking water testing and correction in the requirements for
a rental license. He noted that three of the Councilmembers requested that Council discuss this at a work
session. He stated Building Official Pazandak did some research on this. Pazandak found out that the
Minnesota Department of Health’s and the Minnesota Environment Protection Agency’s drinking water
rules on acceptable levels of arsenic do not apply to private wells. They only apply to municipal water
supplies.
Heck then stated Staff has reservations about tying drinking water testing to a rental license for the
following reasons. There is the question of how to set the drinking water standard. There is the question as
to whether or not there should be standards for water contaminants in addition to arsenic. There is the
question as to whether or not other environmental issues such as radon, mold, lead and so forth should also
be regulated. He noted that was not the intent of the rental license when it was originally put in place. It
was intended to make sure the physical structure of the dwelling was safe.
Building Official Pazandak stated he has spoken to staff at a number of cities and has concluded that cities
with municipal water are more likely to have rental license programs. The City of Chaska is using its fire
department to do the inspections and its building inspector is a backup inspector for that. Other cities he
has spoken with have rental license programs similar to the City’s; they inspect the physical structure. It’s
his understanding the City’s rental license inspection program was intended to deal with the physical
structure. He then stated he thinks people try to interpret the code beyond what it’s intended to mean. He
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 2 of 7
noted that as far as he is aware other cities are not moving in the direction of regulating environmental
concerns. They are staying with the fundamentals of physical safety, working doors and windows, smoke
detectors, working water, a working heating system and so forth.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she is one of the Councilmembers who asked that this be discussed. She
expressed her appreciation for Building Official Pazandak researching what other cities are doing. She
recommended the City’s rental license policy be revisited because things have changed over the last 10 – 15
years in the City’s rental market. She stated she doesn’t know a lot about the City’s policy and she
questioned if it is current with the times. She commented the water quality issue is just the tip of the iceberg
when it comes to environmental issues. She stated she thought having safe drinking water is extremely
important. She commented that she assumes the City will have more rental properties in the future. She
stated she thought revisiting the rental license policy could benefit rental property owners and the City as
well.
Councilmember Siakel stated rather than having water quality standards be part of the City Code she
suggested that as part of the rental license application process the applicant be required to disclose the
quality of their well water at that property to a potential renter. A potential renter can then decide if the
water quality is acceptable for them. She then stated water quality is a health and safety issue. She asked if
the requirement for disclosure could be part of the rental license process.
Director Nielsen stated Staff’suggests the City develop a handout for tenants explaining what the current
City Code is and is not intended to do. The brochure could include information about known environmental
issues (e.g. arsenic) including testing and correction measures. He noted arsenic is an issue in the City and
how large of an issue it is varies throughout the City. He asked where you draw the line on what does or
doesn’t have to be tested. He questioned if the City will set itself up to be liable for other potentially
harmful contaminants if it establishes standards for some subset of contaminants. He stated the City could
help a potential renter understand that they have a responsibility to have the water tested to ensure the
water quality is acceptable to them. The renter could test for other potentially harmful contaminants as
well. He then stated the list of potentially harmful contaminants in a rental property is endless.
Councilmember Zerby asked why the City wouldn’t have the same water standards for private wells on
rental property that the State has for municipal water. Director Nielsen stated doing that would require a
higher standard than the standard for a private well for a non-rental property (there is no standard). Zerby
stated as a home owner he has the choice about the quality of water coming from his private well. Nielsen
stated a renter has a choice also and a renter can install a purification system. Zerby stated based on his
experience as a renter making an improvement to the water system would require permission from the
landlord. Nielsen noted that the landlord for the property discussed earlier told the tenant he would install a
drinking water purification system.
Director Brown noted that City’s water has to comply with the standards in the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA).
Mayor Lizée stated Council has to decide what is reasonable to expect from a landlord. She then stated that
changing the City’s rental policy to establish a drinking water standard for arsenic will open the door to
other environmental concerns (e.g., lead, radon, etc.). She questioned if the City really wants to be a
responsible agency for being aware of arsenic levels, developing a policy that will address arsenic issues,
inspect for the presence of arsenic annually, and be responsible for any occurrences. Or, should that
responsibility lie with the property owner.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 3 of 7
Councilmember Hotvet stated from her perspective it’s the property owner’s responsibility to ensure
arsenic level standards are met. She noted that there are properties with other environmental issues that
should be addressed.
Mayor Lizée asked if it’s reasonable to assume that the City should take responsibility for monitoring the
condition of rental properties for environmental concerns.
In response to a question from Councilmember Zerby, Director Nielsen explained a rental property owner
has to renew their rental license every three years. Zerby asked why the City shouldn’t require the property
owner to provide proof that the well water has been tested and meets the SDWA standards.
Councilmember Siakel noted that about one half of the houses in the City get their water from private wells
and the SDWA regulations do not extend to them.
Councilmember Zerby stated he’s talking about requiring rental properties with private wells to comply
with SDWA standards. He stated the new requirement he is proposing would require a rental property
owner to prove their well water complies with SDWA standards in order to get their rental license.
Director Brown noted there are 20 – 30 contaminants on the SDWA standards list.
Councilmember Siakel stated it’s her understanding that those standards can’t be applied to a private well.
That is why she suggested the City require disclosure of test results to the potential renter.
Councilmember Zerby stated if the only thing the City requires is disclosure then there is the issue of
enforcing that the arsenic level is safe. He then stated from his vantage point it’s easier to enforce
compliance with a standard. He noted that he has not decided if the City should require rental property
owners to have a safe level of arsenic in drinking water.
Building Official Pazandak stated the more frequent problem brought up when he does inspections is mold.
People periodically ask about that. He commented there has been an instance where someone asked how
well a property owner sanitized a plumbing leak. He stated if the City wants to begin enforcing drinking
water standards for rental property well water there is going to be a cost to doing that and there will be
push back from rental property owners. He then stated Staff needs direction from Council on what the
scope of rental inspection program should encompass.
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point when the City issues a rental license it’s tacitly
implying it’s approved the safety of the dwelling from the renter’s perspective. He then stated 10 – 15 years
ago people were not as well aware that there were arsenic issues in some areas of the City. He went on to
state that Council is basically discussing if being able to drink water out of a tap is less important than
having a hand rail. The City has the option to require rental property owners to provide evidence that their
well water complies with the SDWA standards when they apply for a rental license. The City also has to
option to provide potential renters with a brochure which includes information about known environmental
issues (e.g. arsenic) including testing and correction measures. The City Code could be amended to allow a
renter to break a lease if after signing the lease the renter finds out the water is undrinkable. Today the
renter can’t do that. He commented that he did not think handing out a brochure would be effective. He
stated renters expect things to be safe when they rent a property. He noted that he thinks the City should
address the issue of arsenic in rental property well water. The City should not ignore it just because the
State doesn’t impose any arsenic level standards.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 4 of 7
In response to a question from Mayor Lizée, Director Brown explained the City tests its wells annually and
the results are published in the Consumer Confidence Report from the Minnesota Department of Health.
The City’s results will be published in the City’s official newspaper in July and they will be accessible from
a link on the City’s website.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he did not think it would be a burden on a landlord to provide proof when
submitting a rental license application (renewals are submitted every three years) that the well water on
their rental property is safe to drink.
Director Nielsen stated there is a cost to test for 20 contaminants with one of the contaminants being
fluoride. Director Brown clarified fluoride is not one of the contaminants included in the SDWA standards.
Brown explained there is a measurement for fluoride but it’s not the same fluoride level the City adds to its
water. Fluoride is a naturally occurring element. A sample for fluoride is taken before the City adds
chlorine and fluoride. Brown noted that although fluoride is tested, it’s a secondary contaminant and
therefore there is not a standard for it in the SDWA. He explained the City has to meet the Minnesota
Department of Health standards for chlorine and fluoride, noting the City’s well water is tested monthly.
Mayor Lizée asked how many of the rental properties have City water. Director Nielsen responded he will
find that out.
Councilmember Siakel asked how many rental properties there are in the City. Director Nielsen responded
there are about 60 – 70 now and at the high point there were about 100.
Councilmember Siakel stated there’s probably some legal aspect to regulating drinking water quality.
Mayor Lizée suggested Council take into consideration what is reasonable.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that from his vantage point the City has no responsibility in this process
other than to require proof that the well water was tested and it’s proven to be in compliance with the
SDWA standards when a rental application is submitted. If it becomes unsafe it’s the same as any other
rental license violation and the City could be called upon to enforce it. Enforcement after the license is
issued would be complaint driven.
Councilmember Hotvet asked how the City enforces current rental license regulations. Building Official
Pazandak explained when a property owner applies for a rental license he checks to see if the property is
located in a zoning district that allows rentals. The property owner then arranges for him to inspect the
property to ensure the physical property is reasonably compliant with rental license regulations to make
sure the dwelling is reasonably safe. He noted that safety is somewhat subjective; it’s not absolute. He
stated he then informs the property owner of things that must be fixed prior to them getting a license. In
response to another question from Hotvet, Pazandak stated a rental license is not transferable if there is a
change in ownership of the property. When the rental license comes up for renewal the property is
inspected again. During the three year period if the City receives a complaint from a tenant the City
responds to the complaint. Hotvet asked what happens when the City receives complaints from residents on
neighboring properties. Pazandak responded the complaints are treated like a complaint about a non-rental
residential piece of property.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if it’s accurate to say that once the tenant moves into a rental property
they are required to comply with the City Code regulations relating to occupying the dwelling. Building
Official Pazandak responded there is no discrimination between who uses the property. Woodruff then
asked Pazandak if there have been instances when he has had to go out to respond to a complaint and found
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 5 of 7
the property to no longer be in compliance. Pazandak responded the majority of the time when a complaint
is received the tenant and the landlord were parting ways and they were trying to get the City involved.
Pazandak explained that the rental license program stipulates the City is supposed to abstain from
becoming an arbitrator other than if there is an issue with the license requirements. For example, a tenant
may not have been pleased with how a property owner cleaned up their property after there had been a
plumbing problem but the City doesn’t get involved with that.
Councilmember Hotvet asked how the City responds to calls about troublesome rental properties in the
City. Building Official Pazandak stated sometimes the City doesn’t know the dwelling is being rented until
the tenant and property owner try and get the City involved to resolve a dispute. If the complaint is a police
issue the callers are told to call the police department. If the complaint is about a zoning issue the zoning
issue is treated the same as a zoning issue for a non-rental residential property. He noted the property
owner is ultimately responsible for their property, but the City would likely contact the tenant and property
owner at the same time.
Councilmember Siakel asked what type of call would trigger a response by the City. Building Official
Pazandak responded it’s quite often a complaint. Pazandak stated when he conducts a rental inspection he
will also cite zoning issues.
Administrator Heck stated that based on this discussion, it sounds like Council would like to consider
having the applicant provide proof that their well water has been tested along with the rental license
application. He recommended he speak to the City Attorney about what authority the City has to address a
complaint from a tenant who thinks that the level of contaminant(s) in the water is too high. The City may
not have the legislative authority to impose a water quality standard requirement. He stated he thought the
City could require a rental license applicant to disclose that the water was tested. He wondered if the City
could create a database of basic information for all of the rental properties in the City and for those
properties with private wells the water quality test results provided by the property owner could also be
included. He stated he wasn’t sure if legally the City could do that.
Councilmember Zerby stated the City can withhold issuing a rental license if the test results indicate the
level of arsenic is not within the acceptable level identified in the SDWA standards. He then stated he
doesn’t care how the property owner goes about providing safe drinking water to the property.
Building Official Pazandak stated it’s his understanding that in the situation that was the impetus for this
discussion there had been discussion about how much of the water would get treated. The landlord offered
to treat the drinking water and cooking water. The tenant did not think that was enough; they wanted all of
the water coming into the dwelling to be treated. He then stated if Council wants Staff to look into this
further he suggested one of the rental license requirements could be to have the water test results posted in a
somewhat obvious place in the dwelling.
Councilmember Zerby reiterated he wants a rental property owner with a private well to have to adhere to
the same SWDA standards as the City’s wells. All of the water coming into the dwelling would have to be
treated. Mayor Lizée expressed reservations about doing that. Lizée stated water quality is just one of many
environmental concerns. There is also air quality, radon, lead paint, mold and so forth. She asked where the
City would draw the line. She questioned if testing of residential well water every three years is adequate if
the City has to do it annually.
Councilmember Zerby stated if there was a federal mandate for testing radon then maybe the City should
consider imposing such a standard. In this case Council is only discussing water quality for rental
properties that get their water from private wells.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 6 of 7
Mayor Lizée stated the City has a rental ordinance and it issues rental licenses, but the City doesn’t own or
maintain or work on private residential properties. Councilmember Zerby stated the City applies the same
building codes to rental properties as it does to non-rental residential properties so he sees this as being the
same.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he can draw a direct parallel between requiring a rental property to have a
toilet that flushes and a functioning furnace with having safe drinking water. The City doesn’t maintain
furnaces. The City doesn’t require property owners who live in their own dwelling to provide the City with
evidence that their furnaces work, but it does require that of rental property owners. He asked why it would
not be appropriate for the City to require rental property owners to provide proof that their well water is
safe. He stated he didn’t think it would be necessary to test the water annually. He thought tying it to when
a property owner applies for a rental license would be sufficient. The tenant could after the fact let the City
know if the water quality has become unsafe and the City could then revoke the license if the problem isn’t
corrected. He agreed that the focus at this time should be on water quality and not other environmental
concerns.
Councilmember Zerby suggested the first thing that should be done is to find out what, if any, type of
legislative authority the City has when it comes to regulating water quality. Once that’s known Council can
discuss what it wants to do.
Administrator Heck stated if Council decides to require a rental property owner to submit proof that their
well water has been tested at the time they apply for a rental license he asked if then there is a desire to also
have some type of enforcement mechanism.
Director Brown stated he understands Council, at a minimum, wants disclosure and that will be relatively
easy for the City to enforce as part of the rental license process. Staff would like to know if Council also
wants to include remedy as part of the enforcement process.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he wants to have remedy as part of the enforcement process, and if the
water quality issue is not addressed either the license should not be issued or the current license should be
revoked.
Councilmember Siakel agreed with getting a legal opinion first. She stated she agreed a tenant should
expect their water to be safe.
Councilmember Hotvet stated the City Code defines safety as “the condition of being reasonably free from
danger and hazards which may cause accidents or disease”. She then stated that definition applies to water.
She also stated she wanted remedy included if that’s legally possible.
Director DeJong stated as long as Council is discussing the rental license program he wanted to bring up an
item that is tangentially related. He explained that each year when the City certifies delinquent utility
charges in December some rental property owner complains to the City that the delinquent charge is the
tenant’s responsibility. A number of cities have changed their rental housing ordinance to require the
property, for utility billing purposes, to remain in the property owner’s name. The utility bill would then be
sent to both the tenant and the property owner and both would be noticed at the same time if there were an
issue with payments. The property owner would be kept abreast of delinquent utility payments. He stated
doing that would also save staff time because they would not have to be generating multiple bills when
there was a change in tenants.
There was Council consensus to bring something back for Council to consider.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 7 of 7
3. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of May 9, 2011, at
6:53 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Krass;
City Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director
of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, April 25, 2011
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of April 25,
2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2011
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April
25, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested clarifying Resolution No. 11-019 by changing “infested water” to
“infested with zebra mussels water”.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-019, “A Resolution in Support of a Pilot Boat
Launch Inspection Program at Christmas Lake” subject to changing “infested
water” to “infested with zebra mussels water”.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 2 of 13
C. Approval of an Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard
Services for Crescent Beach
D. Accept Quote for Purchase of Seal Coat Rock, City Project 11-07
E. Safety Training Proposal – Safe Assure
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
Discussion moved to Item 6 on the agenda.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 7:15 P.M. – Consider a Request to Vacate a Portion of Echo Road Right-of-Way
Adjacent to 5685 and 5690 Echo Road
Mayor Lizée opened the public hearing at 7:17 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained that when Echo Hill was originally platted the road terminated in a cul-de-sac.
When Echo Hills Second Addition was platted Echo Road was extended through to Country Club Road.
The turn-around was eliminated but the excess right-of-way associated with the original turnaround was
never vacated. William Waples, 5685 Echo Road, and Marilyn Lindquist, 5690 Echo Road, have asked
the City to vacate portions of that excess right-of-way. The right-of-way places constraints on these two
property owners’ ability to improve their properties because building setbacks are measured from the
right-of-way. Their lots end up being quite small when compared to the other properties in the area. Mr.
Waples and Ms. Lindquist request the easterly portion of the excess right-of-way be legally combined
with Mr. Waples’ property and the westerly portion of it be combined with Mr. Lindquist’s property.
Nielsen then explained Staff has only found one issue with this request. There is an existing watermain
that extends along the south side of Mr. Waples’ property. Therefore, Staff recommends Mr. Waples be
required, as a condition of approval, to deed back to the City a ten-foot-wide drainage and utility
easement along the south end of the vacated property. Staff also recommends both property owners must
deed back a ten-foot drainage and utility easement abutting the new right-of-way line, noting this is
requested of any new lot. These easements do not affect the buildability of the lots because setbacks are
measured from the new property line.
Nielsen stated Staff recommends adopting the draft resolution included in the meeting packet which
releases the excess right-of-way to Mr. Waples and Ms. Lindquist subject to their execution of the
required drainage and utility easements, and the vacation and the easement deeds being recorded
consecutively.
Nielsen noted Mr. Waples is present this evening.
Mayor Lizée noted this appears to be the right thing to do and it’s long overdue.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 3 of 13
In response to a comment from Councilmember Zerby, Director Nielsen explained the fire hydrant is
located at the edge of pavement. In response to a question from Zerby, Nielsen explained the City’s
required right-of-way for local streets is 50 feet. The traveled surface lies within the right-of-way and it’s
typically one half of the right-of-way. Nielsen also explained the 10 feet easement is in addition to the
right-of-way.
Director Brown additional right-of-way is also used for snow storage and maintaining the roadway within
the public right-of-way.
Director Nielsen noted the setback will be measured from the new property line.
Mr. Waples stated his intent is to pass his property on to his son. He wants to get this straightened out so
his property line is the same as his neighbor’s.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-020, “A Resolution Vacating
Parts of Echo Road.” Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Lizée closed the public hearing at 7:24 P.M.
B. 7:25 P.M. – Consider a Request to Vacate a Portion of Galpin Lake Road Right-of-
Way Adjacent to Properties at 712 and 734 Galpin Lake Road in Excelsior
Mayor Lizée opened the public hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Mayor Lizée explained Joe and Pam Mueller, dba MN INBOARD, are trying to develop a property
located in the City of Excelsior that happens to abut the northerly extension of Galpin Lake Road and one
half of the right-of-way is located in Excelsior and the other half is located in the City of Shorewood.
Director Nielsen explained the agenda states Galpin Lake Road and the address for the properties is
Galpin Lake Road. The legal description for that portion of the street is Galpin Lake Boulevard; therefore,
that is what appears in the resolution.
Director Nielsen then explained the Muellers want to build a new building in Excelsior. He highlighted a
map showing the location of the proposed development site, the surrounding roadways and the boarder
between the Cities of Excelsior and Shorewood. He stated it’s a fluke that a portion of the right-of-way
and triangular piece of land are even located in Shorewood. He noted the Muellers are asking Excelsior to
vacate a similar portion of the right-of-way. He stated it’s his understanding that the Muellers have been
through a sketch plan review on their site plan with Excelsior and it appears that Excelsior is on board
with the plans for the property including vacating a portion of the right-of-way.
Nielsen stated Staff recommends adopting the draft resolution included in the meeting packet which
releases the easterly portion of the right-of-way to Joe and Pam Mueller, dba MN INBOARD, subject to
the City of Excelsior approving the vacation of the westerly portion of the right of way.
Councilmember Siakel stated it appears the City would be cleaning up some property lines that don’t
make any sense.
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-021, “A Resolution Vacating a
Portion of Galpin Lake Boulevard”.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 4 of 13
Without objection from the maker, the seconder amended the motion to include subject to the City
of Excelsior approving the vacation of the westerly portion of the right-of-way. Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Lizée closed the public hearing at 7:29 P.M.
Discussion moved to Item 7 on the agenda.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Terrence Haines, Eagle Scout Project and Request
Mayor Lizée stated Terrence Haines, an Eagle Scout candidate, is present this evening. She noted Mr.
Haines has proposed a project to improve the property near the Southshore Community Center (SSCC).
Mr. Haines stated he is proposing a project to make improvements to the property near the SSCC. He
asked Council if the City would be willing to donate money and/or volunteers to help with the project.
The project entails building a platform at the top of the hill, building twelve steps that go down the hill
with a railing along each side, building a platform at the bottom, fixing the bridge at the bottom of the
hill, fixing the walking path in the woods and building two benches to put by the path. The estimated cost
is $3,147.
Mayor Lizée stated the proposed project is very ambitious. She noted that Mr. Haines has provided
Council with a list of supplies and equipment he needs to do the job. She asked Mr. Haines if the project
will be done over the summer to which he responded it would. She then asked Mr. Haines if he has been
working with SSCC Manager Kristi Anderson to which he responded he has. She also asked if he had
lined up other scout members to help with the project to which Mr. Haines responded he has asked other
members of his troop to help out if they can.
Lizée then stated Eagle Scout projects are a wonderful way to get projects done in the City. She noted that
she has sent a copy of Mr. Haines’ request for funding to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD), the Southshore Senior Partners (which is considering the request at its meeting this evening),
and the Parks Foundation. The South Lake–Excelsior Chamber of Commerce is also going to consider the
request for funding.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he appreciates what Mr. Haines’ is proposing to do. He asked Mr.
Haines if there will be anyone with construction expertise working with Mr. Haines in supervising the
project. Mr. Haines responded there will be, noting that his uncle will help with building the stairs and a
scout leader for his troop who has his own workshop will help build the benches and the railings. He then
asked Mr. Haines if he has submitted plans to the City’s Planning Department or anyone else for
approval. He stated because the work is being done on public property the City has to ensure it will be
safe. Mr. Haines responded that will happen. He asked Administrator Heck if the City has the necessary
insurance coverage for someone other than City staff doing work on public property, to which Heck
responded he has not checked on that yet and he expressed his confidence that would not be an issue.
Administrator Heck noted that Mr. Haines, Mr. Haines’ mother, SSCC Manager Anderson, Building
Official Pazandak and he have met to discuss the proposed project.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it’s his recollection that about a year ago the Park Commission talked
about a project similar to this would be a good thing to do. He asked if the Park Commission has had the
opportunity to discuss this project yet. Administrator Heck responded the Park Commission has not been
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 5 of 13
involved with activities at the SSCC so it has not been discussed with the Commission. Woodruff stated
the project scope is on park land and not SSCC land, noting the land for the SSCC is only the land under
the building. Heck stated the Commission can discuss this at its May 10, 2011, meeting. Woodruff stated
he thought if the City does contribute funding it should come out of the Park Fund. Woodruff noted he
thought the project should get done.
Councilmember Siakel told Mr. Haines that he submitted a very nice plan and she complimented him on
coming before Council. She stated this project is worth the City’s support. She agreed that the Park
Commission should be brought into the loop. She stated she thought the City should find a way to help
Mr. Haines with the project.
Councilmember Hotvet congratulated Mr. Haines for a job well done.
Councilmember Zerby stated Mr. Haines is seeking funding for the project. He asked if Councilmember
Woodruff is suggesting Council delay taking action on funding until after the Park Commission has
discussed this. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the Commission should be given the opportunity
to endorse the project and potentially help with it. Woodruff suggested Council wait to take action on
funding until all of the other funding opportunities have been identified then the City fund the remainder
of the project.
Mayor Lizée asked Councilmember Hotvet, the Council liaison to the Park Commission, to bring this to
the Commission for discussion tomorrow night.
Mayor Lizée asked Mr. Haines what his timeline is for starting the project. Mr. Haines stated he hopes to
th
start work on the walking path this coming Thursday, May 12 and his plan is to begin working on the
steps, railings and platforms in June. After that work will begin on the bridge and building the benches.
rd
Mayor Lizée asked Mr. Haines if he is willing to come back before Council during its May 23 meeting.
Prior to that meeting the Park Commission, the SSSP and the South Lake-Excelsior Chamber of
Commerce will have met and she anticipated the MCWD would be able to give direction by then.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, authorizing Mr. Haines to make improvements to the trail.
Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Lizée thanked Mr. Haines for all of his work.
Discussion moved to Item 5.A on the agenda.
7. PARKS
No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last Council
meeting.
8. PLANNING
Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 3, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 6 of 13
A. Smithtown Way Storm Pipe Replacement Project
Engineer Landini explained the meeting packet contains a copy of a draft resolution approving the
specification and estimate and authorizing advertisement for bids for the Smithtown Way Storm Pipe
Replacement Project. Over the last several years the surface of the roadway over the storm water pipe has
risen approximately four inches. This spring Staff and representatives of American Engineering and
Testing took soil borings and conducted a survey. Plans and specifications have been drawn up to replace
the storm pipe with an arch pipe and install additional drain tile along both sides to remove any trapped
ground water that may be under the road causing it to heave.
Landini noted the estimated cost for this project is $130,000. The project is not included in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project list. It has not been budgeted for. The Storm Water Fund is forecast
to go into a deficit state in 2013 based on the CIP. The Fund has a sufficient balance to fund the project in
2011.
Councilmember Woodruff stated some of the residents along Smithtown Way brought this issue to his
attention and he forwarded their concerns on to Staff. He then stated he thought the bump in the road
should be fixed because it could be considered a hazard. He commented he thought the bump was about
30 feet long. Engineer Landini clarified the pipe from one end of the pond to the catch basis is about 430
feet long and about 200 – 300 feet of the roadway’s surface has heaved to some extent.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she has driven that roadway several times and it’s in such bad shape that
she almost ripped the front bumper off of her car. She recommended it be fixed. She noted the price tag to
fix it is much more than she anticipated.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City has received complaints and requests to repair the roadway. She
then asked Engineer Landini if he thought it critical to fix the problem. Landini responded it would likely
be possible to get another few years out of the surface of the roadway, but the surface will likely continue
to heave another two inches and that will damage the front end of vehicles. Director Brown stated that
from his vantage point the bump in the road is significant enough that it constitutes a safety hazard and
therefore it should be addressed.
Councilmember Zerby stated he supports fixing the problem. He expressed concern that this project has
not been included in the 20-Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP) and that the PASER (pavement
surface evaluation and rating) system did not identify problems with the roadway’s surface. He
questioned if there could be other surprises Staff may not be aware of.
Director Brown explained this past year there have been some pavement anomalies that haven’t occurred
in the past. They are caused by the frost conditions this year and the saturated water table last fall. The
road surface has been heaving a little over the past few years due to the saturated soil conditions but the
severe bump was because of the latest frost conditions.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the problem has gotten much worse over the past winter, but he did
receive two complaints in September 2010. He noted that he has not been down Smithtown Way this
year.
Engineer Landini clarified the PASER system is used to rate the surface of the roadway from a visible
stand point. The surface of Smithtown Way is in relatively good shape; there is one crack in it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 7 of 13
Councilmember Zerby asked if another criterion should be factored into the PASER system in order to
identify similar types of problems with roadways.
Director Brown stated it was unfortunate that the complaints were made to a Councilmember rather than
to City Hall or the Public Works Department. That was not the proper channel. He explained that
although some of the settlement occurred over time the last and most severe problem happened rapidly.
He noted Public Works personnel travel the City’s roadways frequently.
Councilmember Zerby stated he thought that with the use of the PASER system the City would be
anticipating such issues. He commented that the City should not have road repair by complaint. Director
Brown explained the final settlement is what made the bump on Smithtown Way a serious problem and
that happened rapidly after the serious freeze/thaw cycle this past winter. He noted when the original
complaints received the problem was fairly dramatic but it was not a safety hazard.
Councilmember Zerby asked if there were other roadways that are in this condition. Director Brown
responded Public Works personnel typically place signs annually next to Smithtown Road near the
Woodside Cemetery when frost conditions create a bump is the roadway’s surface. Some year that
problem could become more pressing.
Director Brown explained that Smithtown Way was constructed in the last 12 years and no one expected
it to have the problem it has. No one could have predicted there would have been that much settlement
that quickly. He made the analogy that one day there is a crack in the roadway’s surface but then the
freeze/thaw conditions create a fairly significant pothole over a short period of time. That could happen to
other roadways, but those situations can’t be predicted. To date it’s been a very rare occurrence.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-022, “A Resolution Approving
Specification and Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements for Bids for Smithtown Way Storm
Pipe Replacement Project 2011.” Motion passed 5/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Yard Waste Collection
Administrator Heck stated there are a couple of cities in the area that offer yard waste collection for their
residents. Councilmember Woodruff asked Staff to research the possibility of the City providing such a
service and bring it before Council for discussion. He noted that Staff had looked into doing this a few
years ago with the same company that the City of Mound uses, but it didn’t move forward. Staff reviewed
the information they gathered back then and conducted some additional research.
Heck explained the Cities of Mound and Orono accept yard waste at their public works facilities at no
direct cost to its residents. Orono only accepts leaves; it does not accept brush. The residents dump and
debag their materials. The material is composted and residents can take the compost. The City of
Minnetonka also accepts leaves and brush. It chips the brush and leaves it for residents to take.
Minnetonka budgets a little over $100,000 to operate their drop-off and chipping program. The program
does not operate during the winter months. The City of Tonka Bay’s contract with Allied Waste includes
collection of brush and waste. The cost of this program is included in the residents’ utility bills. The City
of Excelsior charges its residents for its fall clean-up program. If residents want to dispose of brush or
yard waste during non winter months they must prepay for the collection at Excelsior City Hall. The City
of Mound contracts with a local business for disposal of leaves and grass clippings. Residents dropping
off brush are charged directly. Mound pays the local business an upfront fee of $12,500 per year and that
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 8 of 13
allows Mound’s residents to drop off up to 2,500 cubic yards of material. If that allowable amount is not
dropped off Mound is given a refund and if more is dropped off Mound is charged an additional amount.
Mound assesses residents a fee on their utility bill to cover the cost of the program.
Heck stated Director Brown informed him that in the past when there has been a strong storm the City has
set up a drop off location for residents to bring brush and the City has ground up the branches. He then
stated there is a financial impact to providing a program and the cost depends on the type of program. He
noted that haulers are required by law to collect yard waste.
Heck then stated Staff recommends the City strongly encourage residents who want yard waste and brush
collection to contact their refuse hauler to provide such a service. Staff also recommends yard waste
collection be incorporated into a broader discussion on solid waste management in the City.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he was asked about this a number of times last fall and those asking the
question were aware they could purchase such a service from their refuse hauler. The residents thought
other cities provided the service for free if they hauled it to some location and that is what they wanted.
He then stated that after having read the information provided by Staff and after being made aware that
the service Mound provides is not free he is satisfied with having the residents work with their own hauler
to provide such a service.
Mayor Lizée stated it’s her recollection that the new Councilmembers brought up the topic of a broad
plan for waste management collection in January.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought yard waste collection is a good idea and that she thought the
service being referred to is at the Mulch Store in the City of St. Bonifacius. She then stated Council has to
decide the level of service it thinks the City should provide and what type of spring clean-up program it
wants to provide. Maybe for a period of time in the spring residents could drop off yard waste and brush
at some location. She suggested Council and Staff discuss during a future meeting a comprehensive
spring clean-up program and a comprehensive waste management program, including the collection of
old medication. She stated at her home they have refuse pickup, recycling pickup and compost pickup at
this time and they would likely sign up for organics recycling if it was available. That’s four different
containers that have to be hauled to the curb.
Councilmember Zerby stated he supports discussing a comprehensive program. He then stated he is not
interested in a tax increment raise to provide additional services to residents throughout the City because
residents have the opportunity to contract for yard waste collection service at this time. He noted that
there are already too many haulers traversing the City’s roadways.
Councilmember Siakel suggested as part of a potential resident survey the residents could be asked what
level of service they expect, what they want and what they are willing to pay for.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the City could work with another near by city to share such services.
There was Council consensus to schedule a work session to discuss a comprehensive approach to various
types of solid waste collection and the scope of the spring clean-up.
B. Tobacco Ordinance Amendment
Administrator Heck explained that during its September 27, 2010, work session Council discussed
proposed changes to the City’s tobacco ordinance. The meeting packet includes a copy of the draft
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 9 of 13
amended ordinance, an email from former Attorney Mary Tietjen summarizing the changes, and an
th
excerpt from the September 27 meeting minutes. The proposed changes focused on updating the
definitions of tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco related devices. Staff had provided a 30-day notice
to the three licensed establishments that the changes would be discussed during Council’s November 8,
2010, meeting. That did not occur due to Staff oversight. Staff has again provided a 30-day notice to the
three licensed establishments informing them that the proposed changes would be discussed during this
meeting. The City did not receive any feedback from the establishments.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE No. 475, “An Ordinance Amending
the Shorewood City Code to Replace Existing Chapter 302 in its Entirety with a Revised Chapter
302 (sale of Tobacco)” and Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-023, “A Resolution Approving
Publication of Ordinance No. 475 by Title and Summary”.
Councilmember Woodruff noted that Council had been provided with an updated copy of the amended
ordinance.
Motion passed 5/0.
C. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Agreement with the City of Excelsior
for Seasonal Dock and Park Patrol Services
Administrator Heck stated this is a routine request from the City of Excelsior for the South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) to provide park and dock patrol services. Excelsior pays for all
the services. He noted that this is normally handled on the consent agenda but because there are two new
Councilmembers this year he thought it appropriate to have it as an item for discussion. He stated
Excelsior requests these services on an annual basis. He explained that the joint powers agreement for the
SLMPD stipulates existing SLMPD patrol officers cannot be diverted from their regular duties to provide
supplemental policing services to a member city and that all five of the member cities must approve such
a request. He noted that the final agreement for providing supplemental policing services in 2011 is not
yet available, but it should be very similar to the 2010 agreement.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department
providing Park and Dock Patrol Services for the City of Excelsior as mutually agreed upon for the
2011 summer season. Motion passed 5/0.
D. Request for Reduction of Water Connection Fee
Engineer Landini stated the City received a request (from Charles Price, 5710 Christopher Road) asking
the City to consider reducing its $10,000 water connection fee for a single family home. Mr. Price would
like to connect to City water but the connection fee stands in the way of him doing that. The request is
just one of a number of requests the City has received in the last month or so about connecting to City
water.
Director Brown stated various Councils and staff have discussed numerous times how to entice property
owners to connect to City water. The Councils have also discussed the financial needs for the water
system numerous times. Some property owners have conveyed that the $10,000 fee is too much. He
explained the fee also helps support the existing water system infrastructure that previous property owners
have helped pay for.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 10 of 13
Mayor Lizée stated water quality and water safety is a huge issue. She then stated she thought this
Council would appreciate having a work session with a primer on the City’s water policy, how the water
system works, the history of it, the cost for it, the cost to maintain it and the expansion of it. She
suggested Council forward specific questions they may have through Administrator Heck.
Councilmember Siakel stated she applauded Mr. Price for asking the City to reconsider the amount of the
connection fee. She asked how the $10,000 amount was arrived at. She also asked if it should be reduced
or should it be increased.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if Mr. Price’s property has been assessed for water already. Engineer
Landini responded the 5710 Christopher Road property has not been assessed. Landini stated Mr. Price
could connect to a stub on Smithtown Road.
Woodruff then stated he thought it prudent for the current Council to discuss this again. He suggested that
during that discussion Director DeJong review the financial needs for the Water Fund. He commented
that he is aware of more than two situations where property owners have issues with the level of arsenic
in their private wells but they don’t want to pay the $10,000 fee to connect to City water.
Director Nielsen explained that the $10,000 fee is based on actual costs. He commented that Staff has a
great deal of background material that can explain that and he thought it best for Council to review that.
He explained there is a cost to install and maintain the water towers and the water main. Over the years
some property owners have paid for the water system infrastructure in place today. He noted than when
roadway improvements were going to be made to Nelsine Drive in 2010 the City considered extending
water under that street, an extension that would have been about as cost effective project that there would
be, and the actual cost per property to extend water down that street would have been approximately
$8,500. He stated the $10,000 fee is a real number, noting it’s somewhat higher than the cost to replace a
well.
Mayor Lizée stated it would be prudent for Council to have a work session to discuss this.
Councilmember Hotvet stated a number of issues related to water were discussed as part of the strategic
planning discussion that occurred during the Council and staff retreat held in February 2010.
Councilmember Siakel stated that ultimately the City’s water system should be expanded. She
commented there are a lot of advantages to being connected to City water. She stated the worst time to
ask for someone to connect to City water is shortly after they had a well installed. She suggested Council
make a decision with how to move forward with extending the City’s water system infrastructure.
Councilmember Zerby stated the price to access City water has to be somewhat competitive with
installing a new well. He noted the water connection fee in some of the surrounding communities is lower
than the City’s fee. He stated his initial thought is to lower the fee so that more property owners would
connect to the system.
There was Council consensus to schedule a work session to discuss this.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Carver County Open Fiber Initiative
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 11 of 13
Administrator Heck explained that during Council’s February 28, 2011, meeting Council was informed
that Carver Country is going to build an infrastructure (a fiber ring) for high speed broadband internet
services. The project is called the Carver County Open Fiber Initiative (CCOFI). The fiber ring will be
about 90 miles long. The ring will connect all of the cities in Carver County as well as schools, libraries
and other key public facilities. There will be fiber spurs off of the ring that will allow for other entities to
connect to the network. The total amount of fiber installed will be around 130 miles long. Because Carver
County received a federal grant to help fund the project other public entities have to be allowed to access
the fiber backbone. The County has spoken with the City and the City of Excelsior to see if there is
interest in connecting to the fiber backbone.
Heck then explained it appears that the Chanhassen Fire Station located at State Highway 7 and
Minnewashta Boulevard would be close locations for the City to connect into. Minnetonka Middle School
West, which is located just south of Highway 7 on Highway 41, is included in the ring because it’s
located in Carver County. The Minnetonka School District will therefore be connected to the ring. He has
contacted the School District’s Information Technology Director asking if it has fiber optic running near
City Hall, and if so what is the capacity, and if the City could potentially splice into the fiber. He clarified
that the City has to pay the cost for connecting into the fiber backbone; the cost to put fiber in to the
ground and the cost for the connection boxes.
Heck went on to explain that Carver County has a plan to whole sale out internet access, similar to what
the City currently has with Warner Connect over the City’s T1 lines, and to potentially offer internet
protocol voice services. The City could potentially eliminate the need for its T1 lines and the public safety
facilities could do the same. If City Hall gets connected to the backbone the Southshore Community
Center (SSCC), the Public Works facility, the public safety facilities and possibly the other South Lake
communities could potentially be connected to the fiber network. He noted it costs about $60,000 to put
down one mile of fiber cable. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the cost was about $40,000 per
mile.
Heck noted that Councilmember Zerby, Director DeJong and he had met with the CCOFI project
manager. The project manager indicated that if the City wasn’t going to use the full services he wasn’t
sure what the benefit would be to connect.
Councilmember Zerby explained the CCOFI project is estimated to cost $7 million and Carver County
received a $6 million federal grant for it. The system will be completely underground. Besides providing
internet service at a whole sale price it will provide intergovernmental connection which will allow for
some service if some component goes down. He noted Scott County will also be connected to the
network. He stated he supports pursuing this further. He explained the City doesn’t have to connect at the
fire station or the school; it could connect somewhere in between for an extra cost of about $7,000. He
stated there are a number of users in the vicinity (public safety, the SSCC, the City’s Public Works
facility) that could take advantage of this service as could the City of Excelsior and the Excelsior Library.
The City could share the cost of connecting to the fiber network with these other entities.
Councilmember Siakel asked what value the City would get from connecting to the network. She stated
she thought there would be a significant value if the City was able to connect with Hennepin County. She
asked how many residents would benefit from this. Councilmember Zerby clarified that only government
services would have access.
Councilmember Zerby explained that when spurs are run to local communities it will terminate at a
facility like a library. Carver County partnered with a company called Jaguar Communications and Jaguar
will lay fiber cable next to the County’s and then sell space on it to private parties. He noted that the City
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 12 of 13
would have to run two fiber lines if it wants to provide residents with access opportunities to a similar
network.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he supported the City pursuing this further. The financial viability of
doing this needs to be investigated. He noted the Minnesota School District has a fiber line that runs along
Smithtown Road and it goes to the Minnetonka Elementary School. He explained he did not know if that
fiber could be used by the City, but he is certain it can’t be used for commercial or residential services
because that fiber was partially funded with federal funds. He clarified that Carver County is installing a
government network and at the same time it’s installing additional fiber for an open access network. That
additional fiber is for lease to other parties, of which Jaguar is one. Jaguar at its own expense will build
out commercial and residential service with the fiber it’s leasing from the County. Jaguar will have to
install additional fiber to homes and businesses. He commented that he has spoken with the CCOFI
project manager a number of times. He stated because Carver County received a federal grant to help fund
the project the County can’t allow their intergovernmental network to be used by residential or
commercial users.
There was Council consensus to have Staff continue discussions with Carver County about the CCOFI
initiative and to also continue discussions with the Minnetonka School District about potentially splicing
into its fiber backbone.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck stated from a State legislative standpoint the conference committees are meeting but
are not making any decisions. A levy freeze is not included in either the senate or house bills in
conference committee. The levy limit law that is scheduled to sunset this year may potentially be
extended two years. He explained because the City hasn’t levied the total amount it could have the past
three years it has an opportunity to have a little higher levy increase.
Heck then stated the variance bill has been passed by the Senate and House and it contained compromise
language endorsed by the League of Minnesota Cities. It’s his understanding Governor Dayton will sign
the bill.
Heck went on to state the Step-To-Challenge was kicked off today. There is a South Lake Minnetonka
th
Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee on May 11. There is an Excelsior Fire District
th
Operating Committee meeting scheduled for May 12.There is a Council and Staff strategic planning
th
session scheduled for May 11.
Director Brown stated the sweeping of City streets has been completed and water main flushing
continues.
B. Mayor and City Council
th
Mayor Lizée reiterated there is an SLMPD Coordinating Committee scheduled for May 11. She
th
explained that on April 26 she went before the Tonka Bay City Council to ask for a donation to put
toward the purchase of a digital sign for the Southshore Community Center. That Council requested it be
nd
provided with additional information. On May 2 she went before the Excelsior City Council to ask for a
similar donation and the Excelsior Council decided Excelsior should donate $4,000. Director DeJong
noted the City has received that check.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 9, 2011
Page 13 of 13
Mayor Lizée asked what the status is of the directional signs for County Road 19. Director Brown
responded the signs have been delivered to Public Works and Staff is working on obtaining the proper
permits for placement.
Councilmember Zerby asked what the status is of the entry signs for the City. Director Nielsen explained
that it’s his intent to have sign mockups available for the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Hotvet stated the Park Commission will go on park tours during its next two meetings.
th
Mayor Lizée stated SLMPD Reserve Captain Don Rogers passed away on April 26, noting he was a
resident of the City. Captain Rogers was a community hero and a volunteer extraordinaire. He was known
as “officer everywhere”. He was the dock master at the City of Excelsior Municipal Docks and he spent a
lot of time in the Excelsior Commons. He worked at all of the parades in the community. Captain Rogers
was loved by all. His passing has truly left a mark on the community. She then stated she attended his
th
funeral on April 30. The turnout of police officers, fire fighters, reserve officers and South Lake city
personnel was phenomenal. She concluded that Captain Rogers will be sorely missed.
Administrator Heck stated during the Executive Session that will immediately follow this meeting
Council will have a confidential attorney-client discussion regarding the pending legal issues with Ron
Johnson. Council will also discuss land acquisition.
13. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 9, 2011, at
8:27 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2D
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 8:37 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Krass:
Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen and Engineer Landini (present for the land
acquisition discussion)
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. PENDING LEGAL ISSUES – RON JOHNSON
Mayor Lizée, Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby, Attorney Krass, Administrator Heck
and Planning Director Nielsen were present. The purpose of the meeting was for confidential attorney-client
discussion regarding the pending legal issues with Ron Johnson.
3. LAND ACQUISITION
potential property
City Engineer Landini joined the meeting. The discussion centered around the
purchase for future stormwater improvements in the Silver Lake area.
4. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of May 9, 2011, at
9:18 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Finance May 23, 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 51706 through
51755 totaling $285,746.56.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
5/19/2011 11:50 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/10/2011 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 5/10/2011 000000 11,782.57
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 5/10/2011 000000 2,150.59
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 5/10/2011 000000 1,092.39
00086 AFSCME COUNCIL 5 R 5/10/2011 051706 305.92
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 5/10/2011 051707 1,411.00
16625 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS R 5/10/2011 051708 32.00
00052 PERA R 5/10/2011 051709 7,159.42
1 EDINA REALTY R 5/23/2011 051711 93.16
00700 ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP R 5/23/2011 051712 15,500.00
00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN R 5/23/2011 051713 408.00
01475 AMERICAN ENGINEERING R 5/23/2011 051714 3,500.00
01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 5/23/2011 051715 253.00
02860 BARNES DISTRIBUTION R 5/23/2011 051716 182.45
29338 BLANCHARD CATERING, INC. R 5/23/2011 051717 238.90
03700 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. R 5/23/2011 051718 2,069.04
05875 CUB FOODS R 5/23/2011 051719 46.11
05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 5/23/2011 051720 88.09
05890 CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC R 5/23/2011 051721 274.66
1 DOLLAR TREE STORES R 5/23/2011 051722 100.00
29271 DREW KRIESEL R 5/23/2011 051723 785.00
07100 E.J. MAYERS INC. R 5/23/2011 051724 5,500.00
07383 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN R 5/23/2011 051725 4,517.80
5/19/2011 11:50 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/10/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
29248 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG R 5/23/2011 051726 171.00
07975 FINANCE AND COMMERCE R 5/23/2011 051727 166.64
29324 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, I R 5/23/2011 051728 9,026.25
10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 5/23/2011 051729 64.00
11055 INFRATECH R 5/23/2011 051730 420.00
11091 INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS INC R 5/23/2011 051731 750.09
21340 LOCAL LINK R 5/23/2011 051732 69.95
13582 LOCATORS & SUPPLIES INC R 5/23/2011 051733 228.07
29393 MAACO COLLISION & AUTO PAINTIN R 5/23/2011 051734 7,261.21
29259 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP R 5/23/2011 051735 1,798.00
17476 MCES, YOUTH PROGRAMS R 5/23/2011 051736 1,480.00
15176 MENARDS R 5/23/2011 051737 143.66
15300 METRO SALES, INC. R 5/23/2011 051738 686.00
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC R 5/23/2011 051739 500.00
00085 MINNESOTA LIFE R 5/23/2011 051740 433.91
29323 MINNETONKA GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSO R 5/23/2011 051741 320.00
15395 MN CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSO R 5/23/2011 051742 120.75
14050 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY R 5/23/2011 051743 295.85
15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 5/23/2011 051744 182.83
29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 5/23/2011 051745 724.50
20283 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. R 5/23/2011 051746 67.25
1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 5/23/2011 051747 781.26
5/19/2011 11:50 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/10/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
26100 QWEST R 5/23/2011 051748 551.66
22476 SAFETY SIGNS R 5/23/2011 051749 283.50
22490 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN R 5/23/2011 051750 318.00
22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 5/23/2011 051751 20.49
23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 5/23/2011 051752 82,642.00
29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 5/23/2011 051753 115.83
29269 WARNER CONNECT R 5/23/2011 051754 2,800.00
28900 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE R 5/23/2011 051755 87.30
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 5/23/2011 999999 2,589.00
10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 5/23/2011 999999 74.00
15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER E 5/23/2011 999999 59,761.26
19435 SPRINT E 5/23/2011 999999 131.34
20268 PANCHYSHYN, JEAN E 5/23/2011 999999 158.13
* * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED
REGULAR CHECKS: 49 154,974.55 0.00 154,974.55
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 3 15,025.55 0.00 15,025.55
EFT: 5 62,713.73 0.00 62,713.73
NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00
VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ERRORS: 0
VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 57 232,713.83 0.00 232,713.83
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 57 232,713.83 0.00 232,713.83
REPORT TOTALS: 58 232,713.83 0.00 232,713.83
05-19-2011 11:47 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP 5/23/11 2010 AUDIT SVC General Fund Professional Svcs 15,500.00_
TOTAL: 15,500.00
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 5/23/11 SVC 04/15-05/15 General Fund Municipal Buildings 74.00_
TOTAL: 74.00
AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 5/23/11 JUN-UNION DENTAL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 408.00_
TOTAL: 408.00
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 305.92_
TOTAL: 305.92
AMERICAN ENGINEERING 5/23/11 ENCHANTED PT RD General Fund Streets & Roadways 900.00
5/23/11 SMITHTOWN WAY Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,600.00_
TOTAL: 3,500.00
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 5/23/11 PARK MTG-05/10/11 General Fund Parks & Recreation 253.00_
TOTAL: 253.00
BARNES DISTRIBUTION 5/23/11 BOLTS & HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 182.45_
TOTAL: 182.45
BLANCHARD CATERING, INC. 5/23/11 EVENT BREAKFAST Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 238.90_
TOTAL: 238.90
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. 5/23/11 AGG LINE BALLFIELDS General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,069.04_
TOTAL: 2,069.04
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 5/23/11 PCS-05/09-05/20 General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,295.00
5/23/11 SSCC ASSISTANT-05/09-05/19 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 294.00_
TOTAL: 2,589.00
CUB FOODS 5/23/11 COUCIL/PARK/PLANNING MTG 5 General Fund Council 11.51
5/23/11 COUCIL/PARK/PLANNING MTG 5 General Fund Planning 11.51
5/23/11 COFFE General Fund Municipal Buildings 11.57
5/23/11 COUCIL/PARK/PLANNING MTG 5 General Fund Parks & Recreation 11.52_
TOTAL: 46.11
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 5/23/11 DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 54.19
5/23/11 SALT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 33.90_
TOTAL: 88.09
CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC 5/23/11 SSCC-REFRIG SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 274.66_
TOTAL: 274.66
DREW KRIESEL 5/23/11 CONTRACT SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 480.00
5/23/11 SUPPLIES RENTAL Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 305.00_
TOTAL: 785.00
E.J. MAYERS INC. 5/23/11 EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 5,500.00_
TOTAL: 5,500.00
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,014.33
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,137.35
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 737.87
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 279.32
05-19-2011 11:47 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 65.32
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 441.86
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 103.34
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 297.03
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 69.46
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 281.06
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 65.72
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 203.72
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 47.65
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 179.96
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 42.09
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 437.88
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 102.40
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 242.38
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 56.70
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 9.69
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 2.27
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 4.46
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 1.04
5/10/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 103.98
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 24.30
5/10/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 13.09
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 3.06
5/10/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 356.25
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 83.31
5/10/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 199.86
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 46.73
5/10/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 14.50
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 3.40
5/10/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 90.11
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 21.08_
TOTAL: 11,782.57
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE 5/23/11 INSTALLED ELECT SW ROOM General Fund Municipal Buildings 480.00
5/23/11 C.H. TROUBLE SHOOT General Fund Municipal Buildings 1,450.00
5/23/11 STREET LAMP General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 2,587.80_
TOTAL: 4,517.80
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC 5/23/11 SAFETY LIGHTING General Fund Public Works 171.00_
TOTAL: 171.00
FINANCE AND COMMERCE 5/23/11 2011 BIT SEALCOATING OF ST Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 166.64_
TOTAL: 166.64
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 5/23/11 APR-SMITHTOWN WAY ST REPL Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 9,026.25_
TOTAL: 9,026.25
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 5/23/11 APR RADIO General Fund Public Works 64.00_
TOTAL: 64.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,075.00
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 336.00_
TOTAL: 1,411.00
INFRATECH 5/23/11 EMERGENCY SVC 6110CLUBVALE Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 420.00_
TOTAL: 420.00
05-19-2011 11:47 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS INC 5/23/11 MUTT MITTS General Fund Parks & Recreation 750.09_
TOTAL: 750.09
LOCAL LINK 5/23/11 JUN WEB LINK General Fund Municipal Buildings 69.95_
TOTAL: 69.95
LOCATORS & SUPPLIES INC 5/23/11 MARKING PAINT Water Utility Water 114.03
5/23/11 MARKING PAINT Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 114.04_
TOTAL: 228.07
MAACO COLLISION & AUTO PAINTING 5/23/11 2004 FORD-F250-UNIT #78 Equipment Replacem Equipment Replacement 656.92
5/23/11 2004FORD-F250-UNIT#78 Equipment Replacem Equipment Replacement 6,604.29_
TOTAL: 7,261.21
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 5/23/11 MAR-GEN MATTERS General Fund Professional Svcs 1,850.00
5/23/11 MAR-ADM CODE ENFORCEMENT General Fund Professional Svcs 74.00-
5/23/11 MAR-LAND USE & DLPMT APPL General Fund Professional Svcs 22.00_
TOTAL: 1,798.00
MCES, YOUTH PROGRAMS 5/23/11 2011 SPRING REFUND General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,480.00_
TOTAL: 1,480.00
MENARDS 5/23/11 POST PARKS General Fund Parks & Recreation 143.66_
TOTAL: 143.66
METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 5/23/11 MAY-WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 275.00
5/23/11 MAY-WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 59,486.26_
TOTAL: 59,761.26
METRO SALES, INC. 5/23/11 COPIER MACH MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 686.00_
TOTAL: 686.00
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 5/23/11 JUNE NEWSLETTER POSTAGE General Fund General Government 500.00_
TOTAL: 500.00
MINNESOTA LIFE 5/23/11 LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 433.91_
TOTAL: 433.91
MINNETONKA GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION 5/23/11 2011 SPRING USER REFUND General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 320.00_
TOTAL: 320.00
MISC. VENDOR DOLLAR TREE STORES 5/23/11 FIREWORK LIC DUPL PYMT REF General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 100.00
EDINA REALTY 5/23/11 10-500204-01 Water Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 93.16_
TOTAL: 193.16
MN CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 5/23/11 CITY/CTY MGMT ASSN. RENEW General Fund Administration 120.75_
TOTAL: 120.75
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 5/10/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,150.59_
TOTAL: 2,150.59
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 5/10/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32.00_
TOTAL: 32.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 5/23/11 MOWER PARTS General Fund Public Works 104.61
5/23/11 MOWER PARTS General Fund Public Works 191.24
05-19-2011 11:47 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 295.85
OFFICE DEPOT 5/23/11 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 182.83_
TOTAL: 182.83
ON SITE SANITATION INC 5/23/11 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
5/23/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
5/23/11 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13
5/23/11 MANOR PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 19.70
5/23/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
5/23/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
5/23/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13
5/23/11 BIRCH BLUFF ROAD General Fund Parks & Recreation 19.70_
TOTAL: 724.50
PANCHYSHYN, JEAN 5/23/11 DINNER JOINT-PLNG/PARK/COU General Fund Council 102.23
5/23/11 MILEAGE General Fund General Government 45.90
5/23/11 PARKING General Fund General Government 10.00_
TOTAL: 158.13
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 5/23/11 SCRUPERS & BLADES General Fund Public Works 67.25_
TOTAL: 67.25
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,314.55
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 336.74
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 517.75
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 358.06
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 360.54
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 266.66
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 211.13
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 534.72
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 300.85
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 11.33
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 5.67
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 124.77
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 15.30
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 435.87
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 238.44
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 16.96
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 110.08_
TOTAL: 7,159.42
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 5/23/11 LIFE INSURANCE General Fund Unallocated Expenses 781.26_
TOTAL: 781.26
QWEST 5/23/11 MAY SVC Water Utility Water 315.23
5/23/11 MAY SVC Water Utility Water 236.43_
TOTAL: 551.66
SAFETY SIGNS 5/23/11 SW REPAIR Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 99.00
5/23/11 SW REPAIR Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 184.50_
TOTAL: 283.50
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN 5/23/11 DREAMWEAVER - JEAN P. 04/1 General Fund General Government 318.00_
TOTAL: 318.00
05-19-2011 11:47 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 5/23/11 SLEEVE General Fund Public Works 3.67
5/23/11 HARDWARES General Fund Public Works 14.91
5/23/11 FLARE CAP General Fund Public Works 1.91_
TOTAL: 20.49
SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 5/23/11 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE General Fund Police Protection 82,642.00_
TOTAL: 82,642.00
SPRINT 5/23/11 SVC 04/13-05/12 Water Utility Water 65.67
5/23/11 SVC 04/13-05/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 65.67_
TOTAL: 131.34
SUN NEWSPAPERS 5/23/11 BIT SEAL COAT 05/05 & 12 Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 115.83_
TOTAL: 115.83
WARNER CONNECT 5/23/11 MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 2,800.00_
TOTAL: 2,800.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 1,092.39
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 5/23/11 FIRST AIDS General Fund Public Works 87.30_
TOTAL: 87.30
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Administration 4,644.67
General Fund General Government 7,141.22
General Fund Finance 4,938.80
General Fund Planning 4,972.99
General Fund Protective Inspections 3,677.97
General Fund City Engineer 2,912.04
General Fund Public Works 7,375.35
General Fund Streets & Roadways 4,149.75
General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 156.30
General Fund Tree Maintenance 78.15
General Fund Parks & Recreation 1,720.92
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 211.08
Water Utility Water 6,012.26
Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 3,288.69
Recycling Utility Recycling 233.94
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,518.60_
TOTAL: 53,032.73
05-19-2011 11:47 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 6
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 185,068.57
403 Equipment Replacement 7,261.21
404 Street Capital Improvemen 282.47
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 1,868.99
601 Water Utility 7,712.21
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 69,918.19
621 Recycling Utility 268.80
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 13,366.12
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 285,746.56
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 6
05-19-2011 11:46 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 1
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
NON-DEPARTMENTAL General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FEDERAL W/H 5,014.33
5/10/11 FICA W/H 2,137.35
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 737.87
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,314.55
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,075.00
5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 336.00
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES 305.92
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 5/10/11 STATE W/H 2,150.59
MISC. VENDOR DOLLAR TREE STORES 5/23/11 FIREWORK LIC DUPL PYMT REF 100.00
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 5/10/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS 32.00
MCES, YOUTH PROGRAMS 5/23/11 2011 SPRING REFUND 1,480.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 803.94
MINNETONKA GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION 5/23/11 2011 SPRING USER REFUND 320.00_
TOTAL: 17,807.55
Council General Fund CUB FOODS 5/23/11 COUCIL/PARK/PLANNING MTG 5 11.51
PANCHYSHYN, JEAN 5/23/11 DINNER JOINT-PLNG/PARK/COU 102.23_
TOTAL: 113.74
Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 279.32
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 65.32
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 336.74
MN CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 5/23/11 CITY/CTY MGMT ASSN. RENEW 120.75
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,644.67_
TOTAL: 5,446.80
General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 441.86
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 103.34
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 517.75
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 5/23/11 JUNE NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 500.00
OFFICE DEPOT 5/23/11 GEN SUPPLIES 182.83
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 288.45
PANCHYSHYN, JEAN 5/23/11 MILEAGE 45.90
5/23/11 PARKING 10.00
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN 5/23/11 DREAMWEAVER - JEAN P. 04/1 318.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 7,141.22_
TOTAL: 9,549.35
Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 297.03
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 69.46
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 358.06
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,938.80_
TOTAL: 5,663.35
Professional Svcs General Fund ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP 5/23/11 2010 AUDIT SVC 15,500.00
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 5/23/11 MAR-GEN MATTERS 1,850.00
5/23/11 MAR-ADM CODE ENFORCEMENT 74.00-
5/23/11 MAR-LAND USE & DLPMT APPL 22.00_
TOTAL: 17,298.00
Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 281.06
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 65.72
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 360.54
CUB FOODS 5/23/11 COUCIL/PARK/PLANNING MTG 5 11.51
05-19-2011 11:46 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 2
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,972.99_
TOTAL: 5,691.82
Municipal Buildings General Fund CUB FOODS 5/23/11 COFFE 11.57
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 5/23/11 DRINKING WATER SVC 54.19
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE 5/23/11 INSTALLED ELECT SW ROOM 480.00
5/23/11 C.H. TROUBLE SHOOT 1,450.00
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 5/23/11 SVC 04/15-05/15 74.00
METRO SALES, INC. 5/23/11 COPIER MACH MAINT SVC 686.00
LOCAL LINK 5/23/11 JUN WEB LINK 69.95
WARNER CONNECT 5/23/11 MAINT SVC 2,800.00_
TOTAL: 5,625.71
Police Protection General Fund SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 5/23/11 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE 82,642.00_
TOTAL: 82,642.00
Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 203.72
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 47.65
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 266.66
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,677.97_
TOTAL: 4,196.00
City Engineer General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 179.96
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 42.09
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 211.13
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,912.04_
TOTAL: 3,345.22
Public Works General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 437.88
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 102.40
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 534.72
BARNES DISTRIBUTION 5/23/11 BOLTS & HARDWARE 182.45
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 5/23/11 APR RADIO 64.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 5/23/11 MOWER PARTS 104.61
5/23/11 MOWER PARTS 191.24
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 5/23/11 SCRUPERS & BLADES 67.25
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 5/23/11 SLEEVE 3.67
5/23/11 HARDWARES 14.91
5/23/11 FLARE CAP 1.91
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 5/23/11 FIRST AIDS 87.30
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC 5/23/11 SAFETY LIGHTING 171.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 7,375.35_
TOTAL: 9,338.69
Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 242.38
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 56.70
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 300.85
AMERICAN ENGINEERING 5/23/11 ENCHANTED PT RD 900.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,149.75_
TOTAL: 5,649.68
Ice & Snow Removal General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 9.69
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 2.27
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 11.33
05-19-2011 11:46 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 3
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 156.30_
TOTAL: 179.59
Traffic Control/Str Li General Fund ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE 5/23/11 STREET LAMP 2,587.80_
TOTAL: 2,587.80
Tree Maintenance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 4.46
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 1.04
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 5.67
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 78.15_
TOTAL: 89.32
Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 103.98
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 24.30
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 124.77
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 5/23/11 PARK MTG-05/10/11 253.00
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. 5/23/11 AGG LINE BALLFIELDS 2,069.04
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 5/23/11 PCS-05/09-05/20 2,295.00
CUB FOODS 5/23/11 COUCIL/PARK/PLANNING MTG 5 11.52
INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS INC 5/23/11 MUTT MITTS 750.09
MENARDS 5/23/11 POST PARKS 143.66
ON SITE SANITATION INC 5/23/11 BADGER PARK 45.96
5/23/11 CATHCART PARK 45.96
5/23/11 FREEMAN PARK 266.13
5/23/11 MANOR PARK 19.70
5/23/11 SILVERWOOD PARK 45.96
5/23/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE 45.96
5/23/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS 235.13
5/23/11 BIRCH BLUFF ROAD 19.70
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,720.92_
TOTAL: 8,220.78
Unallocated Expenses General Fund MINNESOTA LIFE 5/23/11 LIFE INS 433.91
AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 5/23/11 JUN-UNION DENTAL 408.00
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 5/23/11 LIFE INSURANCE 781.26_
TOTAL: 1,623.17
Equipment Replacement Equipment Replacem MAACO COLLISION & AUTO PAINTING 5/23/11 2004 FORD-F250-UNIT #78 656.92
5/23/11 2004FORD-F250-UNIT#78 6,604.29_
TOTAL: 7,261.21
Street Capt Improvemen Street Capital Imp FINANCE AND COMMERCE 5/23/11 2011 BIT SEALCOATING OF ST 166.64
SUN NEWSPAPERS 5/23/11 BIT SEAL COAT 05/05 & 12 115.83_
TOTAL: 282.47
Senior Community Cente Southshore Communi EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 13.09
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 3.06
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 15.30
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 5/23/11 SSCC ASSISTANT-05/09-05/19 294.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 5/23/11 SALT 33.90
CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC 5/23/11 SSCC-REFRIG SVC 274.66
DREW KRIESEL 5/23/11 CONTRACT SVC 480.00
5/23/11 SUPPLIES RENTAL 305.00
BLANCHARD CATERING, INC. 5/23/11 EVENT BREAKFAST 238.90
05-19-2011 11:46 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 4
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 211.08_
TOTAL: 1,868.99
NON-DEPARTMENTAL Water Utility MISC. VENDOR EDINA REALTY 5/23/11 10-500204-01 93.16_
TOTAL: 93.16
Water Water Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 356.25
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 83.31
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 435.87
LOCATORS & SUPPLIES INC 5/23/11 MARKING PAINT 114.03
SPRINT 5/23/11 SVC 04/13-05/12 65.67
QWEST 5/23/11 MAY SVC 315.23
5/23/11 MAY SVC 236.43
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 6,012.26_
TOTAL: 7,619.05
Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 199.86
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 46.73
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 238.44
E.J. MAYERS INC. 5/23/11 EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR 5,500.00
INFRATECH 5/23/11 EMERGENCY SVC 6110CLUBVALE 420.00
LOCATORS & SUPPLIES INC 5/23/11 MARKING PAINT 114.04
METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 5/23/11 MAY-WASTEWATER SVC 275.00
5/23/11 MAY-WASTEWATER SVC 59,486.26
SPRINT 5/23/11 SVC 04/13-05/12 65.67
SAFETY SIGNS 5/23/11 SW REPAIR 99.00
5/23/11 SW REPAIR 184.50
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,288.69_
TOTAL: 69,918.19
Recycling Recycling Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 14.50
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 3.40
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 16.96
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 233.94_
TOTAL: 268.80
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Managem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/10/11 FICA W/H 90.11
5/10/11 MEDICARE W/H 21.08
PERA 5/10/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 110.08
AMERICAN ENGINEERING 5/23/11 SMITHTOWN WAY 2,600.00
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 5/23/11 APR-SMITHTOWN WAY ST REPL 9,026.25
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/09/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,518.60_
TOTAL: 13,366.12
05-19-2011 11:46 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MAY 23, 2011 PAGE: 5
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 185,068.57
403 Equipment Replacement 7,261.21
404 Street Capital Improvemen 282.47
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 1,868.99
601 Water Utility 7,712.21
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 69,918.19
621 Recycling Utility 268.80
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 13,366.12
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 285,746.56
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 5
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Cathcart Park Swing Set Replacement
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator and Twila Grout, Parks Administrative Asst.
Attachments: Memo to Park Commission
Background: At its meeting on May 10, the Park Commission reviewed the quotes for replacing the
swing set at Cathcart Park. The 2011 CIP has $7,500.00 allocated for this park equipment. Two complete
quotes were received for the equipment and installation, as it was indicated that the public works staff
would not be able to perform the installation due to other priorities at this time. With the added
installation costs, the quotes received are higher than the budget allocation. The two complete quotes
received were from Midwest Playscapes and Gametime MN/WI Playground. As provided in the attached,
the low quote from Midwest Playscapes includes:
Equipment, Freight and Tax $7,127.49
Engineered Wood Fiber Accessible Safety Surfacing ($1,825) and Tax 1,950.46
Installation 2,650.00
Geotextile fabric between the soil and safety surface 900.00
Unload from site and same day installation 200.00
Total: $12,827.95
Financial or Budget Considerations: An additional cost of $5,327.95 will come from the Park CIP. Staff
will seek savings in other projects.
Options: 1) Approval of the quote from Midwest Playscapes for equipment and installation in the
amount of $12,827.95. Council may also take into account whether directing public works
staff to assist in some way in an effort to bring the price down is valuable.
2) Do not accept the quote.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The Park Commission recommends Council accept the quote
from Midwest Playscapes for equipment and installation in the amount of $12,827.95 and take into
account whether directing public works staff to assist in some way in an effort to bring the price down is
valuable.
Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, Staff will secure the services of Midwest Playscapes.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing attractive amenities.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Freeman Park South Playground
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator and Twila Grout, Parks Administrative Asst.
Attachments: Memo to Park Commission; excerpt of meeting minutes
Background: At its meeting on May 10, the Park Commission reviewed the quotes for replacing the
slides and adding a tot piece to enhance the playground structure at the Freeman Park south playground.
The 2011 CIP has $15,000.00 allocated for these park improvements. A quote was obtained from Mn/Wi
Playgrounds , the existing playground equipment manufacturer. The total quote of $14,905.36 is detailed
on the attached. This includes replacement of the rumble and roll slide, the spiral slide and the L Tube
Slide, as well as a new “whirl” free standing play piece that was favored by the park commission in 2010.
The Public Works Director has indicated that the public works staff will be able to perform the preparation
work and installation of this equipment.
Financial or Budget Considerations: $15,000 is allocated in the Park CIP for these improvements.
Options: 1) Approval of the quote from Mn/Wi Playgrounds for equipment in the amount of
$14,905.36.
2) Do not accept the quote.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The Park Commission recommends Council accept the quote
from Mn/Wi Playground for equipment in the amount of $14,095.36,
Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, Staff will order the equipment and coordinate the equipment
delivery to fit within the public works department schedule for installation.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing attractive amenities.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#3D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
A Resolution Accepting Low Bid and Awarding Sealcoat Contract to the
Title / Subject:
Successful Low Bidder
Meeting Date: 5/23/11
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Exhibit
Policy Consideration:
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:
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.
Staff opened bids on 5/18/11 with a result of Allied Blacktop as low bidder for $286,629.50 for all three
cities. Shorewood’s portion is $152,349.25 plus an alternate of $7,041.00 for the public safety building.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Each year the City of Shorewood encumbers a portion of the
operating budget for the sealcoating of roadways within the City. Year 2011 is no exception by
budgeting $223,000. The City Council previously authorized $28,600 plus tax for rock.
Options:
1.Approve the resolution entering into a contract for Bituminous Seal coating of Streets in 2011.
2.Direct staff to select a different contractor.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the contract for the 2011 Bituminous
Sealcoating be awarded to Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount of $152,349.25 plus $7,041.00 for the
public safety building.
Next Steps and Timelines:
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 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE 2011 BITUMINOUS SEAL COATING OF STREETS,
CITY PROJECT NO. 11-07
WHEREAS
, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements
designated as the 2011 Bituminous Seal Coating of Streets, City Project No. 11-07, bids
were received, opened on May 18, 2011 and tabulated according to law, and such
tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that Allied Blacktop Co. is the
lowest bidder in compliance with the specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contract with Allied Blacktop Co. in the name of the City of
Shorewood, Project No. 11-07, according to the plans and specifications therefore
approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk.
2. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of
the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders, which shall be retained until a
contract has been signed.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd day of May, 2011.
________________________
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
City of Shorewood
Bid Tabulation
2011 Sealcoat
Shorewood City Project No. 11 - 07
Bids Opened: 10:00 A.M. Engineer: City of Shorewood I
18- May -11
1 Pearson Brothers X NA $ 361,759.63
2 Allied Blacktop X NA $ 286,629.50
3 Fahrner Asphalt
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I hereby certify that this tabulation is a correct and
true representation of the bids received on this date
for this Improvement Project
Vatnes Landini,
City Engineer
s - /S - - I(
Date
Je n Panchyshyn
Deputy Clerk/Executive Secretary
x / �,_./1
Date Exhibit A
#3E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution Accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for
Mill & Overlay of Streets in 2011
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, ad for bid
Policy Consideration:
Background: As part of the Operating Budget, funds are set aside each year for Road Maintenance.
Streets chosen for the mill & overlay must have a foundation capable of supporting the surface and have
a PASER rating of 4 or higher. The streets chosen for 2011 are Afton Road, Christopher Lane, Fatima
Place, Ivy Lane and Rustic Way. This schedule may change due to budgetary constraints.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The 2011 capital improvement plan has $166,000 earmarked for
Mill & Overlays of Afton Road, Christopher Lane, Fatima Place, Ivy Lane and Rustic Way.
Options:
1.Approve the resolution Accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
for Mill & Overlay of Streets for 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
Mill & Overlay of Streets for 2011, and authorizes advertisement for bids.
nd
Next Steps and Timelines: Open bids on June 22 and present to Council.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Improves service to local 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 SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS
FOR 2011 MILL & OVERLAY CITY PROJECT 11-08
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood designated $166,000 for mill & overlay in the Capital
Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS
, the Director of Public Works has identified streets within the City that need
mill & overlay; and
WHEREAS
, the City Engineer has prepared Specifications and Estimate dated May 10,
2011 for a project within the City of Shorewood for the 2011 Mill & Overlay 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
according to MN State Law 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 June 22, 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.
rd
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23 day
of May, 2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
_______________________________________________________________________________
2011 Bituminous Mill, Overlays
and Appurtenant Work for
Afton Road, Christopher Road, Fatima Place, Ivy Lane and Rustic Way
City Project No. 11 - 08
City of Shorewood, 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 22nd day of June,
Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331,
2011
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 of all labor and materials for the
construction complete in place of the following;
3177 SY MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE
370 TON TYPE SP 9.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE 2C
1440 TON TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE 2C
584 GAL BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK 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 MILL and OVERLAYS
“ 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: May 10th, 2011 BY: ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Brian Heck, City Administrator
stth
PUBLISHED IN: The “Finance-Commerce” June 1 & June 8 ,2011
ndth
The “ Sun Sailor “ June 2 & June 9,2011
____________________________________________________________________
2011 Bituminous Mill and Overlays AFB
Afton Road, Christopher Road, Fatima Place, Ivy Lane and Rustic Way
#3F
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvements
Meeting Date: 5/23/11
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Advertisement, Resolution
Background: The City of Shorewood investigated & created a report on drainage problem areas in 2005
and 2006. Drainage problem area #1 – 6180 Murray Hill Rd was incorporated into the 2011 Capital
Improvement Program. The report classifies the problem as private nuisance with limited public
responsibility. There are 6 residences in the Shorewood portion of the drainage area; I do not have
information for Chanhassen.
The site is the intersection of Summit Ave and Murray Hill Rd. Both streets have steep grades without
any storm sewer. The precipitation runoff flows down both roads to the intersection and flows into the
yard of 6180 Murray Hill Rd. Most of the runoff collects in a wetland to the south of the home and
overflows through a, poor condition, ditch along Chaska Rd. making its way to a large wetland in the NE
quadrant of Mayflower Rd and Chaska Rd.
The original report recommended 3 options. Two of the three options appear to have been
implemented. The third option was to install storm sewer to the wetland south of the home, but upon a
visit in 2010 and tour with the homeowner, this path isn’t desirable. A new concept was devised to
intercept the runoff in a storm sewer and convey it directly to the wetland in the NE quadrant of
Mayflower Rd. and Chaska Rd.
On Feb 14, 2011, Council directed staff to prepare plans and specification for this project.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Capital Improvement Program has this project budgeted at
$151,900.
Options:
1.Approve the resolution accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
for the Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvements.
2.Direct staff to end the project.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution that
approves the plans and specifications for the Murray Hill Storm Sewer improvement project, and
authorizes advertisement for bids.
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
Connection to Vision / Mission: Improving the drainage is an environmental and financial sustainability
strategy.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS
FOR MURRAY HILL ROAD STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS
, the Director of Public Works has identified drainage problem areas within the
City that need improvement; and
WHEREAS
, WSB has prepared Plans, Specifications and an Estimate for a project within
the City of Shorewood for the Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvements.
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
June 22, 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.
rd
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23 day
of May, 2011.
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvements
City Project No. 10 - 11
City of Shorewood, 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 22nd day of June,
Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331,
2011
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 of all labor and materials for the
construction complete in place of the following;
1550 SY REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE
1335 CY COMMON EXCAVATION
1335 CY GRANULAR BORROW (CV)
170 TON TYPE MV NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B)
170 TON TYPE MV WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B)
645 LF STORM SEWER PIPE AND APPURTENANCES
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
No Bids will be considered unless sealed and endorsed upon the outside wrapper, “
MURRAY HILL ROAD STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
“ 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: May 24th, 2011 BY: ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Brian Heck, City Administrator
stth
PUBLISHED IN: The “Finance-Commerce” June 1 & June 8 ,2011
ndth
The “ Sun Sailor “ June 2 & June 9,2011
____________________________________________________________________
Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvements AFB
#3G
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accepting Bids for Mill and Overlay of Vine Hill Road
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Summary Bid Tabulation
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 advertisement for bid on 4/18/2011. The City of Shorewood
authorized the advertisement for bid on 4/25/2011. Bids were opened by the City of Minnetonka on
5/18/2011.
Midwest Asphalt is the low bidder at $180,250.55 total bid.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The 2011 budget has $133,000 earmarked for Vine Hill Road.
Options:
1.Accept the Bids for Mill & Overlay of Vine Hill Road, authorize staff to proceed with the joint
contract with the City of Minnetonka.
2.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends accepting the bids for the Mill & Overlay of Vine Hill Road and authorize staff to
proceed with the joint contract with Midwest Asphalt for the project.
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
#3H
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Adopt the 2011 S-6 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Attachments: Ordinance, Resolution
Background: On November 22, 2004, Council adopted Ordinance No. 409, which approved the
Municipal Code Book recodification provided by American Legal Publishing and the League of Minnesota
Cities. With this recodification, the Code Book was current through Ordinance No. 401 passed on
February 23, 2004. Five supplements have been completed since the initial recodification. These five
supplements included Ordinance No’s 402-464.
The sixth supplement (S-6) to the City Code Book includes Ordinance No.’s 465–473. American Legal
Publishing has provided 40 copies of the replacement pages to the City Code Book for this sixth
supplement (S-6). The attached Exhibit A provides an outline of the sections/pages of the Code Book
that have been updated.
The total cost for 61 pages of S-6 was $1,168. The cost for the on-line searchable Folio format was $203,
for a total of $1,371. One additional charge of approximately $210 will be due in October – this is the
annual fee to host the Code Book on American Legal’s website. The total of these three charges,
$1,581 is under the budget allotment of $1,700.
The attached Ordinance accepts the replacement pages, which includes Ordinance No’s 465-473
approved during 2010 for the City Code Book.
The Code Book is available on the City’s Web site in a searchable format, via a link to American Legal
Publishing Corporation.
Financial or Budget Considerations: $1,700 is allocated in the General Government/City Clerk budget
for this expense.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Adoption of an Ordinance to enact and adopt the 2011 S-6
Supplement to the Shorewood City Code Book, provided by American Legal Publishing Corporation; and
Adoption of a Resolution approving a summary publication of said Ordinance.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will update all of the city code books with the new pages.
Connection to Vision / Mission: providing 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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. 476
AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE 2011 S-6 SUPPLEMENT TO THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA
WHEREAS
American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, has completed the fifth
Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood, which supplement
contains all ordinances up through and including Ordinance No. 473 of a general and
permanent nature enacted since the prior supplement of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Shorewood; and
WHEREAS
, it is the intent of the City of Shorewood to accept these updated sections, as
outlined in the attached Exhibit A;
NOW THEREFORE
the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, ordains:
Section 1.
That the sixth supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood as
submitted by American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, is hereby
accepted.
Section 2.
This ordinance adopting the 2011 S-6 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances shall
take effect upon publication in the City's official newspaper.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 23rd day of
May, 2011.
__________________________
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 476
The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. 476 approved by the City Council
of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, on May 23, 2011:
An Ordinance Enacting and Adopting the 2011 S-6 Supplement to the Code of
Ordinances for the City of Shorewood, Minnesota which contains Ordinance No.’s 465-
473, approved since the 2010 S-5 Supplement.
A printed copy of the Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the Office of the
City Clerk.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 23rd day of
May, 2011.
______________________________
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#3I
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Appointment of Temporary Seasonal Employee
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011
Prepared by: Larry Brown
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration:
Hiring of temporary seasonal staff to meet maintenance needs.
Background:
Traditionally, the City hires two temporary seasonal employees annually. One to assist the park
maintenance crew in mowing, weed whipping and routine grounds maintenance, with the
second position to assist the roadway patching crew. This year is no exception.
This action is consideration to make the appointment to temporary seasonal position for the
park maintenance crew.
Applications for this position have been reviewed. Mr. Ian Gloude is the recommended
candidate for the position.
Therefore, staff is recommending that Mr. Gloude be appointed to the position of Temporary
Seasonal Worker for the Department of Public Works. This temporary position will expire at
the end of the business day on September 20, 2011.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
This appointment was budgeted as part of the approved 2011 operating budget for Public
Works.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff is recommending that the temporary seasonal appointment be made.
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
SOUTHSHORE
COMMUNITY
CENTER
2010 Annual report on operations
01/01/2011
Southshore Community Center
Southshore Community Center
2010 ANNUAL REPORT ON OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND EVENTS
The City of Shorewood contracts with Community Recreation Resources to provide marketing, operational
oversight, and program development at the Center. 2010 represented the first full year of operation
and CRR worked hard to secure agreements with corporate clients, business
groups, and expanded class offerings. CRR also worked with the Arctic Fever
group to host the first Princess Tea Party sponsored by the Shorewood American
Legion.
The corporate business meetings bring in over 400 people to the Center during
the year. The Princess Tea Party hosted over 200 children and their adult
companion. Oktoberfest continues to expand with close to 300 visitors in 2010.
CRR continues to build relationships and forge new partnerships in and around
the South Lake are. Some partnerships include annual agreements with Business
Networking Group (BNI), Just for Kix dance, Cargill, General Mills, UPS,
Charthouse Catering, and commercial kitchen lease partners including Gracie’s
Pantry, Zo’s Gone Bananas, and Beyond the Grain bakers. CRR has also
renewed or brought back lessees Gene German – Permit to Carry, Emmaus Church, and Lucille Crow
counseling. Through ongoing referrals, word of mouth, programming, events, and community outreach,
new faces from the public discover the Community Center on a daily basis.
While the key objective continues to be to build upon a growing rental
base, CRR has gone to great lengths to bring more attention to the Center,
bringing the community to the Center by developing classes and events that
encourage recreation and gathering opportunities for residents. In addition
to the popular cooking classes with Chef Connie Blanchard, the Center has
played host to piano recitals, youth cooking classes, Abrakadoodle art
camps, yoga, painting classes, a Graduation Party Planning Open House,
Community-Wide Garage Sale, Spring
Fashion Show with local merchant
partners, chess camp, Pampered Princess
Boutique, Oktoberfest and holiday
parties. The Center also provides a service to the greater community
offering space for ‘One Book One Community’ library events,
watershed public forums, mayor and council meetings, historical society
presentations, school district luncheons, VFW meetings, flu shots, election
training and elections.
1
Page
Southshore Community Center
Usage information for the extracurricular events was not collected in 2010, nor were guest names and
numbers from outside rentals recorded. If these numbers were reflected in the overall usage information,
the number of different individuals visiting the Southshore Community Center during the course of 2010
would easily have doubled. CRR observed that each and every day, a new individual discovered the
SSCC for the first time!
In all, non-senior related activities brought several hundred new visitors to the Center. These visits have
the potential to generate additional business for the Center over time.
SENIOR USAGE
The South Lake area seniors make up the bulk of general daily usage. Under the oversight of the
SouthShore Senior Partners (SSSP), seniors are offered several recreational and social activities such as
cards, mahjong, special programs, exercise classes, and twice-weekly lunch. All of these activities have
proven popular, as have the AAA Driving program and the various Veteran’s programs offered.
Based on the guest register of daily Center events, 751 individuals visited the Center on a regular basis
during the year. Please note that this does not include corporate events, special events hosted by the
Center such as Oktoberfest, or private parties.
This number is consistent with 2009. In 2009, approximately 57% of the visitors resided in one of the five
member communities and this remained the case in 2010.
The table below shows visitor numbers recorded from the five member cities.
City Visitors 2009 Visitors 2010
Deephaven 61 = 7.63% 39 = 5.2%
Excelsior 174 = 21.78% 144 = 19.2%
Greenwood 18 = 2.25% 5 = .7%
Shorewood 176 = 22.03% 196 = 26%
Tonka Bay 27 = 3.38% 37 = 4.9%
The balance of the visits, a total of 330, came from other cities. The bulk of these other visits are residents
from the cities of Chanhassen, Minnetonka, and Mound.. The main activity associated with visitors from the
other communities appears to be card playing.
2
Page
Southshore Community Center
FINANCIALS
Revenue
A key objective for the Shorewood City Council is moving the Community Center toward a break-even
status. Based on historical information, achieving a break-even situation will be an ongoing challenge for
the City.
The revenue generated in 2010 exceeded the projections established by the City of Shorewood for
2010. The Center generated $62,370 in total revenue. This does not include over $8,000 in donations
for a monument sign to replace the existing sign along County Road 19. The graph below shows the
revenue for the Center in 2009 compared to 2010. Note that we do not have accurate data for January
1 through June 30, 2009.
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
20092010
Expenditures
The City did not undertake any major improvements to the Center in 2010. Thanks to the SouthShore
Senior Partners (SSSP), the Center has a new sound system. The SSSP received a donation from the
Excelsior Rotary to purchase and install the new system.
The cost to operate and maintain the Center in 2010 was $94,355. The City of Shorewood provided
$16,874 in staff support to the Center. This is “in-kind” support and focused on the Center’s website and
marketing. Removing the in-kind contribution, the actual outlay for Center operations was $77,481. The
three largest expenditure categories were contractual services, building maintenance and utilities. These
account for over 78% of the total operating costs.
3
Page
Southshore Community Center
The final subsidy needed by the City of Shorewood in 2010 for general operational costs was just over
$15,000. This was a bit higher than our projected subsidy for 2010. The City’s expenditure estimate was
based on limited information for past years activities and only six (6) months of actual expenditures in
2009.
LOOKING AHEAD
The City of Shorewood and our contracted partner are poised and ready to continue working to improve
the Community Center. New directional signs will be installed in the spring of 2011. New and expanded
programming, events, and classes will be offered based on our experiences in 2010. The City of
Shorewood maintains its goal to operate the Center so it achieves a break-even status, while at the same
time, maintaining the Center as a community resource for seniors and member communities.
Below are the projections for 2010, 2011, and 2012.
2010 Estimated 2010 Actual 2011Estemate 2012 Estimate
Revenue $44,930 $62,370 $67,000 $70,000
Expenditures $58,356 $77,481 $75,000 $75,000
Subsidy needed $13,426 $15,111 $8,000 $5,000
The City of Shorewood maintains optimism about the future prospects of the Southshore Community
Center. We feel the revenue forecast will remain favorable. We are also confident we can achieve cost
savings at the Center and lower the operational costs so the Center can continue to be a valuable asset
to all the member communities and their residents.
4
Page
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
PARK TOUR & COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
PARK TOUR
The Commission met at City Hall at approximately 5:45pm and walked over to Badger Park.
BADGER PARK:
Anderson showed the Commission the condition of the exterior and interior of the warming house
reviewing the work needed to rehab the facility. Brown and Anderson suggested the Commission
make observations to help them determine the best route to pursue for this space, be it either,
replacing boards, painting the exterior or interior, pulling off the lean-to shed, renovate the entire
building similar to Manor Park or do nothing.
FREEMAN PARK:
Anderson pointed out that new park sign bases indicating that the cabinets were due to be
installed in the coming weeks.
The Commission suggested the pin locations be marked to delineate the pitching rubber distances
at the softball fields.
The parking lot was tremendously rutted due to the incessant rain.
As the Commission walked the trail near the wetland stormwater retention area, Brown explained
how the runoff and stormwater issues are handled thru this ‘feature’. In poor condition, Brown
noted that the City had WSB lay out a wetland enhancement project a handful of years ago to
improve water quality. Anderson and Brown suggested the Commission consider packaging a
wetland restoration, buckthorn removal, and parking lot project together and presenting it to the
watershed district to consider a partnership.
Kjolhaug asked whether the watershed had approached the City about problems in the area and
suggested that the watershed might be interested in seeing a proposal to decide whether they
might wish to get involved in a project.
Hotvet reminded the Commission that the watershed director had come to present to the Council
and seemed very interested in some real partnerships.
Anderson showed the commission what replacement slides and additions would be proposed on
the later agenda for the south end tot lot.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 2 OF 7
CATHCART PARK:
Anderson showed the proposed swing set replacement site and space for consideration by the
Commission on its later Agenda. The Commissioners liked the location as proposed near the tot
lot and paved trail leading to the play area.
CRESCENT BEACH:
Brown explained the shared use and maintenance of Crescent Beach to the Commissioners.
1.CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
The Commission adjourned its park tour to its regular meeting at 7:38pm.
A.Roll Call
Present:Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Robb, Swaggert, Kjolhaug, and Hartmann;
City Council liaison Hotvet; Park Coordinator Anderson; Public Works
Director; and City Council member Saikel for the tour.
Absent: Commissioners Edmondson and Trent.
B.Review Agenda
Swaggert moved, Robb seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2011
Robb moved, Hartmann seconded, approving the Minutes of April 12, 2011, as presented.
Motion passed 5/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
4. REVIEW/DISCUSS PARK TOURS
The Commission identified several items within each park for consideration.
Badger Park: Will be discussed as an action item on the agenda.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 3 OF 7
Freeman Park: As mentioned, mark the pitching rubbers with bristles for the distances.
The Commission encouraged staff to pursue grants with the watershed to
improve the wetland area and invite the watershed representative to come speak
with the Commission about potential partnerships. Brown indicated that staff
could arrive at a conceptual plan for the parking lot and water quality area by
breaking the previous WSB project into stages, though some of the technical
work would have to be contracted.
Cathcart Park: As parking continues to be an issue, the commission asked staff to make contact
with the City of Chanhassen to ask them to remove the ‘no parking’ signs on the
street provided it does not interfere with emergency access.
Crescent Beach: The Commission agreed this was a nice asset and liked the kayaking based from
the site as part of Friday programming.
Chair Quinlan suggested the Commission consider adding a second meeting in June to tour parks
in other cities.
Swaggert stated that he would want to make those park visits very intentional to see specific
features.
Anderson indicated that she would identify a handful of parks which feature Frisbee golf, ‘exercise
pieces’, hard surfaced rinks, and other interesting features and bring those suggestions back to the
next meeting for feedback prior to the tour. Once chosen, staff could contact those communities
and invite their park reps or staff to meet us on site.
5. REVIEW BADGER PARK REHAB
Anderson reviewed the rehab options and estimates for the Commission and encouraged them to
make one of four recommendations to direct staff as to how they’d like to proceed – choose from
the list of rehab items, paint and patch the exterior, direct staff to pursue grants and partners, or
do nothing.
Chair Quinlan asked whether the Commission wanted more from this facility than what is
currently offered. In contrast to what ‘must’ be done as to what the Commission might envision
for this park.
Hartmann suggested staff contact the user groups that call Badger Park home to ask what they’d
like from the facility.
Anderson noted that football, lacrosse, and the community center make use of the park. She
indicated that other picnic shelters are rented much of the summer.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 4 OF 7
Robb noted that it wasn’t such a bad structure and questioned why it couldn’t be refurbished as it
is serving its purpose now.
Anderson reiterated that, similar to Manor Park, the Commission could consider a rehab project
which would provide for a shelter, accessible bathrooms set on a timer, and rehab the facility as
well as improve other spaces within the park.
Kjolhaug stated he was not sure how much added use there would be of the facility, though
outdoor accessible bathrooms would be a good feature.
Robb maintained that Badger Park is not a family park and does not have need for a shelter.
Anderson pointed out that many people use the playground, especially when sports are scheduled
and the Community Center is locked. She reminded the Commission that it was once one of their
goals to place a shelter at each of their parks.
Chair Quinlan stated it would be nice to have a covered shelter and a place for bathrooms. He
suggested the Commission consider a remodel.
Brown interjected that, obviously, the Commission was struggling with whether to invest in the
rehab or not. He suggested the Commission allow staff time to contact the organizations to
determine whether they wish to invest in or partner in a modified use.
Anderson stated that, in fact, they may wish to add items we haven’t even thought of, such as a
concessions operation. Anderson stated that she would contact the user groups and ask to meet
or discuss the park further.
6. REVIEW CATHCART PARK SWING SET REPLACEMENT
ESTIMATES AND MAKE RECOMMENDAITON TO CITY COUNCIL
Anderson explained that the replacement swing set had been discussed for several years, though
the CIP allocated $7500 for the new swing set in 2011. Anderson pointed out that, while the
equipment meets the proposed budget, she was directed to obtain bids for the entire purchase,
installation, and execution of the project at Cathcart Park by the outside contractors. In an effort
to alleviate some of the pressure placed upon Public Works staff, the manufacturers provided
estimates that included all but some minor excavation prep work at the site. Going forward,
Anderson acknowledged that these additional costs may have a significant impact on what was
originally allocated in the CIP budget. As presented, the two estimates include two-bay swings
sets with belt, tot, and accessible swings, as well as, a separate tire swing bay, curbing, wood fiber
fill, and installation.
Anderson suggested the Commission recommend to the City Council that the award be given to
Midwest Playscapes in the amount of $12,702.49.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 5 OF 7
Chair Quinlan asked how building these unexpected costs into the park CIP would impact our
budgets and whether parks had been singled out as a department.
Brown stated that due to public mandates, stormwater and roadway issues, public works staff
cannot accomplish all of these tasks at the same time. At a staff head level it was decided that
public works must focus its attention on patching roads, which is a huge issue and eats up a great
deal of time, and that it can’t work on parks as a priority.
Robb asked what the net impact was whether the Commission has public works staff do the work
or we contract it out.
Brown stated that he had not reviewed the costs. He maintained that although the City Council
did not mandate this, the department heads did. He stated that the Commission could still make a
recommendation to the City Council directing public works to assist with the install.
Robb maintained that, either way, the work must be done. This swing set has been on the long
term plan for many years and is a safety hazard.
Robb moved, Hartmann seconded, to recommend to the City Council that they award the
swing set installation to Midwest Playscapes in the amount of $12,702.49 and take into
account whether directing public works staff to assist in some way in an effort to bring the
price down is valuable. Motion passed 5/0.
7. REVIEW FREEMAN PARK ESTIMATE FOR REPLACEMENT/ADDITION OF
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR SOUTH PLAYGROUND AND MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Anderson reviewed the proposed project for three replacement slides and an additional ‘whirl’ tot
piece with timber surround previously considered by the Commission last year but due to
budgetary restraints had been delayed. Anderson pointed out that she contacted public works to
determine whether this was a project they would be able to tackle or whether staff should recruit
volunteers to perform the install. Public Works Director Brown stated that he felt his staff would
prefer to perform the install rather than direct volunteers on such a small project.
Swaggert asked whether public works would be able to perform the install.
Brown indicated that his staff would fit it in somewhere.
Swaggert moved, Kjolhaug seconded, recommending that City Council accept the quote by
Mn/Wi Playgrounds in the amount of $14,905.36 for the three replacement slides and
whirl, acknowledging that public works staff will complete the prep work and installation.
Motion passed 5/0.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 6 OF 7
8. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES
A.City Council
Hotvet reported that an Eagle Scout project was shared with the council last night.
Anderson expanded on the explanation, stating that staff, including her, Joe Pazandak, and Brian
Heck, had been talking with a potential eagle scout about a project at the Southshore Community
Center. He proposed an ambitious project including steps with railings that lead to the small
bridge over the creek, reinforcing some of the bridge posts, and completing a trail with benches in
a loop around the wooded area.
Hotvet indicated that the Council gave him permission to proceed but encouraged him to find
funding sources for the proposed $3200 project, such as the rotary, chamber, SSSP, and others to
assist with the funding. The Council also discussed allocating any contribution to the project from
the Park budget since this is park land.
Robb pointed out that, as part of its long term plan, the Park Commission designated a trail
around Badger Park with benches and a small bridge for seniors and others to enjoy. Robb stated
that he found this to be in line with those plans.
B.Park Commission
Anderson reminded the Commission about the Step to It Challenge program and encouraged
them to participate. She distributed incentives from Hennepin County to those who joined.
C.Staff
th
The Joint Park Commission Meeting with other Cities is slated for May 17 and 7pm at the
Southshore Community Center.
D.Trails Committee
Chair Quinlan reported that the trail committee met last week to prioritize trail segments within
the City based on criteria, proximity to schools, residential buy-in, and what could feasibly be
accomplished within 3-5 years. The highest priority went to County Road 19 to the trail,
Smithtown Road from Victoria to Minnewashta School, Galpin Road to County Road 7, and
Strawberry Lane to the school.
E.Work Program
F.CIP Updated
G.Quarterly Expenditure Report – No capital expenditures in budget as of
yet.
H.Grant Update
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 7 OF 7
Anderson shared the few outstanding grant applications.
10. ADJOURN
Robb moved, Swaggert seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of May 10,
2011 at 9:18 p.m. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kristi B. Anderson
Recorder
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 3 MAY 2011
MINUTES
Acting Chair Hutchins called the meeting to order at 7:55 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
8:00 P.M.
Present: Acting Chair Hutchins, Commissioners Davis, Hasek, Charbonnet, Garelick; Planning
Director Nielsen; City Administrator Heck; Council Liaison Siakel
Absent: Chair Geng, Commissioner Arnst
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Agenda of May 3, 2011 as
presented. Motion passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April
5, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 510.
1. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. AMENDMENT TO REDUCE AGE
RESTRICTION IN SHOREWOOD POND P.U.D.
Applicant: Shorewood Pond Homeowner's Association
Location: State Highway 7 and Eureka Road
Planning Director Nielsen indicated that certain notification requirements had not been met for
tonight's meeting, and suggested opening the public hearing tonight and continuing it to the next
meeting on May 17, 2011. He noted that notification requirements have been sent to properties
within 500 feet of the subject property for the May 17 meeting.
As a party of interest, Commissioner Garelick indicated he would recuse himself from discussion.
Hutchins opened the public testimony portion of the public hearing at 8:02 P.M.
Speaking as a Shorewood resident, Garelick stated that a survey of the residents in the Shorewood
Pond development had been conducted, and two out of 60 people objected to lowering the age
restriction in the development to age 55. The consensus of those in favor of lowering the age is that
it would help to increase the value of the properties and bring younger seniors into the community.
Davis moved, Hasek seconded to continue the Public Hearing for the C.U.P. Amendment to
Reduce the Age Restriction in Shorewood Pond P.U.D to the May 17, 2011, Planning
Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3 May 2011
Page 2 of 4
1 Y� IZ9 . V. 110W �
Director Nielsen indicated that due to a neighborhood complaint, Mr. Bill Mason was sent a zoning
violation notice for too many docks at his property at 27680 Island View Road. Mr. Mason appealed
the zoning violation notice to the City Council, stating that one of the three structures in question
was not a dock, but a deck. If the city considers it a deck, Mr. Mason would like the city to consider
the possibility of allowing certain properties to have more than one dock. The current ordinance
allows for one dock per property. It was suggested that Mr. Mason combine his two docks into one,
but he doesn't believe there is room to do that. The City Council directed Mr. Mason's appeal to the
Planning Commission. Nielsen indicated the Planning Commission is to look at the definition of a
dock vs. deck. Nielsen indicated that Mr. Mason is here this evening.
Mr. Mason distributed a copy of a property survey. He stated that when he bought the property in
1994, the area in black on the survey was a retaining wall made of 10' x 10' treated timbers. He
noted the broken line on the survey is a retaining wall under the structure. There are underpinnings
under the structure to secure it, and the rest of the retaining wall is secured by cement weights. He
indicated that his neighbor thought the structure had been made in the 1960s. The Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District (LMCD) has photos of the structure going back to the 1970s. He stated a dock
should have dock posts, and this structure does not have posts. It's low to the water, and he doesn't
park his boat there.
Mr. Mason indicated he has over 600 ft of lakeshore, and he would like the City to consider an
application process to allow for more than one dock. He stated the deck is not desirable to use as a
dock, as it is not accessible. He previously had contacted Fire Chief Scott Gerber to offer the use of
his dock for the fire rescue boat, but that is on hold until this issue is resolved, as he may need to use
part of that dock to reconfigure his boat houses. He noted the deck serves as a retaining wall for
erosion control. He stated that a redwood board broke thru so he put down a mat, filled it with rock
for more erosion control underneath the structure, and put new deck boards on it.
Commissioner Davis asked if the deck has a railing. She asked what the lines were along the front.
Mr. Mason indicated there are no railings and that there are posts along back holding it to the
shoreline. He installed five vertical posts a foot back from the edge of the dock for aesthetics.
In response to a question by Davis, Mr. Mason indicated the water is 12' deep where it is dredged in
the center.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission is charged with discussing the definition of a deck
and dock, and based on that, to determine how many docks are on the property.
Nielsen indicated the issue is to determine if any changes need to be made to ordinance to make the
definitions more clear, and if the city should allow properties to have more than one dock.
In response to a question from Hasek, Nielsen stated the LMCD has accepted this structure based on
photos from the 1970s, and the City has also grandfathered in this structure based on the photos. The
City Code that limits one dock per property is a mid -1980s code.
Hasek read the definition of deck and dock. He indicated he does not see anything confusing about
the definitions; they are very clear to him. He stated that by definition, Mr. Mason's structure is a
dock.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3 May 2011
Page 3 of 4
In response to a question about the rubber banding around the structure, Mr. Mason indicated that
when fishermen come in that area, they run their boats into the deck, so he put rubber banding across
the structure to protect it. He indicated the size of the structure is exactly the same as it had
previously been.
In response to a question by Councilmember Siakel, Mr. Mason noted that on the backside, if you
pull the boards off, there are posts going down that are holding up that section. There are posts that
hold down the front of the deck.
In response to a question from Siakel, Nielsen clarified that the City Code allows for one dock for
each property, and LMCD allows one dock for every 50' of shoreline. The more restrictive code
applies.
Hasek commented that the materials indicated there are more of these structures, and wondered if
any were located in Shorewood. No further information was available on the location of similar
structures.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, that the definition of a deck and a dock are clear and given that
definition, two docks exist on the property at 27680 Island View Road. Motion carried 5/0.
Hasek indicated that if the City Council would like the Planning Commission to take a closer look at
what exists around the lake, they should request the Commission do this.
Nielsen stated that Mr. Mason would need to make an application for a zoning text amendment if he
wants to pursue changing the definitions of deck and dock.
Mr. Mason was concerned about the June 1 deadline to resolve this issue; it was noted that the City
Council would need to consider changing the June 1 deadline. He indicated he would like to make
application for more than one dock, noting it may be time for the City of Shorewood to consider
changing its ordinance, based on the current times in which families have more than one boat and
other watercraft such as jet boats.
This issue will be brought to the May 23, 2011, City Council meeting.
Hutchins thanked Mr. Mason for attending the meeting this evening.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
4. OLD BUSINESS
None.
5. NEW BUSINESS
None.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3 May 2011
Page 4 of 4
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Nielsen indicated the May 17 meeting agenda will include the continuation of the Shorewood Pond
public hearing, a resolution relating to the Green Steps Cities Program, the deer feeding item and
discussion of a survey question on deer feeding, and Smithtown Crossing follow -up discussion.
7. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Hasek reported on items considered and actions taken at the City Council meeting of April 25, as
detailed in the minutes of that meeting.
M.y Wean
No report.
Trail Committee
Nielsen provided the Trail Committee report after the Approval of the Minutes. He reported that the
Trail Committee met on May 2 and they identified four areas of priority, the top priority being the
link of County Road 19 connecting to the LRT. He indicated the meeting went very well. They will
meet next month in June. He stated there is grant money available in 2014 for the trail overpass. He
noted that Three Rivers Park District does not have design money available this year, but will begin
discussions with neighboring communities in 2012.
In response to Garelick's question, Nielsen indicated that the Trial Committee is charged with
reviewing the trail plan that is outlined in the comprehensive plan, and to identify updates to the trail
plan, to include prioritizing the trails. Council would then consider the Trail Committee's
recommendations for inclusion in the CIP. The Trail Committee is primarily responsible for local
trails, but will have input on the County Road 19 trail.
Commissioner Hasek indicated the goal is to make it a plan, and not just a concept.
S. ADJOURNMENT
Davis moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 3 at 8:57
p.m. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Jean Panchyshyn, Recorder
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 17 MAY 2011
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners, Davis, Arnst, Hasek, Charbormet, and Garelick; Planning Director
Nielsen; Council Liaison Siakel.
Absent: Commissioner Hutchins.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Agenda of May 17, 2011 as
presented. Motion passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
0 May 3, 2011
Davis moved, Garelick seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2011
as presented. Motion passed 4/0/2 (Arnst and Geng abstained).
EXCERPT-
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. AMENDMENT TO REDUCE AGE RESTRICTION
IN SHOREWOOD PONDS P.U.D. (Continued from May 3, 2011)
Chair Geng explained the public hearing process for the benefit of members of the audience.
Commissioner Garelick stated that he will recuse himself from Planning Commission voting on this matter,
and would speak as a resident of Shorewood Ponds P.U.D.
Chair Geng opened the public hearing at 7:08 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated that the Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. was approved in 1999 based on the provisions of
the Federal Fair Housing Act which allows discrimination in housing based on age. At that time, the age
restriction was 62 years, unless the project provided significant facilities and services exclusive to the elderly,
in which case the restriction could be lowered to 55 years. He said there was no specific definition of
"services and facilities" other than the suggestion of transportation, health services, communal dining, etc.
The law was vague enough that the one other senior development in Shorewood, The Seasons, was able to
qualify for an age reduction to 55 years just by creating a directory of resources for seniors.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
17 May 2011
Page 2 of 2
Nielsen stated that since Shorewood adopted its rules for elderly housing the federal law has changed, no
longer requiring a project to provide services for seniors in order to reduce the age restriction. The law now
requires that housing projects publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to
qualify for the exemption. Shorewood Ponds has a legally recorded declaration of covenants which the City
is a signatory to. The declaration sets forth the age restriction requirements for occupancy, which is
essentially their guidebook. The applicants' are requesting that the declaration be amended by reducing the
stated age restriction for occupancy from 62 to 55 years of age.
Jerome Smith, 25630 Park Lane, said he is a 10 -year resident of Shorewood Ponds, and currently the
Treasurer for the Homeowner's Association. He said this idea was brought up about a year ago based on the
idea that it would help the marketability of homes within the development, and that it would bring in new
blood with fresh thoughts and ideas. He said there was some initial concern that they would end up with
families who still had children living with them, but that has since been considered unlikely. In response to a
question from Commissioner Hasek, Mr. Smith said Association voting includes one vote per unit.
Lynn Baier, 6035 Pond View Dr., stated she thinks the request is premature. She said the Association Board
doesn't have written consent of the owners within the development and asked that the Commission take no
action until the Board can produce written proof of written consent.
Larry Baier, 6035 Pond View Dr., said he has been a resident of Shorewood Ponds for 11 years, and what is
being addressed is a breach of trust. They moved into the development to be among people with similar
values and interests and this will open the door to ........................
Gary Donahue, 6065 Pond View Dr., stated that there are 57 written consents to the request, out of the 62
units in Shorewood Ponds. He said they will provide a copy to the Baiers.
Michael Garelick, 6060 Pond View Dr., said that a viable community needs a mixture of people. The average
age in Shorewood Ponds is 80 years old. Fifty- percent of the home on the real estate market right now are in
foreclosure. And there has been a forty- percent drop in values since the real estate bubble has broken.
Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Arnst moved, Charbonnet seconded, to recommend that staff draft a resolution approving an
amendment to the Shorewood Ponds conditional use permit.
Commissioner Hasek suggested that the motion specify that approval of the request is based on the
provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act, and not for the sake of real estate marketability.
Commissioner Arnst accepted Hasek's proposed addition to the motion, Charbonnet agreed to second
the amendment of the motion.
Motion passed 51011 (Garelick abstained).
#sA
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Shorewood Ponds - Amendment to C.U.P. to Allow Reduction to Age Restriction
Meeting Date: 23 May 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: I — Planning Director's Memorandum
II — Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City allow the age restriction for the Shorewood Ponds senior
housing project to be reduced to comply with revised federal law?
Background: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 17 May to consider a request by the
Shorewood Ponds Association to lower the age restriction for the project from 62 to 55 years of age.
Details of the request are contained in Attachment I. The Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of an amendment to the original conditional use permit, lowering the age. The
Commission made it clear that the recommendation was based on making the C.U.P. consistent with the
change in the Federal Fair Housing Act and not based on changing market conditions for home sales.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None.
Options: Approve the amendment as presented; modify the amendment; or deny the request
altogether.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. A
resolution to that effect is attached for your consideration. The resolution also authorizes the Mayor
and Administrator to execute the amended declaration of covenants.
Next Steps and Timelines: If approved on Monday, then the Association must obtain the required
number of member votes (they already have written petitions) to amend the declaration. They are
working on this as this is being written.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Provide 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
C�1Ci]:i0►i��A7�
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
11 May 2011
Shorewood Ponds — C.U.P. Amendment: Request to Lower Age
Restrictions
405(11.03)
In June of 1999, the City approved a development called Shorewood Ponds (see Site
Location map — Exhibit A, attached), an elderly housing project, subject to Section
1201.03 Subd. 20 of the Zoning Code. Shorewood's regulations relative to elderly
housing were based on the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which is a law that
allows discrimination in housing for seniors. Elderly housing is defined in our code as:
"A dwelling or group of dwellings where the occupancy is restricted to persons 62
years of age or older, or which qualifies as housing for older persons under the
Federal Fair Housing Act."
At the time our code was written and Shorewood Ponds was approved, the age restriction
was 62, unless the project provided the housing have significant facilities and services
exclusive to the elderly, in which case the restriction could be lowered to 55 years. The
law was somewhat vague with respect to these "services ", but it was accompanied by a
menu suggesting the type of services that were intended — transportation, health services,
communal dining, etc. Since the Shorewood Ponds project was proposing none of these,
the restriction imposed was /is 62 years or older.
Residents of Shorewood Ponds have requested that the age restriction be lowered to 55
(see Request Letter — Exhibit B). The primary justifications for their request are to make
-1-
Irs Attachment #I
r PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Ponds — C.U.P. Amendment
11 May 2011
the properties more marketable to a broader range of people and to get some "newer
blood" into the neighborhood. Their request involves an amendment to their current
conditional use permit that would allow them to amend the declaration of protective
covenants (see Exhibit C) for the property to lower the age restriction to 55.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Since Shorewood adopted its rules for elderly housing, the federal law has changed. No
longer is a project required to provide service for facilities exclusive to seniors in order to
drop the age restriction to 55. Rather, the law now requires that the housing projects or
communities publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to
qualify for the exemption. In the case of Shorewood Ponds, there is a legally recorded
declaration of covenants that sets forth the age restriction requirement for the properties.
The applicants' request includes an amendment to the declaration, which also requires
City approval.
While the applicants' desire to increase the marketability of their units is understandable,
it is not, in itself, justification to relax the City development regulations. Following that
logic would suggest that eliminating the restriction altogether (which they are not asking)
would be even better. There is, however, justification for approving the amendment to
the original conditional use permit, in that it responds to the change in federal law. It is
worth noting that the original provision relative to significant facilities and services
exclusive to older people was extremely weak and difficult to administer /enforce. For
example, the Seasons development on the east end of Shorewood, simply put together a
notebook listing resources for seniors, making them eligible for the exemption.
One of the parts of the new law, which is already required in our Code, is an annual
census of residents, verifying that age requirements have been met. The Shorewood
Ponds board has been extremely diligent in following that requirement over the years.
Staff recommends that a resolution be adopted, lowering the age restriction for
Shorewood Ponds to 55. For their part, the applicants should have their attorney draft an
amendment to the current declaration of covenants, making sure that the City remains a
signatory thereto. The applicants also have to obtain consent of enough of their own
owners to amend their own declaration. They have indicated overwhelming support in
this regard.
Cc: Brian Heck
Tim Keane
Jerome D. Smith
-2-
L � cu
-O a
p
L N
N
C o L-
o
o
U
c6
Y
C
O
N
C
C
L
\eVJ i
•V
2
a
a �
a
a
p o J
a
a
a
a � O
P2j a Z e� jr E a
0 a
a �
a O =
a a c6 O a
J S
a (n� M I = O
IL Mo ea
to a
a LL
a a O
a a J J
� O
a W
zao �e
L
N
L
a
Q v
I
c a�
c�
J
0- a-
= N
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Shorewood Ponds
SHOREWOOD PONDS ASSOCIATION
Plans to change The Declaration, Section 7.3 Elderly Housing as follows:
Occupancy of the dwelling is limited to no more than two(2)
Adults fifty five (55)years of age or older.
When the association was begun the age limit was sixty two (62) years
or older. That was fine then. The majority of the occupants were mid
sixties to early seventies. Whenever a unit became empty there was a
waiting list. The economy was good and people were able to sell their
existing homes.
If the economy had remained good we probably wouldn't be asking for
this change As you know it changed drastically, particularly in the
housing market. Now when units become available there is no longer a
list. Some have remained empty for over one year. Many people who
would like to move are unable to sell their present homes.
With our population aging more units are becoming available more
rapidly. We feel by lowering the age limit we will increase the market
substantially and hope this will help to sell the empty units.
We are not doing this to change the character of the development. But
by lowering the age we hope to have some younger people moving in to
complement the ones already here. We need an ongoing addition of
younger people to keep the community strong, vibrant an asset to
Shorewood.
The traffic patterns and noise levels will not change because of this. The
rules and regulations that govern us will remain the same.
� t
Exhibit B
APPLICANTS' REQUEST
ltl;N'l'Kll;'1IOAS UN usl+ UY YK0YtX'1'Y
All Owners and Occupants, and all secured parties, by their acceptance or assertion of
an interest in the Property, or by their occupancy of a Unit, covenant and agree that, in addition
to any other restrictions which may be imposed by the Act or the Governing Documents, the
occupancy, use, operation, alienation and conveyance of the Property shall be subject to the
following restrictions:
7.1 General The Property shall be owned, conveyed, encumbered, leased, used and
occupied subject to the Governing Documents and the Act, as amended from time to
time. All covenants, restrictions and obligations set forth in the Governing Documents
are in furtherance of a plan for the Property, and shall run with the Property and be a
burden and benefit to all Owners and Occupants and to any other Person acquiring or
owning an interest in the Property, their heirs, personal representatives, successors and
assigns.
7.2 Subdivision Prohibited Except as permitted by the Act, no Unit nor any part of the
Common Elements may be subdivided or partitioned without the prior written approval
of all Owners and all secured parties holding first mortgages on the Units.
rly Housing Occupancy of a Dwelling is limited to no more than two (2) adults,
-two (62) years of age or older, except that the age limit need not apply to:
One (1) adult live -in care provider serving the needs of the primary
occupant(s). If such care provider resides in the Dwelling for more than thirty
(30) days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator for the City of
Shorewood.
The Declarant and /or the Association shall annually file with the City Clerk and
the Zoning Administrator for the City of Shorewood a certified copy of a
quarterly resume of occupants of each Dwelling listing the name and age of
each occupant.
15
Exhibit C
EXCERPT — SHOREWOOD PONDS
DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE
COVENANTS
1 : ._
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SHOREWOOD PONDS P.U.D.
WHEREAS, in June of 1999, the City of Shorewood approved a conditional use permit
for an elderly housing project named Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. (the Project), located north of
State Highway 7 and west of Eureka Road, on property legally described as:
"Shorewood Ponds, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota "; and
WHEREAS, the Project was approved as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.),
pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the City Code and subject to a Planned Unit
Development Agreement (the Agreement), dated 28 October 1999, which restricted the age of
occupants residing in the Project to 62 years of age or older; and
WHEREAS, the Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc. (the Applicant), has requested an
amendment to the Agreement, that would lower the age restriction to 55 years of age or older;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
11 May 2011, which memorandum is on file at City Hall, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 17 May 2011 to
consider the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting of 23 May 2011, at which time the City Planner's memorandum and draft minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting were reviewed, and comments were heard by the City Council
from the Applicant, City staff and members of the audience attending the meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Shorewood City Code and the Agreement for Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. were
approved pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA), which provided at the time
that elderly housing projects were restricted to residents 62 years of age or older. The age
restriction could be reduced to 55 years of age, if the project provided "significant
services and facilities, exclusive to the elderly ".
Attachment II
2. Subsequent to the approval of the Project, the FFHA was revised, eliminating the
requirement of "significant services and facilities, exclusive to the elderly ". The
reduction of age to 55 was allowed as long as the housing project "published and adhered
to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to qualify for the exemption ".
The Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. is subject to a Declaration of Shorewood Ponds
Association, Inc. (the Declaration), to which the City is a signatory, that is recorded
against all of the properties in the Project. The Declaration currently contains language
restricting the age of residents of the Project to 62 years or older. The Applicamlt's
attorney has prepared an amendment to the Declaration revising the age restriction to 55
years or older. The amendment to the Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The amendment to the Declaration of Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc. (Exhibit A)
satisfies the FFHA requirement to "publish and adhere to policies and procedures that
demonstrate its intent to qualify for the exemption ".
B. The Applicant's request for approval of an amendment to the Agreement reducing the age
restriction from 62 to 55 years of age or older in the Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. is hereby
approved, subject to the following:
1. The Applicant must record this Resolution and the amended Declaration (Exhibit
A) with the Hennepin County Recorder no later than 23 June 2011.
2. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the amended
Declaration (Exhibit A).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 23rd day of May 2011.
Christine Lizee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk
2
SHOREWOOD PONDS ASSOCIATION, INC.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION
This First Amendment to Declaration (the "Amendment ") is made effective this
day of , 2011, by Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., a non - profit
corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Association "), and approved
by the required percentage of the votes in the Association pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes chapter 515B and Section 19 of the Declaration (the "Declaration ") and the
approval of the City of Shorewood.
WHEREAS, the Declaration was filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
Hennepin County on November 10, 1999 as Document No. 7213567; and
WHEREAS, the Declaration provides for amendment of the Declaration by the
consent: (i) Owners of Units to which are allocated at least sixty -seven percent (67 %) of
the votes in the Association, (ii) the percentage of Eligible Mortgagees required by
Section 20 as to matters prescribed to said Section, (iii) the City of Shorewood, and (iv)
the consent of Declarant to certain amendments as provided in Section 17.7;
WHEREAS, there are no such Eligible Mortgagees; and
WHEREAS, the consent of the Declarant is not required pursuant to Section 17.7
of the Declaration as Declarant no longer owns any unsold Units within the Association;
WHEREAS, the Association desires to subject the real property described in the
attached Exhibit A (the "Property ") to this Amendment;
WHEREAS, the necessary percentage of votes of the members has approved
the Amendment to the Declaration as set forth in the attached Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Association makes this Amendment declaring that the
Declaration shall be amended as set forth herein, and that the covenants and
restrictions hereafter set forth shall be binding upon all persons having any right, title or
interest in the Property, including their heirs, personal representatives, grantees,
successors and assigns, effective as of the date of the filing of this Amendment.
1. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and is hereby incorporated by this
reference.
97
Exhibit A
2. Section 7, Paragraph 7.3 of the Declaration shall be amended, modified and
restated as follows:
7.3. Elderly Housing. Occupancy of a Dwelling is limited to no more
than two (2) adults, fifty -five (55) years of age or older, except that
the age limit need not apply to:
a. One (1) adult live -in care provider serving the needs of the
primary occupant(s). If such care provider resides in the
Dwelling for than thirty (30) days, notice must be given to the
Zoning Administrator for the City of Shorewood.
b. The Association shall annually file with the City Clerk and the
Zoning Administrator for the City of Shorewood a certified
copy of a quarterly resume of occupants of each Dwelling
listing the name and age of each occupant."
All other terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the Declaration and
any prior amendments thereto shall remain in full force and effect, except as otherwise
specifically amended or modified hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as President of Shorewood Ponds
Association, Inc., a Minnesota non - profit corporation, has executed this instrument
effective on the day and year first set forth above, on behalf of the Association.
SHOREWOOD PONDS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
M_
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2011, by , the President of Shorewood
Ponds Association, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation.
Notary Public
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as of the City of
Shorewood, has executed this instrument effective on the day and year first set forth
above, on behalf of the Association.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
la
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing
, 2011, by
of Shorewood.
Its:
instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, the of the City
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Sarah B. Bennett ( #389076)
Thomsen & Nybeck, P.A.
3600 American Blvd. W., Suite #400
Bloomington, MN 55431
Telephone: 952 - 835 -7000
3
SHOREWOOD PONDS ASSOCIATION, INC.
EXHIBIT A
TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 1 through 25, inclusive, Block 1; and Lots 1 through 39, inclusive, Block 2,
Shorewood Ponds, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
• u u • ► ► • u ►� ►IliAZIIIJih114=lc
SHOREWOOD PONDS ASSOCIATION, INC.
EXHIBIT B
TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION
AFFIDAVIT OF SECRETARY
The undersigned, Secretary of Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., a Minnesota
non- profit corporation, being first duly sworn on oath, hereby swears and certifies,
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Declaration, that this instrument has been
duly approved by the Association by a vote of sixty -seven (67 %) percent of the
membership votes in the Association either in person or by proxy, as defined in the
Declaration, in satisfaction of the requirements of the Declaration, and that there are no
Eligible Mortgagees of record with the Association.
Such approval and vote was obtained and conducted as of
, 2011 by mailed ballot and /or written consent and was
done in accordance with the Declaration and Bylaws.
Secretary
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2011, by , Secretary of
Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the
non - profit corporation.
Notary Public
CONSENT TO AND JOINDER IN FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION
The City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a municipality located in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, executed various agreements with and secured certain
covenants from the Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., and has a continuing
interest in the performance of those agreements and covenants, covering real
property legally described as follows:
Lots 1 through 25, inclusive, Block 1; and Lots 1 through 39,
inclusive, Block 2; Shorewood Ponds, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
hereby consents to the First Amendment to the Declaration of Shorewood Ponds
Association, Inc., a Minnesota non - profit corporation, Common Interest
Community Number 933, and hereby joins in and agrees that its interest in said
real property is subject to the provisions of said First Amendment to Declaration.
Dated: .2011 CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Its: Mayor
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Shorewood Entry Signs
Meeting Date: 23 May 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Sign Alternatives
Policy Consideration: What message does Shorewood wish to present on the identification signs
announcing entry into the city?
Background: The Council asked staff to lay up some alternatives for entry signs at strategic locations.
Two issues have been discussed: 1) whether or not to include population information on the signs; and
2)should the signs also address Shorewood's "South Lake" identity?
Financial or Budget Considerations: Signs have been budgeted for this year.
Options: Alternative messages are illustrated on the attached pages. The first offering simply
identifies Shorewood and the 2011 population. It is worth noting that the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices) recommends that community identity signage include the population number
from the most recent census. The second alternative includes the population and the words "...a South
Lake Community ". This was recommended in the 2003 Corridor Study for County Road 19 and discussed
in the strategic planning sessions held earlier this year. The third .... well, it's just another choice. It
might be appropriate for the easterly location on Highway 7, near Excelsior Covenant Church.... never
mind. The fourth alternative adds "Welcome to ". This starts to be too much and staff feels that the
welcome kinda goes without saying.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the second alternative.
Next Steps and Timelines: Agree with us and we will order the signs immediately. Allow several
weeks for delivery.
Connection to Vision / Mission: The signs let people know they are in Shorewood, which is
committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment.....
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#11B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: SouthShore Community Center Sign
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: To proceed with the purchase and installation of a new digital display sign for the
SouthShore Community Center in 2011.
Background: The city council considered the question of purchasing and installing a new digital type
monument sign for the SouthShore community Center at the February 28 meeting. The council decided
at that time to continue to seek funding from our partners and the community and place the item on
the 2012 capital improvement plan since the acquisition is not part of the 2011 program. The Council did
leave the door open for consideration of the project during 2011.
Since the February meeting, a letter was sent to the cities of Tonka Bay and Excelsior and the Mayor
visited with each council. The City of Excelsior pledged and issued a check for $4,000 toward the sign
and Tonka Bay has yet to act. In total, the partners have contributed $8,200 toward the project.
Financial or Budget Considerations: This item is not part of the 2011 capital program. The estimated
cost is $21,700. Cost to the City of Shorewood is approximately $12,000.
Options:
1)Proceed with planning and installation of a new digital monument sign for the SouthShore
Community center at the current location;
2)Proceed with planning and installation of a new digital monument sign for the SouthShore
Community center at an alternative location;
3)Keep the planning and installation for a new digital sign for 2012 budget;
4)Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: the recommendation of staff has not changed that being to
include the project in the 2012 budget.
Next Steps and Timelines: depending on action take by council, staff will prepare the 2012 budget to
reflect the project or begin the process of moving forward to get the sign purchased and installed at the
designated location.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services
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
#11C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: City Hall Monument Sign
Meeting Date: Monday, May 23, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen, City Planner
Attachments: Sample Monument Sign
Policy Consideration: to plan, purchase, and install a new monument sign for City Hall
Background: The council considered the purchase and installation of a new monument sign to match
the new look of City Hall in 2010. The council at the time decided not to move forward on this project.
New signage for City Hall, Southshore Center, and Badger Park was part of the overall city hall
remodeling project.
Brad Nielsen worked on a few designs and concepts with Kristi Anderson as part of the resigning of the
parks.
Financial or Budget Considerations: the estimated cost for a non-digital sign was about $15,000. Like
the Southshore Center sign, a city hall monument sign is not part of the 2011 budget.
Options:
1)Direct staff to work with vendors for a city hall sign;
2)Direct staff to include a monument sign as part of the 2012 budget;
3)Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: staff recommends similar action in this case as with the
SouthShore Center, to include the project in the 2012 budget.
Next Steps and Timelines: how staff proceeds will depend on the action take by Council. Staff will
either prepare the 2012 budget with the sign or begin working with contractors for the installation of
the sign.
Connection to Vision / Mission: 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
MEMORANDUM
Date:
May 19, 2011
To:
Mayor Lizee
Council Members
From:
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Re:
April, 2011 Monthly Budget Report
______________________________________________________________
The 2011 General Fund budget is a challenge to describe at this point. Revenues look higher
than last year on at 44% of non-property tax revenues, but that is primarily because we lowered
the budget base that we are measuring against. Actual revenues are about $7,000 lower than last
year at this point. Overall expenditures are at 32.4% which is higher than previous years at this
point.
REVENUES
License and permit revenues are up about $9,000 over last year. This may indicate an
increase in remodeling activity from the severely depressed levels of the past couple of
years, but Mr. Pazandak is not yet ready to proclaim that we will exceed budget for the
year.
Intergovernmental revenues are typical for this point with the first half of the MSA funds
in from the state.
Charges for services are running just under last year’s level, but are on track to make
budget.
Fines and forfeitures lag previous years, but it is hard to say the reason. They always are
at least a month behind in transmitting from the state, so we only have three months
revenue recorded through April.
Miscellaneous revenue is primarily interest earnings which continue to be extremely low
– especially given the negative economic news and outlook for the near future.
EXPENDITURES
Council – Personnel looks high based on payment of May wages on the April payroll.
Administration – slightly high on support and services because of the annual ICMA
membership dues of $805 paid in April
General Government – slightly over because more wages have been coded to this
department based on actual time spent – which should even out over the course of the
year.
Elections - over because annual equipment maintenance contract expenditures are one-
time expenses early in the year.
Finance - over because annual software maintenance contract expenditures are one-time
expenses early in the year.
Professional Services – higher than annual budget because the county assessing contract
is paid in two lump sums early in the year.
Municipal Buildings – high because the LMCIT liability insurance costs are paid early in
the year. Materials and supplies cover copier and Laserfiche software maintenance, but
some Warner Connect charges were miscoded and need to be reclassified as support and
services which will bring materials and supplies back below budget.
Police and Fire always look high early in the year because payments are made in advance
of the service in order to cash flow their operations.
Public Works - over because more wages have been coded to this department based on
actual time spent – which should even out over the course of the year as street operations
begin.
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.
Tree Maintenance – city crews tackled some significant tree maintenance in city rights of
way with a rented bucket truck during April.
Please contact me or Mr. Heck if you have any questions.
Attachment: April Monthly Budget Report
Monthly Budget Report
April 30, 2011
YTDYTD2011% of 2011ExpectedVariance
2010AprilAdoptedAnnual% of 2011(Negative)% of Budget Expended
Year to Date OverviewActual2011BudgetBudgetBudgetor Positive200820092010
REVENUE
Property Taxes - - 4,763,319 0.0%0.0%000
Licenses and Permits 44,269 53,392 98,200 54.4%36.3%4126.141.66
Intergovernmental 32,324 34,109 69,401 49.1%47.2%44.7147.2949.73
Charges for Service 24,438 23,324 35,075 66.5%52.3%57.7445.8853.13
Fines and Forfeitures 15,551 11,981 52,000 23.0%27.6%18.6735.7828.27
Miscellaneous 31,838 18,501 63,900 29.0%23.2%14.4330.1824.87
Transfers from other funds - - 40,000 0.0%0.0%000
TOTAL 148,420 141,307 5,121,895
2.8%$25,454.72
EXPENDITURES
Department
Council
Personnel 5,598 6,997 16,80041.6%32.4%30.1333.7233.33
Materials and Supplies 419 362 1,30027.8%87.0%81.84144.3234.95
Support and Services 11,648 17,114 102,43016.7%22.4%21.0620.925.21
Total 17,665 24,473 120,53020.3%$5,034.63
Administration
Personnel 47,434 45,897 142,82832.1%37.0%51.2527.6632.11
Materials and Supplies - - -0.0%6.6%019.90
Support and Services 694 2,378 4,76050.0%14.7%3.1424.1816.72
Capital Outlay 1,631 - -21.8%0065.25
Total 49,759 48,275 147,58832.7%$5,279.65
General Government
Personnel 66,303 77,241 226,38734.1%34.9%34.0734.136.5
Materials and Supplies 3,878 4,132 18,50022.3%25.0%25.8929.5819.42
Support and Services 7,866 7,533 32,35023.3%22.2%21.2621.1324.35
Capital Outlay 1,214 - -64.5%95.9849.0548.54
Total 79,261 88,906 277,23732.1%$1,895.44
Elections
Personnel 1,358 254 4,7815.3%5.8%0.5212.54.42
Materials and Supplies 1,665 1,665 2,30072.4%40.8%53.5535.133.64
Support and Services 16 - -27.7%082.50.59
Capital Outlay - - -0.0%000
Total 3,039 1,919 7,08127.1%($703.51)
Finance
Personnel 54,539 51,299 153,22433.5%31.0%32.1530.3930.54
Materials and Supplies 6,745 6,967 6,950100.2%79.0%68.7480.5687.6
Support and Services 1,311 1,918 6,57529.2%13.2%12.389.7817.49
Capital Outlay - - - 21.2%063.670
Total 62,595 60,184 166,74936.1%($6,286.52)
Professional Services
74,869 81,519 199,00041.0%44.0%$6,021.1045.1649.1937.62
Planning and Zoning
Personnel 57,477 54,320 170,69431.8%31.4%33.6330.8529.69
Materials and Supplies 54 144 65522.0%94.7%204.2271.88.22
Support and Services 4,461 4,024 11,81034.1%43.5%21.8213.694.93
Capital Outlay - - 31.6%94.6900
Total 61,992 58,488 183,15931.9%$844.88
Municipal Building - City Hall
Materials and Supplies 25,176 19,864 16,500120.4%35.4%18.7641.5745.94
Support and Services 6,169 91,315 157,75057.9%7.3%5.9911.264.64
Capital Outlay 1,091 1,039 -1.8%005.45
Transfers - - 103,9500.0%0.0%000
Total 32,436 112,218 278,20040.3%($94,862.66)000
Police
Materials and Supplies - -0.0%000
Support Services 318,979 332,146 995,75033.4%33.7%34.2633.2833.58
Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 114,034 115,034 230,06650.0%49.9%5049.9949.58
Total 433,013 447,180 1,225,81636.5%$3,157.37
Fire
Support Services 155,162 168,565 337,13050.0%50.5%51.2151.1149.12
Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 136,315 135,349 270,69750.0%48.8%48.7948.7348.75
Total 291,477 303,914 607,82750.0%($1,747.94)
Inspections
Personnel 36,895 35,485 109,09632.5%32.5%37.2529.0131.28
Materials and Supplies 22 154 30051.3%2.3%1.2805.51
Support and Services 1,384 124 6,7001.9%19.8%22.3616.7320.36
Total 38,301 35,763 116,09630.8%$1,042.25
City Engineer
Personnel 29,928 32,022 111,10328.8%33.7%30.9238.5531.54
Materials and Supplies 33 4 1,2550.3%25.9%49.4220.67.74
Support and Services 1,735 380 13,3202.9%12.4%6.0319.5711.45
Capital Outlay - - 1,0000.0%34.1%81.8620.520
Total 31,696 32,406 126,67825.6%$7,313.96
Public Works Service
Personnel 89,394 103,094 184,10756.0%34.4%37.3235.6330.26
Materials and Supplies 21,778 22,729 71,20031.9%31.2%35.2227.6530.62
Support and Services 16,098 15,910 41,44038.4%35.8%40.4229.2537.71
Capital Outlay - - -0.0%000
Total 127,270 141,733 296,74747.8%($41,373.00)
Streets and Roads
Personnel 29,088 17,705 113,45915.6%28.7%33.522.2230.42
Materials and Supplies 9,527 9,456 85,00011.1%12.3%18.76.911.21
Support and Services 207 1,311 34,0003.9%0.4%0.2500.88
Capital Outlay - - 700,0000.0%0.0%000
Total 38,822 28,472 932,4593.1%$14,663.43
Snow and Ice
Personnel 26,827 37,431 56,56766.2%53.7%56.9538.4665.66
Materials and Supplies 12,594 14,210 45,11731.5%34.6%22.453.5327.91
Total 39,421 51,641 101,68450.8%($5,653.68)
Traffic control / Street Lights
Personnel - - - 0.0%000
Materials and Supplies 95 1,441 5,00028.8%50.2%149.0401.59
Support and Services 9,943 12,874 52,14924.7%27.0%35.0224.0122.07
Total 10,038 14,315 57,14925.0%$2,293.11
Sanitation / Waste Control
Personnel 3,880 - 2,2810.0%79.9%0160.6379.19
Materials and Supplies - - 1000.0%0.0%000
Support and Services - - 4,4000.0%0.0%000
Total 3,880 - 6,7810.0%$1,823.43
Tree Maintenance
Personnel 1,822 8,261 14,02058.9%16.0%28.349.0510.55
Materials and Supplies - - 1,4250.0%0.5%01.560
Support and Services 4,977 559 13,2504.2%17.5%6.39.2836.87
Total 6,799 8,820 28,69530.7%($4,255.65)
Parks and Recreation
Personnel 53,070 48,702 185,70826.2%34.8%36.4834.9433.07
Materials and Supplies 3,208 4,538 19,80022.9%28.6%26.14019.68
Support and Services 26,635 30,724 91,90033.4%42.5%41.0957.5228.76
Transfers - - 42,0000.0%0.0%000
Total 82,913 83,964 339,40824.7%$25,397.25
Unallocated - 67,130 -0.0%00
Total Expenditures 5,218,884
1,485,246 1,691,32032.4%($80,116)29.8328.127.63
Net Revenue less Expenditures (96,989)
(1,336,826) (1,550,013)
Note: The balanced budget includes the estimated use of $150,000 of fund balance in the Transfers line item of the Revenue section.