06-13-11 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Attachments
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call Mayor Lizée ___
Hotvet ___
Siakel ___
Woodruff ___
Zerby ___
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, May 23, 2011 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2011 Minutes
C. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 1, 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. Accept Bid and Award Contract for Smithtown Way Engineer’s memo,
Resolution
C. Covington Road Storm Sewer Outlet Cover Engineer’s memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) report by Tad Shaw and Tim
Litfin
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – JUNE 13, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Attachments
B. Linda Murrell, Director, South Lake Excelsior Chamber of Commerce
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
A. Deer Feeding Ban Survey Planning Director’s
memo
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Shoreline Restoration Grant Engineer’s memo
B. Otta Seal Enchanted Point Road Engineer’s memo
C. 5750 Covington Rd. Storm Water Land Acquisition Engineer’s memo
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Investment Policy Finance Director’s
memo, Resolution
B. Support the Sheriff’s New 911 Communications Facility Administrator’s
memo, Resolution
C. Reimbursement Resolution for the Smithtown Way Storm Water Project Finance Director’s
memo, Resolution
D. Adopting Performance Measures Finance Director’s
memo, Resolution
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Monument Sign for the Southshore Community Center Administrator’s
memo
B. Monument Sign for Shorewood City Hall Administrator’s
memo
C. LMCC Fiber to Homes Discussion Administrator’s
memo
D. LMCC Appointment of an Alternate Administrator’s
memo
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – JUNE 13, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Attachments
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Update on Zoning Violations
a. Mr. Mason
b. Mr. Johnson
c. Mr. Eastman
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, 13 June, 2011
7:00 p.m.
A 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening
An Executive Session will immediately follow the Regular City Council Meeting.
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
th
Agenda Item #3B: Bids were received, opened, and tabulated on June 8 for the Smithtown
Way storm pipe replacement project. W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. is the lowest bidder
with a total bid of $173,487.75. Staff recommends approval of a resolution that awards a
contract to W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc.
Agenda Item #3C: The storm sewer outlet to Silver Lake does not have a safety guard. Staff
recommends Council authorize the purchase of a guard from Haala Industries, Inc.
Agenda Item #5A: There are no public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6A: Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Board Representative Tad
Shaw and Tim Litfin, MCE Director, will be present to report on MCE activities.
Agenda Item #6B: Linda Murrell, Executive Director of the South Lake Chamber of
Commerce, will be present to report on the upcoming Fourth of July community event.
Agenda Item #7A: There are no park items this evening.
Agenda Item #8: A representative will report on the recent Planning Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #8A: The Planning Commission has recommended that a brief resident survey be
included in the utility billing for next quarter. They hope to solicit feedback from
Shorewood residents regarding the adoption of a deer feeding ban ordinance. Staff
suggests this would be a good test of this method of surveying residents.
Agenda Item #9A: Shorewood received a grant from Cynthia Krieg Grant and the initial
project changed location. Staff recommends Council authorize a culvert be replaced and
provide some excavation assistance in conjunction with the grant project.
Agenda Item #9B: A quote was received for the Enchanted Point Rd Otta Seal. Staff
recommends acceptance of the quote but to not authorize the work.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of June 13, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #9C: Part of the Silver Lake storm sewer outlet improvement project is land
acquisition. Staff recommends Council direct staff to conclude the land acquisition
transaction.
Agenda Item #10A: This item is an update to the Investment Policy with changes in authorized
investments and other minor edits for clarity.
Agenda Item #10B: This is a resolution to support the Sheriff’s 911 Communications Facility.
Agenda Item #10C: This resolution preserves the option to bond for storm water project costs
for Smithtown Way.
Agenda Item #10D: This resolution commits the city to participate in the Council on Local
Results and Innovation performance measures program for 2011. The benefits are a cash
payment of approximately $1,000 and exemption from levy limits for the 2012 budget.
Agenda Item #11A: Consider the purchase and installation of a new digital sign for the
Southshore Community Center.
Agenda Item #11B: Consider the purchase and installation of a monument / directional sign for
the City Hall.
Agenda Item #11C: Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the Fiber to the Home
(FTTH) initiative under study by the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission.
Agenda Item #11D: Consider appointing an alternate to the Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission Board.
Agenda Item # 12A.1 – An update will be provided on current zoning violations.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MAY 23, 2011 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane (arrived
at 6:40 P.M.); Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works
Brown; Engineer Landini; and Building Official Pazandak
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. RENTAL HOUSING LICENSE PROGRAM
Administrator Heck stated he asked Attorney Keane if the City can require a landlord to have at least the same
level of water quality as the City’s water system is required to have. He then stated when Keane arrives he will
discuss what amendments need to be made to the City Code and enforcement criteria to make that happen. He
went on to state that he had asked Building Official Pazandak to find out how many rental properties would be
affected by implementing such a requirement.
Building Official Pazandak stated it’s hard to provide accurate rental property information because the number
of properties fluctuates. The number of rental properties ranges from 50 to 90. Of those approximately 40
percent of them have private wells. Therefore, if there were 90 properties about 35 of them would be serviced
with private well water.
Pazandak explained the cost to test well water varies. The lowest cost he has found is $23.50 and that is for
when people bring in their own tests. Most frequently the cost is $30 if people bring in their tests, and there are
some that cost more than that. He stated Council would need to decide if it wants testing to be done by a third
party or have a chain of custody testing. Those types of tests cost $100 – $120. If the third party doing the
testing comes out for an additional test the cost is $60 – $80. He then stated he recommends either the third
party testing system or the chain of custody testing system. He went on to state the amount and type of arsenic
could both be issues. He explained the cost to treat water that goes to the kitchen can run up to $500 – $800
and the cost for a more complex system or systems that can treat higher levels of arsenic can be as much as
$5,000.
In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Building Official Pazandak explained that when a
person picks up a test kit from the City and returns it to the City the water sample is sent out to a lab for
testing. Director Brown explained the City’s brochure on well water lists several agencies that are licensed by
the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). One of them is Twin City Water Clinic (TCWC) and it has
become popular because of its close location; it’s located in the City of St. Louis Park. TCWC prefers not to
get the simple tests for analysis. It has test kits, including official bottles and instructions, for the taking
samples. In the past, people have brought their samples to TCWC for testing. TCWC representatives have
expressed their willingness to pickup samples taken with their kits and dropped of at City Hall and bring them
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 2 of 3
to their lab for testing. They are also willing to make a short educational presentation at the Southshore
Community Center. Staff supports accepting samples from residents for testing by TCWC.
Administrator Heck stated Council needs to decide if it wants the City to be managing the testing for landlords.
Or, should the City’s responsibility be limited to verifying that the water was tested by a licensed tester and
comparing the test results to the MDH’s water standards for municipal water systems. If the standards are not
met the rental license could be withheld until the water is treated to meet the standards.
Director Brown explained that with the chain of custody approach a form is filled out that notes where the
sample came from and who has had custody of the sample at each step of the way through the process. That’s
what helps make the cost more expensive.
Councilmember Woodruff stated as part of the City’s dog licensing process the dog’s owner must provide the
City with proof that the dog has been tested by a licensed veterinarian and found to be free of rabies. He
suggested a similar process could be used to ensure a landlord’s well water meets the MDH’s water standards.
The water would have to have been tested by MDH licensed lab.
Building Official Pazandak asked Councilmember Woodruff if he was suggesting the property owner could
take their own samples and give them to a licensed lab.
Councilmember Woodruff asked Attorney Keane if the City would in any way be liable if after it’s accepted the
test results it’s later determined that the results came from a water sample that was not taken properly. Keane
responded if someone committed fraud in submitting a sample the City is not liable.
Building Official Pazandak explained when a new private well is drilled there is a requirement that the water be
tested. The well driller must test the flow and purge the well and send a sample out for testing. Each test is
labeled to a unique well number. There is no requirement to have a private well tested after that. He commented
that he has heard that some testing labs are recommending wells be tested annually.
Attorney Keane stated he would not anticipate any liability issues accruing to the City because a property
owner submitted a false sample. He then stated the City’s regulations are adopted to protect the public; not a
warranty to an individual. He went on to state the broader policy question is how to balance the burden to
ensure water quality safety while not imposing too great of a cost on property owners for compliance. He
expressed he thought there is a sweet spot the City can find for periodic sampling and testing, and for the actual
mechanics of the process.
Attorney Keane asked if well drillers make themselves available to test private well water. Building Official
Pazandak responded that’s not a normal procedure for a driller to go back to the property and test the water.
Director Brown explained that landlords have to renew their rental license every three years or when there is a
change of ownership. To have a property owner have their private well water tested using the chain of custody
approach when a rental license is renewed every three years would have a financial burden of $60 – $70.
Mayor Lizée questioned why the City shouldn’t require rental property well water be tested every year similar
to the requirement for the City to have its municipal water tested annually. Director Brown stated from his
vantage point he thought once every three years is adequate, noting significant changes in the level of arsenic in
well water don’t happen overnight.
Councilmember Zerby stated he’s comfortable with requiring the testing once every three years at the time of a
rental license renewal. He then stated he does not think the City would be taking on more liability by instituting
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 3 of 3
this requirement. He commented the City isn’t liable if a licensed dog bites someone and is found to have
rabies.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he also agrees with a once every three years, or at time of ownership change,
requirement for having a rental property owner with a private well submit documentation that the water was
recently tested and that it meets the MDH’s standards. He commented he also agrees that changes in arsenic
levels happen slowly.
Building Official Pazandak stated maybe a policy could be set up similar to the one for furnaces in rental units.
The property owner has to provide a furnace service report that is no more than three years old at the time they
apply for a rental license.
Mayor Lizée asked Attorney Keane if other municipalities require private well water be tested for rental
properties. Keane responded he has spoken with a few city attorneys about that. He noted that he had helped
craft one of the original rental licensing ordinances which was for the City of St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park
was one of the pioneers in developing rental license standards. He stated he has spoken with other cities that
have well developed licensing ordinances. He noted the City is quite unique because it’s one of the few urban
municipalities in the area where there are private properties serviced by wells. Cities that tend to have licensing
ordinances tend to be built up and have second and third generation properties due to age and obsolescence.
They have contemporary standards to protect renters.
Attorney Keane explained that the City Code incorporates by reference other statutory rules in its licensing
General Penalty and Enforcement
standards. The City Code Chapter 104 could be amended, via a
straightforward text amendment, to reference the MDH’s well water standards for municipal water.
Mayor Lizée asked Council how it would like to proceed.
Councilmember Siakel stated she supports including this requirement in the rental licensing program and she
prefers the chain of custody approach for testing as well as a one-year water testing cycle. Councilmembers
Hotvet and Zerby agreed with that, with Zerby commenting that he thought renters deserve to have water that
meets the same standards as City water with regard to arsenic.
Council directed Staff to draft amendments to the City’s rental licensing requirements for future consideration
by Council. Administrator Heck stated he will work with Attorney Keane on this and bring something back to
Council by the end of June.
3. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of May 23, 2011, at 6:57
P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MAY 23, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane;
City Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown;
and Engineer Landini
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council / Park Commission / Planning Commission Work Session Minutes,
May 3, 2011
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council / Park Commission / Planning
Commission Work Session Minutes of May 3, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Work Session Minutes, May 9, 2011
Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of May 9, 2011,
as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 9, 2011
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 9,
2011, as presented”. Motion passed 5/0.
D. City Council Executive Session Minutes, May 9, 2011
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of May
9, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 2 of 14
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolutions Therein, subject to including adopting a resolution accepting bid and
awarding contract for the 2011 bituminous mill, overlays and appurtenant work for Vine Hill Road
as part of Item 3.G.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Cathcart Park Swing Set Replacement
C. Freeman Park Replacement / Addition of Playground Equipment for the South
Playground
D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-024, “A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding
Contract for the 2011 Bituminous Seal Coating of Streets, City Project No. 11-07.”
E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-025, “A Resolution Approving Specifications and
Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements for Bids for 2011 Mill and Overlay City
Project 11-08.”
F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-026, “A Resolution Approving Specifications and
Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements for Bids for Murray Hill Road Storm
Sewer Improvements.”
G. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-028, “A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding
Contract for the 2011 Bituminous Mill, Overlays and Appurtenant Work for Vine
Hill Road, City Project No. 11-02.”
H. Approving ORDINANCE NO. 476, “An Ordinance Enacting and Adopting the 2011
S-6 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shorewood Minnesota”,
and Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-027, “A Resolution Approving Publication of
Ordinance No. 476 by Title and Summary”.
I. Appointment of Temporary Seasonal Employee for Public Works
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Terrance Haines, Eagle Scout project and Request
Mayor Lizée stated Terrence Haines, an Eagle Scout candidate, is present this evening. She explained that
Mr. Haines has proposed a project to improve the property near the Southshore Community Center
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 3 of 14
(SSCC). Council discussed the proposed project during its May 9, 2011, meeting and asked Mr. Haines
to come back this evening.
Mr. Haines asked Council if it had made a decision about the City donating money to help fund the
proposed project. He explained part of his project entails cleaning up a walking path. He has someone
who will grind dead wood from the proposed project area provided the wood is brought up to the side of
the road near the area. A large, dead red oak tree has fallen across part of the path and he asked if the City
wants to remove it from the path. He also asked if the City wants him to cut the buckthorn in that area and
have it ground up, or will someone in the City’s Public Works Department remove it. He noted
Deephaven City Administrator Dana Young and SSCC Manager Kristi Anderson have asked to be
provided with a letter from the Council stating the City has authorized him to do his project. He explained
he has spoken with the individual who will help build new stairs to go down the hill. There is a piece that
juts off of the side of the bridge as one goes down the hill and that individual recommends taking that
piece off so the new railings will be flush with the bridge.
Mayor Lizée stated the project Mr. Haines is proposing is very ambitious. She explained that she met with
Mr. Haines and his parents last week and they walked around the project area. She noted Council spoke
th
about helping fund the project during its May 9 meeting. She explained that she has not heard back from
the Southshore Senior Partners, the Shorewood Parks Foundation and maybe the Rotary about whether or
not they will help fund the project. She asked Council if it supports helping fund the project.
Councilmember Zerby stated he also thought the project is very ambitious, and it’s larger than other Eagle
Scout projects this City has approved. He hopes some, and hopefully all, of the various parts of the
project come to fruition. He then stated he is pleased that Mr. Haines has put so much thought into it. He
expressed his support for the City matching other donations for the project.
Mayor Lizée commented she was pleased that Mr. Haines has heard from the City of Deephaven, noting
it takes interest in the SSCC.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the Park Commission has had the opportunity to discuss the project and
provide input about a project plan. She suggested the project be broken into phases because it is so large.
Councilmember Hotvet, who was the Council Liaison at the last Park Commission meeting, stated she
shared information about the project during that meeting and SSCC Contract Manager Anderson also
shared information about it. She supported the suggestion to break the project into phases. She asked who
will maintain the area after the project has been completed.
Park Commissioner Robb stated the Park Commission was open to hearing more about the project.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like to have the Park Commission’s buy in for the project. He
suggested someone on the staff decide how to handle the dead oak tree and the buckthorn. He reiterated a
th
concern he brought up during Council’s May 9 meeting which is to have someone on the City’s staff
review the plans for each of the improvements. He stated he agreed with Councilmember Zerby’s
recommendation to fund one half of the project.
In response to a question from Director Brown, Mr. Haines stated he hopes to have the project completed
by the end of summer. He noted he has to have it done by the time he turns eighteen years of age which is
in February 2012.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 4 of 14
th
Mayor Lizée recommended the funding request be placed on Council’s June 27 meeting agenda for
discussion. Information about other funding contributions should be known by then.
Administrator Heck reviewed what Mr. Haines needs from the City. One is a letter from the City to the
Cities of Deephaven and Excelsior stating the City approves Mr. Haines’ project. He will meet with
Director Brown to discuss how the dead red oak tree should be handled. The City needs to decide how it
wants the buckthorn issue to be addressed. Mr. Haines’ mother stated there is some other dead tree wood
that has to be addressed. Mayor Lizée suggested meeting with Public Works personnel to talk about the
dead wood that needs to be removed.
Mr. Haines stated he would also like an answer about removing the piece that juts off of the side of the
bridge so the new railings will be flush with the bridge. Director Brown clarified the railing issue is a
building code issue; therefore, City staff can work with Mr. Haines on the plans. Brown stated people are
not allowed to chip buckthorn because that leads to the spreading of it, noting pulling it or killing it with
some type of treatment is acceptable.
Councilmember Siakel informed Mr. Haines that he is invited to present information about his project
plan to the Park Commission during its next meeting.
Administrator Heck stated Staff will be in contact with Mr. Haines.
In response to a comment from Administrator Heck, Mayor Lizée reiterated that City funding for the
th
project will be discussed during Council’s June 27 meeting.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that from his perspective the City should contribute funds equal to at
least a minimum of the other donations Mr. Haines receives.
B. Southshore Community Center 2010 Annual Report
Mayor Lizée noted that Southshore Community Center (SSCC) Contract Manager Anderson is present
this evening to answer any questions Council may have about the SSCC 2010 annual report.
Ms. Anderson stated she and others have gone to great lengths to brand the SSCC as the Community
Center. The SSCC is now recognized as the legitimate rental space that it is, and the relationships with
businesses, corporations and community residents have been expanding. She then stated she will entertain
any questions Council may have with regard to the annual report.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what problems exist for the SSCC. Ms. Anderson responded there aren’t
too many. Ms. Anderson thanked Council for its generosity in the past, noting the City purchased new
chairs for the SSCC large conference room. She stated she continues to receive numerous questions
related to the poor signage for the SSCC, noting that Council will discuss a digital sign and the location of
it later on the agenda. She then stated there is good support staff at the SSCC. Members of the Southshore
Senior Partners and City staff volunteers provide great support.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the progress made toward making the SSCC financially self sufficient
has been good, while commenting that has not been achieved yet. He expressed his optimism that the
SSCC’s operations will at some point reach close to a break even state. He noted that the annual report
indicates that it’s anticipated there will be an $8,000 subsidy required in 2011 to operate the SSCC not
including the value of the City’s staff’s time.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 5 of 14
Councilmember Zerby stated he thought Ms. Anderson has done a great job managing and marketing the
SSCC and he thanked her for her efforts. He commented that he was there a few weeks ago and each
room was booked with a different organization during evening hours. He stated the SSCC is a jewel for
the entire community.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she participates in some of the programs held at the SSCC. She asked what
types of things can be done to increase participation from the other SSCC member cities’ residents. Ms.
Anderson explained that the statistics included in the annual report regarding participation by member
cities do not include participation for rental business or classes. She stated the SSCC member cities are
provided with a copy of the SSCC information published in Shorewood’s newsletter. She inserts a copy
of that information in the City of Tonka Bay’s newsletter. The Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior and
Greenwood don’t publish a newsletter so she sends a copy of the inserts electronically to those cities. A
concerted effort is made to try and keep the community calendar published in the local newspapers
updated.
7. PARKS
Commissioner Robb reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 10, 2011, Park
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). The discussion also included a recap of
the Commission’s tours of the parks.
Mayor Lizée stated the monument bases for the new entry signs in the City’s parks have been installed
and she thought they look nice. Park Coordinator Anderson indicated the installation of the signs should
be completed in June.
Mayor Lizée stated there is a path that goes around Freeman Park. There has been discussion about
eradicating the copious amounts of buckthorn there. She questioned if there are grant opportunities with
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that the City could apply for to improve the wetland near that
park and to look at parking lots and drainage near the park. She noted the Park is actively and passively
used by different groups. Park Commissioner Robb stated the Park Commission talked about those issues
and potentially applying for a grant.
8. PLANNING
Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 17, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She noted that a short survey regarding
feeding of deer will be included in the with the June utility bill mailing .
A. Shorewood Ponds Conditional Use Permit Amendment
Director Nielsen stated the City received an application from the Shorewood Ponds Association (the
Association) requesting an amendment to the conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the Shorewood Ponds
planned unit development (P.U.D.) project that would allow for an amendment to the Association’s
declaration of covenants to lower its age restriction for occupancy to 55 from 65 years of age. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request during its May 17, 2011, meeting and
recommended approval of the request. He noted that the Commission made it very clear that its
recommendation was based on making the C.U.P. consistent with the change in the Federal Fair Housing
Act (FFHA). The recommendation was not based on changing market conditions for home sales.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 6 of 14
Nielsen explained when the City’s Code for elderly housing was originally written and when the P.U.D.
project was approved, the FFHA stated a project could be considered a senior housing project if the age
restriction was 62 years of age or older. The age restriction could be lowered to 55 years of age provided
the housing had significant facilities and services exclusive to the elderly. The language in the FFHA
talks about demonstrating a clear intent to limit the age to 55 or older. He then stated Shorewood Ponds
P.U.D. is subject to a Declaration of Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., to which the City is a signatory,
which says no one younger than 62 years of age can live there.
Nielsen then explained that during the public hearing two residents in Shorewood Ponds development
objected to the change. He noted the Planning Commission took their comments into consideration. He
explained the Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the C.U.P. subject to the
Association getting the requisite number of votes (67 percent) of the Association’s membership to change
the covenants. The resolution included in the meeting packet is written to that effect.
Nielsen went on to explain that earlier in the day the City received a letter from an attorney representing
some residents of Shorewood Ponds stating the application process is premature because the Association
hasn’t satisfied its 67 percent approval requirement needed to amend the C.U.P. The Association has a
petition that it sent out to its membership and until very recently it was comfortable that it had the
requisite number of votes to approve the amendment. The attorney commissioned by the Association
clarified an amendment has to go through an official ballot process based on the Association’s rules. The
Association’s attorney has indicated the application indicates a ballot was being sent out to the
membership today. The Association has 30 days to obtain the requisite number of votes.
Nielsen stated that being the Association can’t amend the covenants until the 30-day period is up and the
th
requisite number of votes satisfied Staff recommends continuing this item to either the June 13 or June
th
27 Council meeting.
th
Mayor Lizée suggested continue this item to the June 27 meeting, noting that the 30-day time period will
be up by then.
Attorney Keane recommended continuing this to a date by which the Association’s membership will have
had an opportunity to vote on the proposed change. Keane asked if the 60-day requirement will have been
exceeded if this is continued. Director Nielsen explained Staff will send out a letter informing the
Association’s membership that the 60-day requirement will be exceeded and the consideration period will
be extended.
Councilmember Siakel asked why this is occurring at the last minutes. She stated she thought the
residents of Shorewood Ponds had done their homework. Director Nielsen stated the Association only
commissioned an attorney to review its process to date last week. The Association thought a petition
signed by 67 percent of the residents would be adequate, but the attorney it commissioned clarified an
amendment has to go through an official ballot process based on the Association’s rules.
Mayor Lizée asked if the Shorewood Ponds residents in attendance this evening wanted to comment on
this.
Lynn Baier, 6035 Pond View Drive, stated she and her husband Larry ask that the Association’s bylaws,
articles, covenants and express warranty be respected. She explained that they attended the May 17, 2011,
Planning Commission meeting when the public hearing on this request was held and during that meeting
they explained that from their vantage point a membership vote had not been taken to lower the age
restriction and therefore the application process was premature. She stated it’s her understanding that the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 7 of 14
attorney representing the Association has indicated it does not make any difference that a vote to lower
the age had not been taken. She noted she and her husband think it does matter. She stated the attorney
representing them has submitted their position that no action be taken because there is no legal authority
to make the request. She commented that she teaches mathematics. She also teaches children that to get
what they want the first thing they must do is decide what it is they want, and then they must follow the
rules to go about getting that. She stated from her vantage point this process has been an embarrassment.
She doesn’t understand how a person(s) can demand to get what they want yet believe they don’t have to
follow the rules. She thanked Council for having given her the opportunity to address Council.
Jerome Smith, 25630 Park Lane and the current Treasurer for the Shorewood Ponds Association, stated
the discussion about possibly lowering the age restriction started during the Association’s annual meeting
held in October 2010. He explained that during that meeting a vote was taken in support of continuing to
research that, noting that the Baiers were not present at that meeting. On March 25, 2011, the Association
sent out a consensus form asking its membership to express their support for or against moving forward
with the application to lower the age restriction. Ninety-one percent of the respondents responded they
were in favor of lowering the age restriction. The Association moved forward under the assumption that
was sufficient approval to move forward with submitting an application. The Association only recently
found out that it has to go through a formal ballot process to make the change legal. He noted that 5 – 6
people are delivering the ballots to the membership today and tomorrow. The Association expects to have
the ballots returned sometime next week.
Mr. Smith stated Shorewood Ponds needs new growth. He expressed he thought the Association is good
and everything identified in the covenants has been honored. He stated he thought the residents are proud
of the Shorewood Ponds community and the property looks good. He commented the residents like being
surrounded by Freeman Park. He conveyed that most of the residents think lowering the age restriction to
55 will not hurt anything and there is no plan to reduce it even further. He stated the Association will be
ready by whatever date Council continues this to.
Woodruff moved continuing the request to amend the Planned Unit Development Agreement for
Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. to lower the age restriction for occupancy to 55.
Councilmember Siakel questioned why this can’t be put on the meeting agenda for the June 13, 2011,
Council meeting. Mayor Lizée stated the Association may not have all the ballots that will be counted
th
returned by then. Councilmember Zerby asked if waiting until June 27 would negatively impact the
th
Association. Mr. Smith stated June 27 would be fine.
Zerby seconded the motion. Motion passed 5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Stop Sign Request – Glencoe Road
Engineer Landini explained the City received a request for a stop sign at the intersection of Yellowstone
Trail and Glencoe Road. There is already a stop sign on Glencoe Road, the north/south portion of the
intersection. Yellowstone Trail, the east/west portion of the intersection, is a through street. Staff has
collected traffic data using traffic counters for that intersection. The counters indicate an average of 800
trips per day on Yellowstone Trail and 150 trips per day on Glencoe Road. Other requirements for the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) include sight distances / sight lines.
The meeting packet contains copies of photographs taken to display some of the site angles at the
intersection. They were taken from the approximate position a driver would be located at when stopped at
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 8 of 14
the intersection. There is some vegetation on one corner that could be trimmed back to improve visibility.
According to the Minnesota Crash Mapping analysis tool there were two incidents in the area in 2007
with both being documented as vehicles leaving the road; they were not at the intersection.
Landini stated based on the information analyzed Staff does not recommend installing stop signs on
Yellowstone Trail.
Councilmember Woodruff stated when residents conveyed their concerns to him about the intersection it
was explained to be a site line issue. He expressed his appreciation for the research Engineer Landini did
on this matter. He suggested the corner near the intersection that has heavy vegetation be trimmed
somewhat if possible.
Councilmember Siakel asked where the request came from. She also asked what problem is trying to be
solved with signs. She questioned if the problem was speeding. She explained that she drove the
intersection in multiple directions and she couldn’t find a problem there. Councilmember Woodruff
responded a resident living along side of Glencoe Road asked him if it was possible to have stop signs
installed on Yellowstone Trail because the cars coming down the street couldn’t be seen until they were
quite close to the intersection. There was a danger a driver would pull out into the intersection on Glencoe
Road into the path of an oncoming car. It was perceived to be a site line issue. It was not a speeding issue
for that resident.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, directing Staff to deny the request for stop signs on Yellowstone
Trail where it intersects with Glencoe Road and asking Staff to research if the heavier vegetation
on one corner of the intersection can be trimmed back and if so then do it. Motion passed 5/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
None.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. City of Shorewood Entry Signs
Mayor Lizée stated the meeting packet contains copies of mockups for four different City entry
identification signs. The wording is as follows. Sign 1: Shorewood POP. 7477 (split on 2 lines). Sign 2:
Shorewood POP. 7477 …a South Lake community (split on 3 lines). Sign 3: Shorewood Home of 7477
souls …a South Lake community (split on 3 lines). Sign 4: Welcome to Shorewood POP. 7477 …a South
Lake community (split on 4 lines).
Councilmember Hotvet expressed her preference for Sign 2 subject to the word community being
capitalized.
Councilmember Zerby asked if there is a different cost for the signs to which Director Brown responded
he did not think there would be a significant difference in cost.
Director Nielsen stated the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices suggests having the
population from the most recent census on the signs.
Councilmember Zerby stated he could be okay with Sign 2 but his preference is Sign 1 which is simpler.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 9 of 14
Councilmember Woodruff stated he prefers Sign 1.
Councilmember Siakel stated she prefers Sign 2. She explained that she had shared the mockups with a
few other people and they preferred it also. She then stated having “a South Lake Community” on the
sign ties back to strategic planning discussions Council and Staff have had about having more of a
community focus.
Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, adopting the Sign 2 layout for the entry identification signs into the
City. Motion passed 4/1 with Woodruff dissenting.
B. Southshore Community Center Electronic Sign
Mayor Lizée stated she asked that this item and Item 11.C City Hall Signage be placed on this meeting
agenda. She explained Council has discussed budgeting for a digital electronic sign for Southshore
Community Center (SSCC) in the 2012 budget. She noted fund raising efforts for the acquisition of this
sign were kicked off last year during the Oktoberfest event at the SSCC. Some of the SSCC member
cities have also made donations toward the purchase of the electronic sign as have other groups. She
stated it’s important to identify the SSCC and having an electronic sign may make that easier. Lack of
clearly visible identity signs for the SSCC has made marketing it more difficult. Council has discussed
having helpful directional signs placed along side of County Road 19 and working with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation so they can be installed. She thought an electronic sign would be helpful in
increasing business at the SSCC. She then stated as long as the City is having monument signs built and
installed at the entrances into the City’s parks this year she suggested the electronic sign for the SSCC be
acquired and installed this year also.
Councilmember Zerby stated he liked the idea and thought it would be good to get consistency across the
City. He agreed the sign is needed and that he thought the timing is right. Councilmembers Hotvet and
Siakel concurred.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, directing Staff to solicit a quotes for a digital monument sign and to
identify potential funding sources.
SSCC Contract Manager Anderson explained that when quotes were obtained for the entry signs to the
parks Staff also asked the vendors to provide quotes for the digital sign for the SSCC as well.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he likes the idea of the digital sign, but an $8,000 shortfall is already
anticipated for the 2011 SSCC operations. The estimated cost for the sign is $21,000 with $12,000 of that
anticipated to be funded by the City. That means the shortfall would be increased to $20,000. If Staff
could identify how it could cover the additional $12,000 shortfall through savings somewhere else he
would support moving forward with acquiring the sign in 2011. He expressed his discomfort with a
$12,000 unbudgeted expenditure in 2011 when there is not extra money in the budget.
Mayor Lizée stated the motion is asking for Staff to identify funding options for the sign.
In response to a question from Councilmember Siakel, Mayor Lizée explained that the City of Excelsior
has recently donated $4,000 toward the purchase of the sign. To date, the City of Tonka Bay has not.
Administrator Heck stated that to date the member cities of Deephaven, Excelsior and Greenwood have
donated a combined amount of $8,200 toward the purchase of the sign. In addition there have been
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 10 of 14
donations and he estimates them to total $1,500 - $2,000 made. Staff will provide Council with the actual
donation amounts made to date. Staff will also provide Council with funding options.
Councilmember Zerby stated the purchase of the sign is a capital improvement. He does not think it
should be funded out of an enterprise fund. It would not add to the $8,000 deficit.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the funds have to come from somewhere. He asked if the funds were
going to be taken out of the general Building Fund or the Technology Fund.
Councilmember Zerby stated that the motion asked Staff to identify options for funding the purchase.
Mayor Lizée stated she was confident Staff could identify funding options. She asked Council if there is
interest in purchasing the digital monument sign this year at the same time monument signs for the City’s
parks are being purchased.
Councilmember Siakel stated that perhaps the $8,000 deficit would be lessened if people knew how to get
to the SSCC.
Councilmember Zerby stated there is a difference between capital and operating expenditures, noting that
capital expenditures can be depreciated over time.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the General Fund has to fund it, noting depreciation for the City is
meaningless. He then stated he has to vote no for the motion because he doesn’t know what the number
is.
Councilmember Zerby clarified the motion is to direct Staff to bring information back to Council.
Motion passed 5/0.
Administrator Heck stated during a February Council meeting Council discussed where the proposed
digital sign should be located. He asked Council to provide guidance on where the sign should be located.
Councilmember Zerby recommended Staff work with SSCC Contract Manager Anderson and potentially
Hennepin County on the location of the sign.
C. City Hall Signage
Mayor Lizée stated she asked that Council discuss new City Hall signage again. The City is having
monument signs built for the entrances into the City’s parks and potentially for the Southshore
Community Center (SSCC). She noted that the current City Hall signage does not match the look of the
City campus; both the City Hall and the landscaping. She asked Council if it would be willing to ask Staff
to look into a new monument signage for the City campus. She clarified she wanted the signage to reflect
the location of City Hall with arrows pointing to Badger Park and the SSCC.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if it would be better to have the signage designate the Shorewood City
Campus as oppose to City Hall. It would convey it’s more than just City Hall.
Mayor Lizée asked if Council wants it to be included in the 2011 work program or the 2012 work
program. She stated she was not sure if the cost for the sign would be different if it were to be done in
2012.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 11 of 14
Councilmember Zerby stated based on his personal experience of suffering through three home
remodeling projects the results are different when remodeling efforts are spread out over time. He then
stated he would prefer the City purchase a new monument sign for the City’s campus sooner versus later
and from the same vendor that is providing the parks and SSCC signage provided the pricing is right.
Councilmember Siakel concurred with Zerby’s recommendation.
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to obtain quotes for signage for the City campus.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the signage should have been done as part of the City Hall renovation
project and he didn’t recollect why it wasn’t. Mayor Lizée noted that Woodruff and she were the only two
Councilmembers who voted in favor of doing this when the previous council considered it.
Motion passed 5/0.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck stated the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) is looking for people interested in
serving on its Board. The LMC ‘s Policy Committees have began meeting and if any Councilmember is
interested in serving on one of the Committees they should go to the LMC’s website and sign up for it.
The LMC’s Annual Conference and Marketplace is scheduled for June 15 – 17, 2011, and it will be held
th
at the Mayo Civic Center, Rochester. He encouraged Councilmembers to register for it. On May 25 the
City is hosting a webinar on leadership from Noon – 2:30 P.M. There is a regular EFD Board Meeting
st
scheduled for June 1 at 6:00 P.M.
Director Brown displayed a photograph which shows Boulder Bridge Pond on the west side and Howards
Point Road on the east side. During heavy rains the Pond approaches flood level and it puts a home at
risk. He received a call from that home owner earlier in the day because the water is up to his patio area
which is right outside the walkout. Staff plans to start pumping the Pond in order to keep the home safe
starting tomorrow. The water pumped out will be run down the road to the north cul-de-sac. The pumping
should go on for about two weeks and possibly longer if the rain continues. He noted the pumping will be
shut down at dusk and started up again at 8:00 A.M.
Mayor Lizée stated the water level does look very high.
Director Brown stated he checked the Lake Mary (another basin without an outlet) and it’s not yet
reached flood stage.
Councilmember Zerby asked if there had been a natural outlet for Mary Lake. Director Brown responded
it had been percolation through the floor of the Pond. Unfortunately over time that seals up and the
percolation is reduced.
Councilmember Hotvet asked where the water goes. Director Brown responded it ultimately flows out to
the wetland along Smithtown Road.
Attorney Keane asked if the water was surface water or ground water. Director Brown responded
approximately 70 percent of it is surface water.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 12 of 14
Director Brown explained at one point the City looked at permanent alternatives to put in a permanent
outlet but the cost to do that was very expensive. Because it has only had to be pumped a few times the
last council chose to continue with pumping it rather than put the Stormwater Fund at risk.
Director Nielsen stated the Trail Committee met the beginning of the month and it made good progress
with prioritizing trail segments on the trail map. The Committee received a status report about the trail
overpass over County Road 19. Grant monies won’t be available until 2014. Three Rivers Park District
doesn’t have any money budgeted this year for preliminary design of the overpass. The District will begin
meeting with the surrounding communities to start to identify issues with the trail crossing at County
Road 19. Preliminary design for the overpass will begin in 2012 and construction is anticipated to start in
2014.
1. Monthly Financial Report
A copy of the April 2011 Monthly Budget Report was included in the meeting packet.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Siakel stated she attended the full Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
(LMCC) meeting on May 17, 2011, on behalf of Councilmember Zerby. She recommended a couple of
action items for Council to consider based on the discussion that took place. Her first recommendation is
for Council to consider appointing an official alternate commissioner. That would allow an alternate
commissioner to have a vote if the regular commissioner is not able to be in attendance. She noted she
th
was not able to vote at the May 17 meeting because she was not an official alternate. Her second
recommendation is for Council to schedule a work session to discuss both the potential LMCC’s fiber to
tm
the premise (FTTP) initiative (called tonkaconnect) and the Carver County Open Fiber Initiative
(CCOFI).
Siakel explained that during the meeting information was shared about the market survey the LMCC had
conducted. The survey asked some residents living in the LMCC community what they would think about
the LMCC building and operating a fiber-optic network. She expressed concern about the process being
used to make funding decisions about surveys and feasibility studies. She questioned what the ultimate
value would be to the residents if the LMCC FTTP initiative comes to fruition. She explained that during
the meeting she asked why an expense of $50,000 for a technical survey would be approved before asking
the LMCC’s sixteen member cities if they supported moving forward with the initiative. Her question was
not answered. The lack of it being addressed directly is a concern for her. She stated if revenue bonds will
have to be issued to fund a FTTP initiative the member cities would have back them. She thought that
worthy of public conversation. If the FTTP initiative did not get implemented the $50,000 for the
technical survey could be used to do a lot for local programming. She noted that the minutes for the
LMCC Board meetings are not out on its website. She stated that website is being changed.
Councilmember Zerby thanked Councilmember Siakel for attending the meeting on his behalf. Zerby
stated he shared Siakel’s position. He expressed that he thought $50,000 is a lot of money that could be
better used to support the LMCC’s primary mission which from his perspective is to promote community
programming for cable subscribers. He noted cable subscribers pay Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) Access fees and that is one source of revenue for the LMCC. He stated he thought those fees
should not be used for a broader audience.
Councilmember Siakel stated it’s her understanding that to date the LMCC has spent over $65,000 on a
FTTP initiative. The LMCC had two abbreviated feasibility studies done; one for an approximate cost of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 13 of 14
$15,000 and another for an approximate cost of $30,000. The LMCC also contracted with a company
called CCG to conduct a market study for a cost of $30,000. She stated she doesn’t recollect having seen
the results of the feasibility studies. She suggested there be a community conversation before additional
funds are spent.
Councilmember Zerby asked if Council wants to appoint an official alternate this evening. Administrator
Heck stated it would be more appropriate to put this on the next Council meeting agenda because it was
not added to this agenda for action this evening.
Administrator Heck stated a work session for the LMCC FTTP initiative and the CCOFI project will be
added to the work session schedule. Councilmember Siakel requested that work session be held before the
th
next full LMCC meeting on August 16.
th
Councilmember Woodruff noted he attended the May 17 meeting as well to make a presentation on the
FTTP project. He stated he supports having a work session to discuss that project and the CCOFI project.
He thought the concerns raised by Councilmember Siakel should be discussed. He commented that he
thought some of Siakel’s financial numbers were not accurate, but that could be discussed during the
work session. He stated it’s Council’s responsibility to decide what its position is regarding the LMCC’s
FTTP initiative and to convey that position to the LMCC through its voting representatives. He noted that
the City has more votes than any other member city because of the number of residents that subscribe to
Mediacom. The LMCC has a weighted voting system. He stated from his vantage point the LMCC’s
activities have been very transparent. He explained articles have been published in the local papers as
well as in the Star Tribune. People can get a copy of the first feasibility study from the LMCC. The
results of the second activity which culminated in a seminar last fall can be viewed one day a week on
television or at will on the LMCC’s website. The seminar explains what the LMCC thinks it wants to do.
Also, there was a panel discussion and some other information presented about the initiative and that can
be viewed on the website. He stated all regular LMCC Commission meetings and Executive Session
meetings can be viewed on the LMCC’s website.
Councilmember Siakel explained she did her research on monies the LMCC has spent on this initiative
and it’s more than $65,000. She stated the bid for the market study was $30,000 but it did cost less than
that. Councilmember Woodruff explained there was $30,000 budgeted in 2011 for activities relative to
tm
tonkaconnect. Of that $20,000 was to be used for the market survey and $10,000 for legal and
governance work, noting that hasn’t been spent yet. The actual cost for the survey was slightly more than
$18,000.
tm
Councilmember Zerby asked if minutes have been published for the tonkaconnect meetings.
Councilmember Woodruff responded they have. Zerby stated he can’t find them on the LMCC website.
tm
Woodruff stated minutes were approved for the last tonkaconnect meeting.
Mayor Lizée stated a year ago she wanted to look at LMCC meeting minutes on the LMCC website but
there weren’t there. She had to ask the LMCC Executive Director to have them emailed to her.
Mayor Lizée stated she attended a South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating
Committee on May 11, 2011. The Committee decided to transfer almost $30,000 from the SLMPD Debt
Service Fund to the De signated Building Fund for capital maintenance of the public safety facility. The
surplus is the result of using unspent construction funds to help pay for part of bonded debt payment for
the public safety facility earlier this year. She then stated the SLMPD member cities are required by 2006
Supplemental Binding Arbitration Order to adjust the operating budget formula based on a number of
factors every five years. The Committee directed the member cities’ City Administrators/Manager and
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2011
Page 14 of 14
legal counsel, if so desired, to come back with a proposal for the adjusting funding formula for the
nd
Committee’s consideration during its June 22 work session.
Lizée then stated there was an article about a Shorewood resident on the front page of the most recent
Lakeshore Weekly News. Daniel Carlson was honored as a “Citizen” Hero by the Twin Cities Area
Chapter of the American Red Cross. Mr. Carlson devoted his life to ensuring his community is a place
where intellectual, physical and spiritual growth can safely transpire. He served 25 years in the law
enforcement field and was the former Chief of Police for the City of Eden Prairie. He is now an ordained
ELCA pastor. He serves as Chaplain for the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the Hennepin
County Chiefs of Police and the Minnesota Law Enforcement Memorial Association. He is also the
creator of Public Safety Ministries Inc. On behalf of the Council and the residents of Shorewood Lizée
congratulated Mr. Carlson on the Red Cross honor. She thanked Mr. Carlson for serving the community.
13. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 23, 2011, at
8:35 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 1, 2011 3:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 3:09 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, and Woodruff; Administrator Heck;
Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; Finance Director DeJong,
Engineer Landini; and Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn
Absent: Councilmember Zerby
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. STRATEGIC PLANNING
Administrator Heck indicated since the last meeting he provided the revised Strategic Planning document
for review and discussion. He noted that he, Mayor Lizée, and Director of Public Works Brown attended a
Leadership and Performance Management Webinar held on May 25, which discussed the importance of
setting clear and concise goals, objectives and priorities. The webinar presenter discussed the need for a
“piercing clarity of mission in defining the outcomes and the measures.” Heck noted we should strive to
apply this practice to our goals and objectives, so we all understand what this means. Heck noted,
according to the Performance Measurement and Management in a Nutshell document discussed in the
webinar, the first step is to establish your clarity, the second step is to assemble the evidence, which staff
would do on the measure side of it to collect data, and then come back to evaluate how we did or if
anything was missed. Heck stated that Finance Director DeJong and he discussed the need for the
priorities to be tied to the budget.
Councilmember Siakel agreed and stated she believed this is what Council has been saying. She gave an
example of the recent discussion around Goal No. 1, and the signage as being one of the means for
identifying, or branding, Shorewood as a South Lake Community. However, at the last council meeting,
requests to approve signs for the parks, City Hall and the Southshore Center appeared on the agenda,
somewhat randomly, and Council then had to discuss cost. She questioned if this is an issue with the
process or lack of project timeline. She gave another example about the issue with the installation of the
park swing sets.
Heck stated he believes it is a combination of planning, communication and coordination. He noted that the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a 5-year outlook and some of the projects may not come to fruition,
depending on financial priorities. Regarding the swing set installation, the quote was put together with the
intention that the public works crew would install it; Heck noted there is an expectation that we can fall back
on public works to do all the work, but depending on their workload and priorities, this is not always possible.
Heck noted that the park signs were planned and in the budget. The Southshore Community Center sign was
not planned, fully discussed or budgeted for this year; it was an item that just came up and happened.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Siakel stated she understands items may just come up; she indicated she was trying to get a better
understanding of the process in order to assist Council with the preparation of the Strategic Plan
document. She stated it is her understanding that the work Council is charged with in putting the
Strategic Plan document together is to know why we are doing it, what our objective is and what the plan
is, and then go through the timeline and how to measure it.
Heck concurred, and indicated he is not aware of Council doing this type of exercise in the past.
Lizée noted that the allocation of time or resources is an important consideration in preparing the
Strategic Plan and CIP.
In response to a comment by Councilmember Hotvet, Heck confirmed that the Strategic Plan document
would tie back to the budget and CIP.
Heck stated that at the last meeting, the group reviewed and prioritized the goals and Goal 1 is Foster
Greater Community Involvement/Engagement.
Hotvet suggested dropping the words “Foster Greater” from the heading of the Goal, and changing the
current word “Goal” to “Strategy” and to change the current word “Strategy” to “Plan”.
In response to a question from Siakel, Heck indicated he wants to review the first Goal (now called
Strategy), to make sure it is clear and that everyone understands what each item means. In reviewing the
goal, he noted we should be able to tie it back to a specific activity and identify a way to measure it. The
Strategy (now called Plan) should be clear and not have too many elements to it.
Council agreed that the information provided under Strategy 1 does capture what was discussed at the
previous meeting.
Heck asked if Greater Community Involvement/Engagement is a clear statement, and if not, how can it be
more clearly stated.
Siakel asked what is the desired outcome of the first Strategy - Greater Community Involvement/
Engagement. What are the reasons we want community involvement?
Some of the reasons suggested included level of services provided by city; educate citizens on current
events/ happenings; and volunteer opportunities which helps build a sense of community.
Discussion ensued on various objectives that fall under the strategy Community Involvement/
Engagement.
Siakel provided an example:
Strategy 1: Engage community and build citizen participation
Objective: Create and brand an identity for Shorewood as a South Lake Community. The objectives spell
out why it’s a strategy.
Objective: Update existing signs
Plan: Update signs for City Hall, the Southshore Center, boundary signs, water towers, vehicles,
letterhead, newsletter, website – update all graphics.
Action/Tactic: Put on council agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2011
Page 3 of 5
Siakel noted that she sees the community survey being created in sections, and one section could be
around branding the community, and we could ask what does this mean to residents, and is it a priority.
Finance Director DeJong asked if the survey should be conducted before many of the identity changes are
made.
Siakel indicated that the Council made a decision to go forward with the border signs, and the question is
how in depth we want to go with establishing this identity.
Planning Director Nielsen suggested using the term establishing community identity instead of the term
branding; he felt this would help people to know they are in Shorewood and are part of the South Lake
Community. The term branding sounds commercial to him; he thought it sounds like we are trying to sell
something. He indicated the issue of establishing community identity is in the comprehensive plan.
Siakel suggested renaming the Objective to read: Establish a community identity for Shorewood as a
South Lake Community. She suggested the Plan would be to create a common tie through updating signs
in Shorewood. And under Action, the various signs and graphics to be updated would be listed.
Hotvet stated the overall survey should come first as Objective 1.1; and this survey would include
questions from every Strategy area.
Heck stated that establishing a community identity for Shorewood as a South Lake Community would
then become Objective 1.2, and asked if there are any other items for creating the Plan for this Objective.
There were no further items at this time.
Heck indicated the next Objective 1.3 is to develop a community marketing plan and coordinate with
South Lake Partners.
Siakel asked for clarification on what this objective means.
Discussion ensued on what this objective means. It was thought to be related to coordination and
collaboration efforts with other communities in areas such as parks and recreation.
Planning Director Nielsen indicated he sees the Strategy being citizen participation, which has the
following three parts:
1) Awareness – this includes communications with residents and creating the Shorewood identity
through signs and graphics on the newsletter, water towers, legal notices, website, letterhead,
graphics/logos on vehicles, and items such as that.
2) Engagement – it is more difficult to get people engaged; this is where we want to get feedback;
the survey would fall under this, as well as the all-call system, serving as an information clearing house,
establish focus groups, citizen academy.
3) Involvement – this is getting people to serve on commissions and committees and getting a
volunteer pool. It would also include the master gardeners.
Discussion ensued on the process that Council is going through to establish the Strategic Plan and
acknowledges this is a difficult, time-consuming process that will not be easy, especially considering that
we are not using a skilled facilitator to help with the process.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2011
Page 4 of 5
Discussion ensued on the objective Develop Community Marketing Plan and Coordinate with South Lake
Partners and how this relates to neighboring communities identifying with the South Lake Community.
Woodruff noted that a focus group could be used to pull together representatives from each city and
present the proposition of having a multi-city community identity to them and see what they think.
It was determined that the Plan for this objective would be to present this idea to the various
representatives of the focus group to get their feedback. This is something that could be done now, prior
to conducting a survey.
Discussion ensued on how and where to find people to serve on the focus group. Specific constituents
would be selected and invited to participate; it was suggested this would be good to do after the new
Shorewood signs are placed, which have the South Lake Community phrase on them.
Discussion followed on what the expected outcome is and what is being measured when looking at the
various Objectives. The example of people not knowing what community they live in was discussed. The
initial survey could ask a question such as “what community do you identify with.” The results from this
question would establish a baseline to find out how many people identify themselves with living in
Shorewood. Then in a year or two, the question could be asked on another survey to see if the border
signs and other city identity signs have had an impact on what community our residents identify
themselves with.
Heck noted that some of the objectives will have a continuous measure, and some will have a specific
outcome to be measured.
Siakel suggested we target the date for mailing the survey to be around October 1.
Discussion ensued on how to determine the survey questions, and how to conduct and distribute the
survey, such as by mail, phone, on-line, etc. A consultant will likely be used to determine the survey
questions and assist with the best way to conduct the survey.
Siakel suggested we use a flip chart the next time the group meets to assist in keeping track of the group’s
discussion on the various objectives, plan, action/tactic, measures, etc.
Discussion followed on what the citizen academy item is. Several cities have a citizen academy. In some
cities, the citizen academy is a program that residents can attend to learn about the various departments. It
includes the police department, as well as all other city departments such as planning, engineering, public
works, finance, etc.
Siakel indicated she thought a program like this would be timely, as it would bring residents in and help
them to understand the value of the services the city provides.
Lizée turned the meeting over to Administrator Heck as she had to depart the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Discussion ensued on the All-Call System which is a recorded phone message for emergency situations.
This type of system is used in the school districts where it calls the database of phone numbers provided
by the parents and leaves a recorded message. It also can send a text message, if requested in that format.
Some police departments also have used this system for alerts. The city could use this type of system for
emergency announcements, project updates, and informational items. Staff would likely be assigned to
investigate the use of this system in other communities and options for sharing in the system with another
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2011
Page 5 of 5
entity.
The next item discussed by the group was Clearing House for Information. This item involves the
coordination of a master calendar with other communities to identify the various events in the area.
Discussion ensued on the Volunteer Recruitment item. One current, existing use of volunteers are with the
Adopt a Garden program, where volunteers plant and maintain the gardens at the Shorewood parks; this
has been an on-going project for several years that is now well-established. It was determined that the
process for managing volunteers, identifying projects for volunteers, how to get people interested and
engaged in serving as a volunteer, and recognizing volunteers needs to be determined.
Woodruff departed the meeting at 4:45 p.m.
Heck provided a review of the group’s discussion. It was determined that the item Develop a Community
Marketing Plan be removed from the list. Heck stated he would email an updated Strategic Plan document
to everyone for review and feedback.
3. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, adjourning the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Jean Panchyshyn, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Finance June 13, 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 51756 through
51830 totaling $281,127.99.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
6/09/2011 12:20 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/24/2011 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 5/24/2011 000000 12,066.60
00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 6/07/2011 000000 11,884.64
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 5/24/2011 000000 2,207.13
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 6/07/2011 000000 2,157.43
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 5/24/2011 000000 1,092.39
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 6/07/2011 000000 1,092.39
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 5/24/2011 051757 1,511.00
00052 PERA R 5/24/2011 051758 7,273.29
00086 AFSCME COUNCIL 5 R 6/07/2011 051760 305.92
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 6/07/2011 051761 1,536.01
16625 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS R 6/07/2011 051762 32.00
00052 PERA R 6/07/2011 051763 7,133.66
29306 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 R 6/13/2011 051765 13,840.20
16275 AMERICAN MESSAGING R 6/13/2011 051766 21.29
02040 ARM R 6/13/2011 051767 20.00
29315 BOLTON & MENK, INC. R 6/13/2011 051768 1,385.00
29395 BOORSMA MASONRY, INC. R 6/13/2011 051769 7,000.00
04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 6/13/2011 051770 206.22
17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 6/13/2011 051772 634.41
29333 CERTIFIED APPLIANCE RECYCLING R 6/13/2011 051773 3,499.00
17400 CITY OF MINNETONKA R 6/13/2011 051774 15,905.00
29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 6/13/2011 051775 847.47
6/09/2011 12:20 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/24/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
29285 CORPORATE MECHANICAL R 6/13/2011 051776 1,086.42
05875 CUB FOODS R 6/13/2011 051777 24.19
05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 6/13/2011 051778 61.39
06350 DAVIS, CHARLES R 6/13/2011 051779 99.95
29363 DeJONG, BRUCE R 6/13/2011 051780 669.26
06580 DEM-CON LANDFILL INC R 6/13/2011 051781 104.40
26110 DEX ONE R 6/13/2011 051782 121.20
29396 EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC R 6/13/2011 051783 109.64
07270 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC R 6/13/2011 051784 628.43
29322 EXCELSIOR FLORIST R 6/13/2011 051785 59.00
29387 FASCHING, GREGORY R 6/13/2011 051786 382.00
07870 FASCHING, PATRICIA R 6/13/2011 051787 7.65
07975 FINANCE AND COMMERCE R 6/13/2011 051788 533.63
08712 G & K SERVICES R 6/13/2011 051789 1,354.41
27195 GRAINGER, INC R 6/13/2011 051790 88.85
07900 HAWKINS, INC. R 6/13/2011 051791 2,123.23
27400 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. R 6/13/2011 051792 124.25
10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 6/13/2011 051793 64.00
29290 INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY R 6/13/2011 051794 303.55
11650 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED R 6/13/2011 051795 791.51
81115 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS R 6/13/2011 051796 160.00
15403 MAMA R 6/13/2011 051797 20.00
6/09/2011 12:20 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/24/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
15050 MEDIACOM R 6/13/2011 051798 102.74
00079 MEDICA R 6/13/2011 051799 14,972.19
1 MICHELLE COMBS R 6/13/2011 051800 534.00
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC R 6/13/2011 051801 273.97
29394 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH R 6/13/2011 051802 35.00
14050 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY R 6/13/2011 051803 842.43
17475 MTKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION R 6/13/2011 051804 178.00
19750 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO R 6/13/2011 051805 173.95
29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 6/13/2011 051806 777.02
15000 PAETEC R 6/13/2011 051807 527.31
20283 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. R 6/13/2011 051808 39.60
20950 POTTS, KENNETH N. R 6/13/2011 051809 2,291.66
29281 PYRAMID HOME SPECAILTIES R 6/13/2011 051810 3,443.53
26100 QWEST R 6/13/2011 051811 875.83
22000 SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS R 6/13/2011 051812 2,775.00
29294 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY C R 6/13/2011 051813 109.21
23660 STRATEGIC INSIGHTS CO R 6/13/2011 051814 721.41
29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 6/13/2011 051815 288.86
17200 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS R 6/13/2011 051816 55.13
23772 THE GARDEN PATCH R 6/13/2011 051817 42.86
24900 TONKA UNITED SOCCER ASSN R 6/13/2011 051818 125.00
25000 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES R 6/13/2011 051819 1,661.20
6/09/2011 12:20 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 5
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/24/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
25452 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC R 6/13/2011 051820 100.00
25540 UNITED LABORATORIES R 6/13/2011 051821 591.09
29135 VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. R 6/13/2011 051822 7,506.72
70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 6/13/2011 051823 294.37
22901 VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC R 6/13/2011 051824 350.00
27190 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY R 6/13/2011 051825 413.80
83900 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN R 6/13/2011 051826 514.93
29383 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, IN R 6/13/2011 051827 233.15
29340 WILL HALE - THE TADPOLE PARADE R 6/13/2011 051828 550.00
19800 XCEL ENERGY R 6/13/2011 051829 10,031.33
03325 BOYER FORD TRUCK, INC. E 6/13/2011 999999 81.70
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 6/13/2011 999999 3,652.00
06572 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA D 6/01/2011 999999 681.23
09400 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 6/13/2011 999999 520.95
10473 HENN CTY TAXPAYER SVCS PUBLIC E 6/13/2011 999999 30.00
13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 6/13/2011 999999 40.00
18500 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. E 6/13/2011 999999 4,977.16
19445 NGUYEN, MICHELLE E 6/13/2011 999999 81.60
19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 6/13/2011 999999 160.00
23725 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC E 6/13/2011 999999 4,389.88
28451 WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. E 6/13/2011 999999 6,106.46
29232 HECK, BRIAN E 6/13/2011 999999 559.74
6/09/2011 12:20 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 6
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 5/24/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
* * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED
REGULAR CHECKS: 70 121,498.72 0.00 121,498.72
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 7 31,181.81 0.00 31,181.81
EFT: 11 20,599.49 0.00 20,599.49
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: 88 173,280.02 0.00 173,280.02
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 88 173,280.02 0.00 173,280.02
REPORT TOTALS: 92 173,280.02 0.00 173,280.02
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 305.92_
TOTAL: 305.92
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 6/13/11 RECYCLING Recycling Utility Recycling 13,840.20_
TOTAL: 13,840.20
AMERICAN MESSAGING 6/13/11 JUNE PAGER General Fund Public Works 10.65
6/13/11 JUNE PAGER Water Utility Water 5.32
6/13/11 JUNE PAGER Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 5.32_
TOTAL: 21.29
ARM 6/13/11 WORKSHOP 06/09/11-JULIE MO Recycling Utility INVALID DEPARTMENT 20.00_
TOTAL: 20.00
BOLTON & MENK, INC. 6/13/11 MILL & OVERLAY Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 1,385.00_
TOTAL: 1,385.00
BOORSMA MASONRY, INC. 6/13/11 1/2 PYMT PARK SIGN Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 7,000.00_
TOTAL: 7,000.00
BOYER FORD TRUCK, INC. 6/13/11 BRAKE CHAMBER-DUMP TRUCK General Fund Public Works 81.70_
TOTAL: 81.70
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 6/13/11 FILTERS General Fund Public Works 9.55
6/13/11 CONNECTION & CABLE-RECEPT General Fund Public Works 55.76
6/13/11 LAMP General Fund Public Works 6.92
6/13/11 LAWN BATTERY General Fund Public Works 69.99
6/13/11 CORE RETURN General Fund Public Works 10.73-
6/13/11 BATTERY General Fund Public Works 65.24
6/13/11 VALVE STEM & TIRE VALVE General Fund Public Works 9.49_
TOTAL: 206.22
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 General Fund Municipal Buildings 101.65
6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 General Fund Public Works 229.72
6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 General Fund Parks & Recreation 68.28
6/13/11 MANOR WARMING HOUSE General Fund Parks & Recreation 15.55
6/13/11 SSCC 06/17-07/22 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 106.04
6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 Water Utility Water 49.42
6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 Water Utility Water 63.75_
TOTAL: 634.41
CERTIFIED APPLIANCE RECYCLING 6/13/11 2011 SPRING CLEANUP Recycling Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,499.00_
TOTAL: 3,499.00
CITY OF MINNETONKA 6/13/11 CIP-MILL & OVERLAY VINE HI Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 15,905.00_
TOTAL: 15,905.00
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 6/13/11 AUG-C.H. SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 531.01
6/13/11 MAY SVC General Fund Public Works 316.46_
TOTAL: 847.47
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 6/13/11 PCS-05/23-06/03 General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,205.00
6/13/11 PCS-06/06-06/10 General Fund Parks & Recreation 1,125.00
6/13/11 ASSISTANT-05/23-06/02 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 182.00
6/13/11 ASSISTANT-06/06-06/09 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 140.00_
TOTAL: 3,652.00
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
CORPORATE MECHANICAL 6/13/11 SSCC-BLG MAINT General Fund Municipal Buildings 199.60
6/13/11 SSCC-BLG MAINT General Fund Municipal Buildings 220.61
6/13/11 SSCC-BLG MAINT General Fund Municipal Buildings 666.21_
TOTAL: 1,086.42
CUB FOODS 6/13/11 SPRING CLEAN-UP EXP Recycling Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 24.19_
TOTAL: 24.19
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 6/13/11 DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 61.39_
TOTAL: 61.39
DAVIS, CHARLES 6/13/11 BOOTS General Fund Public Works 99.95_
TOTAL: 99.95
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 6/01/11 MAY-DENTAL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 681.23_
TOTAL: 681.23
DEM-CON LANDFILL INC 6/13/11 DEMO DISPOSAL General Fund Streets & Roadways 104.40_
TOTAL: 104.40
DEX ONE 6/13/11 ANNUAL ADS-04/28/11-04/28/ Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 121.20_
TOTAL: 121.20
DeJONG, BRUCE 6/13/11 GFOA CONF 05/21-25 General Fund Finance 669.26_
TOTAL: 669.26
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,125.62
6/07/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,051.99
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,191.89
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,157.67
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 756.72
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 744.91
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 287.27
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 270.24
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 67.18
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 63.20
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 444.14
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 454.60
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 103.87
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 106.32
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 313.02
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 313.02
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 73.20
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 73.20
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 264.46
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 262.42
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 61.84
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 61.37
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 224.95
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 224.01
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 52.61
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 52.39
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 190.69
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 190.69
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 44.60
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 44.60
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 360.83
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 432.10
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 84.38
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 101.05
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 275.44
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 244.98
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 64.42
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 57.29
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 4.86
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 1.14
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 12.70
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 28.17
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 2.97
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 6.60
5/24/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 276.12
6/07/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 243.01
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 64.60
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 56.84
5/24/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 27.03
6/07/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 42.82
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 6.32
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 10.02
5/24/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 271.63
6/07/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 103.10
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 63.53
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 24.11
5/24/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 191.87
6/07/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 283.87
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 44.87
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 66.39
5/24/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 79.94
6/07/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 15.85
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 18.70
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 3.70
5/24/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 10.70
6/07/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 76.28
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2.49
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 17.83_
TOTAL: 23,951.24
EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC 6/13/11 SILT FENCE PRE ASSEMBLED Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 46.56
6/13/11 ORANGE PRE ASSEMBLED SILT Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 63.08_
TOTAL: 109.64
ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC 6/13/11 WATER GATE VALVE RISER Water Utility Water 141.08
6/13/11 STORM GRATE CAP-COVINGTON Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 487.35_
TOTAL: 628.43
EXCELSIOR FLORIST 6/13/11 FUNERAL-DON ROGERS General Fund Council 59.00_
TOTAL: 59.00
FASCHING, GREGORY 6/13/11 SEC 125 EXP General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 382.00_
TOTAL: 382.00
FASCHING, PATRICIA 6/13/11 SPRING CLEAN UP DAY-MILEAG Recycling Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 7.65_
TOTAL: 7.65
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
FINANCE AND COMMERCE 6/13/11 BIDS-SMITHTOWN WAY 05/19 & Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 182.50
6/13/11 BITS MILL OVERLAYS 06/01 & Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 174.57
6/13/11 MURRAY HILL RD ST SW 06/01 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 176.56_
TOTAL: 533.63
G & K SERVICES 6/13/11 CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 178.96
6/13/11 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 1,102.85
6/13/11 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 72.60_
TOTAL: 1,354.41
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 6/13/11 MAY RENTAL Water Utility Water 260.47
6/13/11 MAY RENTAL Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 260.48_
TOTAL: 520.95
GRAINGER, INC 6/13/11 BREAKER KIT General Fund Public Works 88.85_
TOTAL: 88.85
HAWKINS, INC. 6/13/11 CHLORINE Water Utility Water 2,068.23
6/13/11 CHLORINE Water Utility Water 55.00_
TOTAL: 2,123.23
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 6/13/11 WATER METER PARTS Water Utility Water 124.25_
TOTAL: 124.25
HECK, BRIAN 6/13/11 CELL General Fund Administration 79.99
6/13/11 MCMA CONF - MILEAGE General Fund Administration 160.14
6/13/11 APR & MAY WELLNESS General Fund Administration 80.00
6/13/11 MCMA LODGING MAY4-6 General Fund Administration 239.61_
TOTAL: 559.74
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 6/13/11 800MHZ RADIO General Fund Public Works 64.00_
TOTAL: 64.00
HENN CTY TAXPAYER SVCS PUBLIC RECORDS 6/13/11 SUBSCRIPTION FEE General Fund City Engineer 30.00_
TOTAL: 30.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,175.00
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,175.00
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 336.00
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 361.01_
TOTAL: 3,047.01
INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY 6/13/11 ANNUA FIRE ALARM 05/02/11 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 303.55_
TOTAL: 303.55
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 6/13/11 RON JOHNSON LITIGATION General Fund Professional Svcs 791.51_
TOTAL: 791.51
LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS 6/13/11 SUMMER PARKS ADS General Fund Parks & Recreation 160.00_
TOTAL: 160.00
LANDINI, JAMES 6/13/11 JUN WELLNESS General Fund City Engineer 40.00_
TOTAL: 40.00
MAMA 6/13/11 GOVERNANCE OF TRANSIT REGI General Fund Administration 20.00_
TOTAL: 20.00
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
MEDIACOM 6/13/11 SSCC-07/16-08/15 SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 50.95
6/13/11 SVC 05/16-06/15 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 51.79_
TOTAL: 102.74
MEDICA 6/13/11 MAY-MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 14,972.19_
TOTAL: 14,972.19
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 6/13/11 JUN NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 273.97_
TOTAL: 273.97
MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH 6/13/11 STATEWIDE HOSPITALITY FEE Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 35.00_
TOTAL: 35.00
MISC. VENDOR MICHELLE COMBS 6/13/11 MICHELLE COMBS:ART SHOW 5/ Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 534.00_
TOTAL: 534.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 5/24/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,207.13
6/07/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,157.43_
TOTAL: 4,364.56
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 6/07/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32.00_
TOTAL: 32.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 6/13/11 GEAR General Fund Public Works 812.54
6/13/11 REAR DIFFERENTAL PARTS General Fund Public Works 16.97
6/13/11 PLUG CUP General Fund Public Works 12.92_
TOTAL: 842.43
MTKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION 6/13/11 ART SHOW CLASS-APR & MAY Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 178.00_
TOTAL: 178.00
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 6/13/11 MAY MILEAGE General Fund Finance 81.60_
TOTAL: 81.60
NIELSEN, BRADLEY 6/13/11 WELLNESS General Fund Planning 160.00_
TOTAL: 160.00
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO 6/13/11 PARK TRAIL HYDRAULICS REPL General Fund Public Works 3.02
6/13/11 PARK TRAIL HYDRAULICS REPL General Fund Public Works 170.93_
TOTAL: 173.95
ON SITE SANITATION INC 6/13/11 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
6/13/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
6/13/11 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13
6/13/11 MANOR PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
6/13/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
6/13/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
6/13/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13
6/13/11 BIRCH BLUFF ROAD General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96_
TOTAL: 777.02
PAETEC 6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 General Fund Municipal Buildings 135.86
6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 General Fund Public Works 46.90
6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 General Fund Parks & Recreation 145.60
6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 Water Utility Water 98.70
6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 Water Utility Water 100.25
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 6
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 527.31
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/13/11 SANDING DISCS-ROLLS & PADS General Fund Public Works 39.60_
TOTAL: 39.60
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,367.26
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,302.62
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 346.09
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 326.04
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 520.39
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 532.73
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 376.75
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 376.75
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 339.94
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 336.33
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 292.66
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 292.79
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 223.71
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 223.71
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 434.80
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 529.37
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 328.07
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 292.37
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 5.89
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 16.69
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 33.40
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 321.32
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 260.95
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 31.60
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 50.07
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 333.60
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 128.21
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 228.52
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 337.42
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 93.50
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 18.55
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 12.50
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 92.35_
TOTAL: 14,406.95
POTTS, KENNETH N. 6/13/11 MAR PROSECUTIONS General Fund Professional Svcs 2,291.66_
TOTAL: 2,291.66
PYRAMID HOME SPECAILTIES 6/13/11 WEED CONTROL 05/16-20 General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 3,443.53_
TOTAL: 3,443.53
QWEST 6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 General Fund Municipal Buildings 120.73
6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 General Fund Public Works 56.98
6/13/11 JUN SVC Water Utility Water 315.23
6/13/11 JUN SVC Water Utility Water 236.43
6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 Water Utility Water 73.23
6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 Water Utility Water 73.23_
TOTAL: 875.83
SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS 6/13/11 SAFETY TRAINING General Fund Public Works 2,775.00_
TOTAL: 2,775.00
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 7
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 6/13/11 GAS-04/25-05/20 General Fund Public Works 4,389.88_
TOTAL: 4,389.88
STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATI 6/13/11 DETERGENT SURPASS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 109.21_
TOTAL: 109.21
STRATEGIC INSIGHTS CO 6/13/11 2011 PLAN-IT UPGRADE General Fund Finance 721.41_
TOTAL: 721.41
SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/13/11 RESOLUTION NO. 11-23 - 05/ General Fund General Government 57.20
6/13/11 ORD NO. 476-06/02 General Fund General Government 34.32
6/13/11 HAYES CUP 05/26 General Fund Planning 42.90
6/13/11 SMITHTOWN WAY AFB 05/19 & Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 154.44_
TOTAL: 288.86
SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 6/13/11 ORD NO. 475 SUMARY 05/21 General Fund General Government 55.13_
TOTAL: 55.13
THE GARDEN PATCH 6/13/11 BALES STRAW-COMM GARDEN General Fund Parks & Recreation 42.86_
TOTAL: 42.86
TONKA UNITED SOCCER ASSN 6/13/11 FIELD DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUN General Fund Parks & Recreation 125.00_
TOTAL: 125.00
TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 6/13/11 JUN NEWSLETTER & ENV & REC General Fund General Government 1,311.78
6/13/11 ENVELOPES General Fund General Government 119.16
6/13/11 RECEIPT BOOKS General Fund General Government 230.26_
TOTAL: 1,661.20
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 6/13/11 COLIFORM BACTERIAS Water Utility Water 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
UNITED LABORATORIES 6/13/11 WASP SPRAY & ODOR BLOCKS General Fund Parks & Recreation 591.09_
TOTAL: 591.09
VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. 6/13/11 WATERMAIN BREAK Water Utility Water 2,924.72
6/13/11 EMERGENCY REPAIR SW SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 4,582.00_
TOTAL: 7,506.72
VERIZON WIRELESS 6/13/11 BRAD'S CEL SVC 04/11-05/10 General Fund Planning 78.64
6/13/11 L.S.-SVC 04/22-05/21 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 215.73_
TOTAL: 294.37
VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC 6/13/11 CITY TREE FELL ON PRIVATE General Fund Tree Maintenance 350.00_
TOTAL: 350.00
WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 6/13/11 PRIMER BULB General Fund Tree Maintenance 31.50
6/13/11 SAW CHAINS & PARTS General Fund Tree Maintenance 138.62
6/13/11 HERBICIDE PARKS General Fund Parks & Recreation 205.71
6/13/11 SPOOL LINE WEED WHIP General Fund Parks & Recreation 37.97_
TOTAL: 413.80
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 6/13/11 JUN SVC General Fund Public Works 361.37
6/13/11 JUN SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 153.56_
TOTAL: 514.93
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 8
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, INC. 6/13/11 WATERMAIN BREAK Water Utility Water 233.15_
TOTAL: 233.15
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 2,184.78
WILL HALE - THE TADPOLE PARADE 6/13/11 FREEMAN PARK PERFORMANCE-0 General Fund Parks & Recreation 550.00_
TOTAL: 550.00
WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. 6/13/11 BLACKTOP General Fund Streets & Roadways 4,977.16_
TOTAL: 4,977.16
WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/13/11 SIGN ASSET MGMT WORK PLAN General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 1,273.00
6/13/11 MAR-GIS & CAD-SILVER LK OU Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 659.00
6/13/11 FEB-6180 MURRAY HILL DRAIN Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4,174.46_
TOTAL: 6,106.46
XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 General Fund Municipal Buildings 425.06
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 General Fund Police Protection 3.70
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 General Fund Public Works 428.99
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 25.30
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 3,284.82
6/13/11 5700 CTY RD 19 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 33.26
6/13/11 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 182.86
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 General Fund Parks & Recreation 376.97
6/13/11 SSCC- 06/22-07/24 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 681.35
6/13/11 24253 SMITHTOWN RD-4/23-5/ Water Utility Water 670.47
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 Water Utility Water 392.86
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 Water Utility Water 787.55
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 Water Utility Water 2,124.02
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 614.12_
TOTAL: 10,031.33
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Administration 9,270.91
General Fund General Government 14,525.20
General Fund Finance 10,393.31
General Fund Planning 9,328.10
General Fund Protective Inspections 8,075.02
General Fund City Engineer 6,171.20
General Fund Public Works 13,298.95
General Fund Streets & Roadways 8,557.40
General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 81.21
General Fund Tree Maintenance 690.78
General Fund Parks & Recreation 9,106.42
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 1,126.52
Water Utility Water 6,369.69
Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 7,806.17
06-09-2011 11:55 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 9
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES Recycling Utility Recycling 1,600.60
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,446.49_
TOTAL: 107,847.97
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 192,997.33
402 Park Capital Improvements 7,000.00
404 Street Capital Improvemen 17,801.51
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 4,013.63
601 Water Utility 18,191.23
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 14,636.76
621 Recycling Utility 19,221.88
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 7,265.65
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 281,127.99
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 9
06-09-2011 11:56 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 1
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
NON-DEPARTMENTAL General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FEDERAL W/H 5,125.62
6/07/11 FEDERAL W/H 5,051.99
5/24/11 FICA W/H 2,191.89
6/07/11 FICA W/H 2,157.67
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 756.72
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 744.91
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,367.26
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,302.62
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,175.00
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,175.00
5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 336.00
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 361.01
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES 305.92
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 5/24/11 STATE W/H 2,207.13
6/07/11 STATE W/H 2,157.43
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 6/07/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS 32.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 803.94
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 803.94
FASCHING, GREGORY 6/13/11 SEC 125 EXP 382.00_
TOTAL: 32,438.05
Council General Fund EXCELSIOR FLORIST 6/13/11 FUNERAL-DON ROGERS 59.00_
TOTAL: 59.00
Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 287.27
6/07/11 FICA W/H 270.24
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 67.18
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 63.20
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 346.09
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 326.04
MAMA 6/13/11 GOVERNANCE OF TRANSIT REGI 20.00
HECK, BRIAN 6/13/11 CELL 79.99
6/13/11 MCMA CONF - MILEAGE 160.14
6/13/11 APR & MAY WELLNESS 80.00
6/13/11 MCMA LODGING MAY4-6 239.61
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 9,270.91_
TOTAL: 11,210.67
General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 444.14
6/07/11 FICA W/H 454.60
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 103.87
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 106.32
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 520.39
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 532.73
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 6/13/11 JUN NEWSLETTER SVC 273.97
SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 6/13/11 ORD NO. 475 SUMARY 05/21 55.13
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 288.45
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 288.45
TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 6/13/11 JUN NEWSLETTER & ENV & REC 1,311.78
6/13/11 ENVELOPES 119.16
6/13/11 RECEIPT BOOKS 230.26
SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/13/11 RESOLUTION NO. 11-23 - 05/ 57.20
6/13/11 ORD NO. 476-06/02 34.32
06-09-2011 11:56 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 2
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 14,525.20_
TOTAL: 19,345.97
Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 313.02
6/07/11 FICA W/H 313.02
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 73.20
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 73.20
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 376.75
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 376.75
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 6/13/11 MAY MILEAGE 81.60
STRATEGIC INSIGHTS CO 6/13/11 2011 PLAN-IT UPGRADE 721.41
DeJONG, BRUCE 6/13/11 GFOA CONF 05/21-25 669.26
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 10,393.31_
TOTAL: 13,391.52
Professional Svcs General Fund KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 6/13/11 RON JOHNSON LITIGATION 791.51
POTTS, KENNETH N. 6/13/11 MAR PROSECUTIONS 2,291.66_
TOTAL: 3,083.17
Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 264.46
6/07/11 FICA W/H 262.42
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 61.84
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 61.37
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 339.94
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 336.33
NIELSEN, BRADLEY 6/13/11 WELLNESS 160.00
SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/13/11 HAYES CUP 05/26 42.90
VERIZON WIRELESS 6/13/11 BRAD'S CEL SVC 04/11-05/10 78.64
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 9,328.10_
TOTAL: 10,936.00
Municipal Buildings General Fund CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 6/13/11 DRINKING WATER SVC 61.39
G & K SERVICES 6/13/11 CH SVC 178.96
PAETEC 6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 135.86
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 101.65
XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 425.06
QWEST 6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 120.73
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 6/13/11 AUG-C.H. SVC 531.01
CORPORATE MECHANICAL 6/13/11 SSCC-BLG MAINT 199.60
6/13/11 SSCC-BLG MAINT 220.61
6/13/11 SSCC-BLG MAINT 666.21_
TOTAL: 2,641.08
Police Protection General Fund XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 3.70_
TOTAL: 3.70
Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 224.95
6/07/11 FICA W/H 224.01
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 52.61
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 52.39
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 292.66
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 292.79
06-09-2011 11:56 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 3
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 8,075.02_
TOTAL: 9,214.43
City Engineer General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 190.69
6/07/11 FICA W/H 190.69
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 44.60
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 44.60
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 223.71
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 223.71
HENN CTY TAXPAYER SVCS PUBLIC RECORDS 6/13/11 SUBSCRIPTION FEE 30.00
LANDINI, JAMES 6/13/11 JUN WELLNESS 40.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 6,171.20_
TOTAL: 7,159.20
Public Works General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 360.83
6/07/11 FICA W/H 432.10
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 84.38
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 101.05
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 434.80
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 529.37
BOYER FORD TRUCK, INC. 6/13/11 BRAKE CHAMBER-DUMP TRUCK 81.70
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 6/13/11 FILTERS 9.55
6/13/11 CONNECTION & CABLE-RECEPT 55.76
6/13/11 LAMP 6.92
6/13/11 LAWN BATTERY 69.99
6/13/11 CORE RETURN 10.73-
6/13/11 BATTERY 65.24
6/13/11 VALVE STEM & TIRE VALVE 9.49
DAVIS, CHARLES 6/13/11 BOOTS 99.95
G & K SERVICES 6/13/11 PW SVC 1,102.85
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 6/13/11 800MHZ RADIO 64.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 6/13/11 GEAR 812.54
6/13/11 REAR DIFFERENTAL PARTS 16.97
6/13/11 PLUG CUP 12.92
PAETEC 6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 46.90
AMERICAN MESSAGING 6/13/11 JUNE PAGER 10.65
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 229.72
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO 6/13/11 PARK TRAIL HYDRAULICS REPL 3.02
6/13/11 PARK TRAIL HYDRAULICS REPL 170.93
XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 428.99
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/13/11 SANDING DISCS-ROLLS & PADS 39.60
SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS 6/13/11 SAFETY TRAINING 2,775.00
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 6/13/11 GAS-04/25-05/20 4,389.88
QWEST 6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 56.98
GRAINGER, INC 6/13/11 BREAKER KIT 88.85
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 6/13/11 MAY SVC 316.46
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 6/13/11 JUN SVC 361.37
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 13,298.95_
TOTAL: 26,556.98
Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 275.44
6/07/11 FICA W/H 244.98
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 64.42
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 57.29
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 328.07
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 292.37
06-09-2011 11:56 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 4
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
DEM-CON LANDFILL INC 6/13/11 DEMO DISPOSAL 104.40
WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. 6/13/11 BLACKTOP 4,977.16
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 8,557.40_
TOTAL: 14,901.53
Traffic Control/Str Li General Fund XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 25.30
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 3,284.82
6/13/11 5700 CTY RD 19 33.26
6/13/11 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS 182.86
WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/13/11 SIGN ASSET MGMT WORK PLAN 1,273.00_
TOTAL: 4,799.24
Sanitation/Weeds/Waste General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 4.86
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 1.14
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 5.89
PYRAMID HOME SPECAILTIES 6/13/11 WEED CONTROL 05/16-20 3,443.53
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 81.21_
TOTAL: 3,536.63
Tree Maintenance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 12.70
6/07/11 FICA W/H 28.17
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 2.97
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 6.60
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 16.69
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 33.40
VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC 6/13/11 CITY TREE FELL ON PRIVATE 350.00
WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 6/13/11 PRIMER BULB 31.50
6/13/11 SAW CHAINS & PARTS 138.62
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 690.78_
TOTAL: 1,311.43
Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 276.12
6/07/11 FICA W/H 243.01
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 64.60
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 56.84
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 321.32
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 260.95
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 6/13/11 PCS-05/23-06/03 2,205.00
6/13/11 PCS-06/06-06/10 1,125.00
PAETEC 6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 145.60
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 68.28
6/13/11 MANOR WARMING HOUSE 15.55
XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 376.97
THE GARDEN PATCH 6/13/11 BALES STRAW-COMM GARDEN 42.86
TONKA UNITED SOCCER ASSN 6/13/11 FIELD DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUN 125.00
UNITED LABORATORIES 6/13/11 WASP SPRAY & ODOR BLOCKS 591.09
WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 6/13/11 HERBICIDE PARKS 205.71
6/13/11 SPOOL LINE WEED WHIP 37.97
ON SITE SANITATION INC 6/13/11 BADGER PARK 45.96
6/13/11 CATHCART PARK 45.96
6/13/11 FREEMAN PARK 266.13
6/13/11 MANOR PARK 45.96
6/13/11 SILVERWOOD PARK 45.96
6/13/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE 45.96
6/13/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS 235.13
6/13/11 BIRCH BLUFF ROAD 45.96
06-09-2011 11:56 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 5
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
WILL HALE - THE TADPOLE PARADE 6/13/11 FREEMAN PARK PERFORMANCE-0 550.00
LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS 6/13/11 SUMMER PARKS ADS 160.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 9,106.42_
TOTAL: 16,755.31
Unallocated Expenses General Fund MEDICA 6/13/11 MAY-MEDICAL PREM 14,972.19
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 6/01/11 MAY-DENTAL 681.23_
TOTAL: 15,653.42
Park Capital Improveme Park Capital Impro BOORSMA MASONRY, INC. 6/13/11 1/2 PYMT PARK SIGN 7,000.00_
TOTAL: 7,000.00
Street Capt Improvemen Street Capital Imp FINANCE AND COMMERCE 6/13/11 BIDS-SMITHTOWN WAY 05/19 & 182.50
6/13/11 BITS MILL OVERLAYS 06/01 & 174.57
CITY OF MINNETONKA 6/13/11 CIP-MILL & OVERLAY VINE HI 15,905.00
SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/13/11 SMITHTOWN WAY AFB 05/19 & 154.44
BOLTON & MENK, INC. 6/13/11 MILL & OVERLAY 1,385.00_
TOTAL: 17,801.51
Senior Community Cente Southshore Communi EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 27.03
6/07/11 FICA W/H 42.82
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 6.32
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 10.02
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 31.60
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 50.07
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 6/13/11 ASSISTANT-05/23-06/02 182.00
6/13/11 ASSISTANT-06/06-06/09 140.00
G & K SERVICES 6/13/11 SSCC SVC 72.60
MISC. VENDOR MICHELLE COMBS 6/13/11 MICHELLE COMBS:ART SHOW 5/ 534.00
MEDIACOM 6/13/11 SSCC-07/16-08/15 SVC 50.95
6/13/11 SVC 05/16-06/15 51.79
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 6/13/11 SSCC 06/17-07/22 106.04
MTKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION 6/13/11 ART SHOW CLASS-APR & MAY 178.00
XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SSCC- 06/22-07/24 681.35
DEX ONE 6/13/11 ANNUAL ADS-04/28/11-04/28/ 121.20
INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY 6/13/11 ANNUA FIRE ALARM 05/02/11 303.55
STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATI 6/13/11 DETERGENT SURPASS 109.21
MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH 6/13/11 STATEWIDE HOSPITALITY FEE 35.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 6/13/11 JUN SVC 153.56
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,126.52_
TOTAL: 4,013.63
Water Water Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 271.63
6/07/11 FICA W/H 103.10
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 63.53
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 24.11
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 333.60
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 128.21
ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC 6/13/11 WATER GATE VALVE RISER 141.08
HAWKINS, INC. 6/13/11 CHLORINE 2,068.23
6/13/11 CHLORINE 55.00
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 6/13/11 MAY RENTAL 260.47
PAETEC 6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 98.70
6/13/11 SVC 04/26-05/25 100.25
AMERICAN MESSAGING 6/13/11 JUNE PAGER 5.32
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 49.42
06-09-2011 11:56 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 6
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
6/13/11 GAS - SVC 04/15-05/17 63.75
XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 24253 SMITHTOWN RD-4/23-5/ 670.47
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 392.86
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 787.55
6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 2,124.02
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 6/13/11 COLIFORM BACTERIAS 100.00
QWEST 6/13/11 JUN SVC 315.23
6/13/11 JUN SVC 236.43
6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 73.23
6/13/11 SVC 05/25-06/24 73.23
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 6/13/11 WATER METER PARTS 124.25
VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. 6/13/11 WATERMAIN BREAK 2,924.72
WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, INC. 6/13/11 WATERMAIN BREAK 233.15
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 6,369.69_
TOTAL: 18,191.23
Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 191.87
6/07/11 FICA W/H 283.87
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 44.87
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 66.39
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 228.52
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 337.42
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 6/13/11 MAY RENTAL 260.48
AMERICAN MESSAGING 6/13/11 JUNE PAGER 5.32
XCEL ENERGY 6/13/11 SVC-03/24-05/10 614.12
VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. 6/13/11 EMERGENCY REPAIR SW SVC 4,582.00
VERIZON WIRELESS 6/13/11 L.S.-SVC 04/22-05/21 215.73
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 7,806.17_
TOTAL: 14,636.76
NON-DEPARTMENTAL Recycling Utility CUB FOODS 6/13/11 SPRING CLEAN-UP EXP 24.19
FASCHING, PATRICIA 6/13/11 SPRING CLEAN UP DAY-MILEAG 7.65
CERTIFIED APPLIANCE RECYCLING 6/13/11 2011 SPRING CLEANUP 3,499.00_
TOTAL: 3,530.84
Recycling Recycling Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 79.94
6/07/11 FICA W/H 15.85
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 18.70
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 3.70
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 93.50
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 18.55
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 6/13/11 RECYCLING 13,840.20
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,600.60_
TOTAL: 15,671.04
INVALID DEPARTMENT Recycling Utility ARM 6/13/11 WORKSHOP 06/09/11-JULIE MO 20.00_
TOTAL: 20.00
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Managem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/24/11 FICA W/H 10.70
6/07/11 FICA W/H 76.28
5/24/11 MEDICARE W/H 2.49
6/07/11 MEDICARE W/H 17.83
PERA 5/24/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 12.50
6/07/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 92.35
ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC 6/13/11 STORM GRATE CAP-COVINGTON 487.35
FINANCE AND COMMERCE 6/13/11 MURRAY HILL RD ST SW 06/01 176.56
06-09-2011 11:56 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 13, 2011 PAGE: 7
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/13/11 MAR-GIS & CAD-SILVER LK OU 659.00
6/13/11 FEB-6180 MURRAY HILL DRAIN 4,174.46
EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC 6/13/11 SILT FENCE PRE ASSEMBLED 46.56
6/13/11 ORANGE PRE ASSEMBLED SILT 63.08
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/23/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,446.49_
TOTAL: 7,265.65
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 192,997.33
402 Park Capital Improvements 7,000.00
404 Street Capital Improvemen 17,801.51
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 4,013.63
601 Water Utility 18,191.23
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 14,636.76
621 Recycling Utility 19,221.88
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 7,265.65
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 281,127.99
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 7
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
A Resolution Accepting Low Bid and Awarding Smithtown Way storm pipe
Title / Subject:
replacement project to the Successful Low Bidder
Meeting Date: 6/13/11
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Exhibit
Policy Consideration: None
Background: The road surface of Smithtown Way, above the storm sewer pipe, was lifting every year
due to frost heave. The road had risen approximately 4” over several years and created localized road
drainage issues, drivability concerns and developed a longitudinal crack approximately 400 feet long.
On May 9, 2011 Council authorized the advertisement for bid for the Smithtown Way storm pipe
replacement project. The project was advertised and three firms provided a bid for the project.
Staff opened bids on 6/8/11 with a result of W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. as low bidder for $173,487.75.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Maintenance of this particular infrastructure was not budgeted for.
The Storm Water Fund has sufficient balance to financially proceed with the project. The fund is forecast
to be negative in 2013 with the current list of future projects.
Options:
1.Approve the resolution entering into a contract for Smithtown Way storm pipe replacement
project.
2.Direct staff to select a different contractor.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the contract for the 2011 Smithtown Way
storm pipe replacement project be awarded to W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. in the amount of
$173,487.75.
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 SMITHTOWN WAY STREET AND STORM SEWER
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 11-05
WHEREAS
, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements
designated as the 2011 Smithtown Way Street and Storm Sewer Reconstruction, City
Project No. 11-05, bids were received, opened on June 8, 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 W.M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. 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 W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. in the name of the City
of Shorewood, Project No. 11-05 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 8th day of June, 2011.
________________________
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#3D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Covington Rd Storm Sewer Outlet Cover
Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: quote and sketch
Policy Consideration:
Background: The storm sewer outlet structure located at 5750 Covington Rd does not have a safety
guard. Staff received comments on the safety of the structure without a guard. Staff contacted three
vendors about obtaining a guard, two did not want to provide a quote.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The guard is not budgeted for in the 2011 budget. The guard is
$1,780 plus tax, shipping and staff time to install.
Options:
1.Approve a motion directing staff to work with Haala to obtain a guard.
2.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Approve a motion authorizing staff to obtain a guard for $1,780
plus tax and shipping.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission:
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
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resident Survey— Deer Feeding Ban
Meeting Date: 13 June 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Planning Commission
Attachments: Sample Survey Form
Policy Consideration: Should the City solicit resident input regarding a proposed deer feeding ban
ordinance in advance of holding a public meeting on the subject?
Background: Last year the Planning Commission recommended that the City post a series of articles
in the newsletter, advising residents of the problems with supplemental feeding of deer. Since then the
issues appear to have persisted and the Commission has now recommended an ordinance that would
impose a ban on deer feeding. Before going forward with a public informational meeting on this
subject, the Commission agreed that this would be a good topic for a resident survey. They also suggest
that it would be a good test of using the utility billing system as a way of getting the information to and
from Shorewood residents.
The attached survey questionnaire would be placed in with utility bills for next quarter. Those who mail
their bills in can simply include the bottom portion of the card (it will be perforated) and send it with
their utility bill payment. Similarly, anyone dropping off their payment at City Hall can simply clip the
response to their payment. For those who pay their bills electronically (approximately sixteen percent),
they can mail the bottom portion to us. The card will be set up as a self- addressed postcard.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Communications Coordinator has advised us that the extra
cost of including the survey in with the utility bills should be quite nominal. We will try to have some
sort of estimate available at the meeting.
Options: Approve the questionnaire and authorize putting it in with utility bills for next quarter;
modify the questionnaire and authorize putting it in with utility bills for next quarter; or reject the
recommendation altogether.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The Planning Commission's recommendation is consistent with
much of the recent talk about gathering public input. It is also viewed as a good test of this method of
survey. Approval is recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, the Planning Commission will analyze the results of the survey
at their first meeting in August. Depending on the results they would either forward a deer feeding ban
ordinance to the Council in late August /early September or drop the feeding ban entirely.
Connection to Vision / Mission: This survey is consistent with providing quality service and a
healthy environment in Shorewood.
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
"air
I
The City will conduct a public hearing early in August to
consider a ban on deer feeding in Shorewood. For the past four
years, the City has conducted a deer management program, the
purpose of which is to manage the deer population in Shorewood to
healthy, socially acceptable levels. Based on Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) research, the City has published a series
of articles in the ShoreReport newsletter, advising residents as to
the negative impact of supplemental feeding of deer. Deer
feeding causes deer to concentrate in unnaturally high densities,
increasing the potential for spreading disease, increased deer -
vehicle collisions and over - browsing of vegetation near deer
feeding sites. These articles can be found in the newsletter
archives located on Shorewood's website.
City Hall continues to receive reports and complaints of deer
feeding. Before conducting this hearing, the Planning
Commission would like to hear from as many residents as
possible. Please take a moment to complete a brief survey
expressing your opinion on this subject. Simply place a check mark
next to the statement that most closely reflects your thoughts on
this matter.
❑ Yes, I support an ordinance banning deer feeding in
Shorewood
❑ No, I do not support an ordinance banning the feeding of
deer.
Comments:
Please return this survey to City Hall by July 31, 2011.
71'�� ya-w . Yo-wv� ap i�,d -w i� i�rn��v�t td-- w�.►
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Shoreline Restoration – Lake Virginia
Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by: Julie Moore
Attachments:
Policy Consideration:
Background: City staff applied for a Cynthia Krieg Grant for the 2010 season for a Lake Virginia shoreline
restoration, an extension was granted for site reselection. The project has changed to shoreline
restoration of a ditch that feeds Lake Virginia. The grant funded $5,730 for shoreline restoration. The
Minnesota Conservation Corp will provide some of the labor for planting through a Clean Water State
Program.
Due to the new location, staff would like to replace the culvert under Lake Virginia Dr. and provide
excavation assistance to the shoreline restoration project. The culvert would need to be replaced for the
proposed 2014 mill and overlay, the culvert is a corrugated metal pipe which has rusted and has created
a small speed bump in the roadway. Staff would obtain quotes for future Council consideration.
Financial or Budget Considerations: This is part of the 2014 Lake Virginia Drive storm CIP project it is
just early.
Options:
1.Direct staff to replace the culvert and provide excavation assistance for the grant project.
2.Direct staff to obtain quotes for just the excavation assistance for the grant project.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Council direct staff to obtain quotes for the culvert replacement
and excavation assistance.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission:
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
Beckman Swale
Metro Blooms will spray herbicide in key areas prior to contractor arrival to eliminate as
much invasive vegetation as possible. Contractor does rough excavation during install of
new culvert under road, with onsite preliminary and approval checks by Metro Blooms.
Contractor will excavate and remove soil as specified in construction docs submitted by
Metro Blooms. Metro Blooms will visit the site during contractor work to confirm what
needs to be removed. Contractor will install erosion control blankets that can be planted
into during planting phase. Metro Blooms will then work with MCC crew in September to
fine tune the excavation through precision grading, install Enviro-Lok Bags as check-dams,
and plant the swale with 4" pots in the middle of the swale and plugs on sides of the
swale. Unsure if money is available for a spring checkup and replacment of any lost plants
from the winter, but it is advised.
(H)=Hedberg (D)=Dragonfly Gardens (PB)=Patiotown Burnsville
Total Cost Total Cost
(1.5'
Project materialsQty needed
Units to purchaseCost per unit
plant spacing)(1' plant spacing)
1 roll60.460.4
1-8'x90' Wood Fiber Blanket for center (item 22158) (H) 230' needed combined
1-4'x180' Wood Fiber blanket for center (item 11159) (H)230' needed combined2 roll60.4120.8
Straw Eorsion Control Blanket on slopes 4 rolls @ 8'x112.5' (item 22162) (H)230'x2 (4 rolls @ 8'x112.5')4 rolls49.05196.2
Plants (Plug Size) (DF)1840 - 2300 sq ft (7' edges x230'=1610)1075 plants/33 flats3514001800875 at 5' wide
Plants (4") (DF)1840 - 2300 sq ft (3' middle x230'=690)460 plants42000280015% discount for 3k order
Enviro-lok bags ~14x4x20" (2 spikes come with each bag) (PB)8' channel w/6" storage depth (x2)28 bags8224
1 box
Fabric staples for mats 4"x1" 1000 per box (item 11169) (H)1,0005050
Wood Stakes for checkdam support (1"x2"x24") Box of 24 from Menards241 box6.76.7
Total4058.15258.4
Coordination timeCost per Service
Project Development4008 hrs
Project Design2004 hrs
Preliminary Spraying of Invasives1503hr
Onsite Coordination with Contractor (rough grading and soil removal) 4008 hrs
Onsite Supervision with MCC for grading fine-tuning and planting100020 hrs
Materials Ordering, Project Coordination, and Delivery Scheduling2004 hrs
Mileage100180 miles (4 plus trips)
TOTAL COST2450TOTAL PROJECT COST6508 - 7708
#9B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Otta Seal Enchanted Point Road
Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Summary Quote Tabulation
Policy Consideration:
Background: Enchanted Point Road is a gravel road that was selected for stabilization in March of 2011.
Two soil borings were taken and showed a gravel base of 12-13” which is sufficient to proceed with a
low traffic volume otta seal. Staff solicited quotes from four firms with Allied Blacktop providing the only
quote for the project. Their quote was for $52,800.
Financial or Budget Considerations: I did not see this project in the 2011 Capital Improvement Plan
making this an unbudgeted project for 2011 or it could be considered maintenance under the annual
road financial transfer. The quote seems to have a large mark up on items of similarity in the Smithtown
Way project.
Options:
1.Direct staff to proceed with this project utilizing Allied Blacktop as the contractor.
2. Accept the quote but do not authorize the project.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council accept the quote and not authorize
the project.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission:
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
#9C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: 5070 Covington Road land acquisition
Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: To be delivered at the meeting
Policy Consideration:
Silver Lake is located in the southeast area of Shorewood; it is within the Riley
Background:
Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Silver Lake is listed as a DNR protected water, #136P.
The City of Shorewood has storm sewer infrastructure that outlet into the lake. Over the years
sediment has deposited in the lake adjacent to a storm sewer structure at 5750 Covington Rd.
The City is responsible for maintaining the storm sewer and has many difficulties performing
maintenance due to the physical attributes of the site.
Staff contacted the land owner inquiring about purchasing some of the land near the outlet to
improve the site for maintenance access. The landowner has met with staff and has negotiated
a purchase offer.
Acquiring the property is the first stage toward improving the site for storm sewer maintenance
improving water quality of Silver Lake.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Improvements to the storm sewer system at 5750 Covington Rd is
a 2011 Capital Improvement Project.
Options:
1.Direct staff to complete the land acquisition.
2.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council direct staff to prepare a purchase
agreement, process a $1,000 earnest money check, prepare closing documents and commence with
survey, title work and Planning Commission minor lot split procedures.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission:
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
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Investment Policy
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Brian Heck
Attachments: Current Investment Policy
Resolution
Recommended Investment Policy
Policy Consideration:
This item will determine the authorized investments and liquidity reserves for the City of Shorewood.
Background:
The City of Shorewood last adopted amendments to the Investment Policy on January 12, 2009. Staff
has been made aware that its interpretation of the policy may be in conflict in regard to the authority to
purchase general obligation bonds. Staff would like to clarify the language to match the City Council’s
directive.
The specific investments involved are city and county general obligation bonds. The current policy
allows: Any security which is a general obligation of any state with taxing powers which is rated “A” or
better by a national bond rating service.
Staff had interpreted this to mean the policy allows us to invest in those items in section 1 from MN Stat
118A.04 shown below and removes the authority for items 2 and 3.
Subd. 3.State and local securities.
Funds may be invested in the following:
(1) any security which is a general obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers
which is rated "A" or better by a national bond rating service;
(2) any security which is a revenue obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers
which is rated "AA" or better by a national bond rating service; and
(3) a general obligation of the Minnesota housing finance agency which is a moral obligation of the
state of Minnesota and is rated "A" or better by a national bond rating agency.
The other interpretation of the policy would allow us to invest only in state–level general obligations
with no authority to purchase bonds of cities or counties from Minnesota or any other state. Staff
assumes the reason for doing so would be to limit the potential for default. However, many states are
in worse financial shape than other state’s local units of government. Our belief is that the GO bonds of
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
North Dakota municipalities are more likely to be repaid without incident than the bonds of the State of
California. Historically, default rates for municipal bonds are extremely low. The Municipal Bond
Fairness Act (HR 6308), included the following table of default rates up to 2007 for municipal versus
corporate bonds by rating and rating agency.
Cumulative historic default rates (in percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's S&P
Rating categories ---------------------------------------
Muni Corp Muni Corp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaa/AAA......................... 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.60
Aa/AA........................... 0.06 0.52 0.00 1.50
A/A............................. 0.03 1.29 0.23 2.91
Baa/BBB......................... 0.13 4.64 0.32 10.29
Ba/BB........................... 2.65 19.12 1.74 29.93
B/B............................. 11.86 43.34 8.48 53.72
Caa-C/CCC-C..................... 16.58 69.18 44.81 69.19
Investment grade................ 0.07 2.09 0.20 4.14
Non-invest grade................ 4.29 31.37 7.37 42.35
All............................. 0.10 9.70 0.29 12.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table includes revenue bonds which are not backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer and are
already excluded by state statute. Staff believes the risk of default is higher on Commercial Paper
(corporate debt which matures in 270 days or less) rated A1/P1 which is allowed by statute and city
policy. However you look at it, the risk of default on municipal bonds is extremely low with historic odds
of less than 1 in 400 for bonds rated A or better.
Staff has identified the following allowable investments that do not seem to be a good fit with our
investment model and current practices. These items will be prohibited under the policy.
MN Statute 118A.04
Subd. 3. State and local securities
(2) any security which is a revenue obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers
which is rated "AA" or better by a national bond rating service; and
(3) a general obligation of the Minnesota housing finance agency which is a moral obligation of the
state of Minnesota and is rated "A" or better by a national bond rating agency.
Subd. 5. Commercial Papers
Bankers acceptances of United States banks.
Subd. 6.
5. High-risk mortgage-backed securities.
"High-risk mortgage-backed securities" are:
(a) interest-only or principal-only mortgage-backed securities; and
(b) any mortgage derivative security that:
(1) has an expected average life greater than ten years;
(2) has an expected average life that:
(i) will extend by more than four years as the result of an immediate and sustained
parallel shift in the yield curve of plus 300 basis points; or
(ii) will shorten by more than six years as the result of an immediate and sustained
parallel shift in the yield curve of minus 300 basis points; or
(3) will have an estimated change in price of more than 17 percent as the result of an
immediate and sustained parallel shift in the yield curve of +/- 300 basis points.
Subd. 7. Temporary general obligation bonds.
Funds may be invested in general obligation temporary bonds of the same governmental entity issued
under section 429.091, subdivision 7, 469.178, subdivision 5, or 475.61, subdivision 6.
Subd. 8. Debt service funds.
Funds held in a debt service fund may be used to purchase any obligation, whether general or special, of
an issue which is payable from the fund, at such price, which may include a premium, as shall be agreed
to by the holder, or may be used to redeem any obligation of such an issue prior to maturity in
accordance with its terms. The securities representing any such investment may be sold by the
governmental entity at any time, but the money so received remains part of the fund until used for the
purpose for which the fund was created. Any obligation held in a debt service fund from which it is
payable may be canceled at any time unless otherwise provided in a resolution or other instrument
securing obligations payable from the fund.
In further reviewing the policy, there is one other areas which also deserves attention. The requirement
to keep 30% of funds in a liquid investment such as the 4M Fund or other money market mutual fund
seems overly restrictive. Staff has prepared a cash flow estimate that will reasonably allow for
expenditures to be paid without the need for such a large level of idle funds. This cash flow estimate
will be presented along with the quarterly investment report. The funds freed up for longer term use
may be invested at a higher rate of return without jeopardizing the ability to pay claims when due.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These policy changes have minimal financial impact.
Options:
The City Council may choose to:
1.Reaffirm the existing policy with or with the restriction on city, county, and school district GO
bonds as authorized investments;
2.Allow investments in every legal security as listed in MN Statute 118A;
3.Adopt the modified policy as presented which tracks state statutory language,
4.Modify any or all of the options listed above.
The City Council is not allowed to add investment types not authorized in statute.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the policy as submitted by staff.
Next Steps and Timelines:
This resolution will go into effect immediately upon adoption, but any investments that are currently in
the portfolio that do not meet the new criteria may be sold or retained at the City Administrator’s and
Finance Director’s discretion.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This policy contributes to sound financial management.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
INVESTMENT POLICY
INTRODUCTION
This policy covers all monies and cash balances of the City of Shorewood and includes deposits and
investments of funds deposited in interest bearing accounts. The policy is intended to be broad enough
to allow the Investment Officer to function properly within the parameters of responsibility and
authority, yet specific enough to adequately safeguard the investment assets.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish specific guidelines the City of Shorewood will use in the
investment of City funds. It will be the responsibility of the City Finance Director/Treasurer to invest City
funds in order to attain a market rate of return while preserving and protecting the capital of the overall
portfolio. Investments will be made, based on statutory constraints, in safe, low risk instruments.
SCOPE
The City Finance Director/Treasurer is responsible for the investing of all funds in the custody of the City,
including, but not necessarily limited to, the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds,
Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Agency Funds.
PRUDENCE
The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the “prudent investor”, and shall be
applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with
this policy and with MN Statute 118A, and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal
responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided that reasonable
action is taken to control adverse developments and unexpected deviations are reported in a timely
manner.
Page 1
OBJECTIVE
There are three main objectives of all investment activities that are prioritized as follows:
A. Safety - Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Each investment
transaction shall seek to first insure that capital losses are avoided. The
objective is to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. Credit Risk is the risk
of loss due to failure of the security issuer or backer. Interest Rate Risk is the
risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fail due to changes in
general interest rates.
B. Liquidity - The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating
requirements that may be reasonable anticipated. This is accomplished by
structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs
to meet anticipated demands.
C. Yield - The investment portfolio of the City of Shorewood shall be designed to attain
a market-average rate of return through budgetary and economic cycles, taking
into consideration the city’s investment risk constraints, cash flow
characteristics
of the portfolio and prudent investment principles.
Subject to requirements of the above objectives, it is the policy of the City of Shorewood to offer
financial institutions and companies within the City of Shorewood the opportunity to bid on
investments; however the City of Shorewood will seek the best investment yields.
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated from the City Council to the
City Finance Director/Treasurer, and, in the absence of the Finance Director/Treasurer, the City
Administrator (the investment officers). The investment officers shall establish procedures for the
operation of the investment program, consistent with this investment policy. Such procedures shall
include delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. The City Finance
Director/Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of
internal controls designed to prevent losses from fraud and employee error.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The Council, at its discretion, may form an investment oversight committee for the specific and limited
purpose of reviewing the portfolio of investments and earnings with the Finance Director/Treasurer and
City Administrator, with the purpose of ensuring the investment practices are in conformance with the
provisions established in this policy. The committee shall have no authority to suggest or direct the
Finance Director/Treasure or City Administrator to invest city funds in a particular security, with a
particular broker, or in a particular manner. Members of the Oversight Committee shall be the Finance
Director, City Administrator, and two Council members. The Committee shall meet at least twice each
year but not more than quarterly.
Page 2
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any City Official (elected or appointed) involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal
business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could
impair his/her ability to make impartial investment decisions.
AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTE AND DEALER
In accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A.005, the responsibility for conducting investment
transactions resides with the City Council of the City of Shorewood. Also, the Council shall authorize the
City Finance Director/Treasurer to exercise the powers of the Council in designating a depository of the
Funds. In selecting depositories, the credit worthiness of the institutions under consideration shall be
examined by the City Finance Director/Treasurer.
Only approved security broker/dealers selected by creditworthiness shall be utilized (minimum capital
requirement of $10 million dollars and at least five years of operation). These may include “primary”
dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c3-1 (uniform
net capital rule).
BROKER REPRESENTATIONS
Municipalities must obtain from their brokers certain representations regarding future investments.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A, Subdivision 6, requires municipalities to provide each broker with
information regarding the municipalities investment restrictions. Before engaging in investment
transactions with the City of Shorewood, the supervising officer at the securities broker/dealer shall
submit a certification annually according to MN Statutes 118A.05. The document will state that the
officer has reviewed the investment policies and objectives, as well as applicable state law, and agrees
to disclose potential conflicts of interest or risk to public funds that might arise out of business
transactions between the firm and the City of Shorewood. All financial institutions shall agree to
undertake reasonable efforts to preclude imprudent transactions involving the City’s funds.
AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS
Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A, Subdivision 3, lists all permissible investments for municipalities. This
list establishes the maximum investment risk permitted for a Minnesota municipality. Even though MN
Statutes 118A provides for more instruments to be used for investing purposes; the following is a listing
of investments the City will be authorized to invest in:
1.Government Securities: Instruments such as bonds, notes, bills, mortgages and other securities
which are direct obligations of the federal government or its agencies, with the principal fully
guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies.
2.Certificates of Deposit: A negotiable or nonnegotiable instrument issued by commercial banks and
insured up to the maximum allowable by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Page 3
3.Repurchase Agreement: An investment which consists of two simultaneous transactions, where an
investor purchases securities from a bank or dealer. At the same time, the selling bank or dealer
agrees to repurchase the securities at the same price plus interest at some agreed-upon future date.
The security purchased is the collateral protecting the investment.
4.Any security which is a general obligation of any state with taxing powers which is rated “A” or
better by a national bond rating service.
5.Statewide investment pools, including Minnesota Joint Powers Investment Trust (4M Fund), which
invest in authorized instruments according to MN Statutes 118A.
6.Commercial paper: Short-term unsecured promissory notes with a rating of A-1 (Standard and
Poor’s), P-1 (Moody’s) or F-1 (Fitch). These must be rated in the highest quality category by at least
two nationally recognized rating agencies and must mature in 270 days or less.
7.Money market mutual funds which invest in authorized instruments according to MN Statutes 118A.
8.Interest-bearing deposits in authorized depositories must be fully insured or collateralized.
COLLATERALIZATION
Collateralization will be required on two types of investments: Certificates of Deposit (above the FDIC
insurance amount) and Repurchase Agreements. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a
level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be 110 percent of the market value of
principal and accrued interest. When the pledged collateral consists of notes secured by first
mortgages, the collateral level will be 140% of the market value of the principal and accrued interest.
Collateral shall be deposited in the name of the City of Shorewood, subject to release by the City Finance
Director.
SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
All invested assets of the City of Shorewood involving the use of public funds custodial agreement shall
comply with all rules adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statute 118A. All custodial agreements shall be in
writing and shall contain a provision that all custodial services are provided in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
DIVERSIFICATION
The City will attempt to diversify its investments according to type and maturity. The portfolio, as much
as possible, will contain both short-term and long-term investments. The City will attempt to match its
investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Extended maturities may be utilized to take
advantage of higher yields; however, no more than 30% of the total investments should extend beyond
five (5) years and in no circumstance should any extend beyond fifteen (15) years. No more than 3% of
unencumbered funds shall be kept in commercial paper. At least 30% of funds shall be kept in liquid
savings accounts (such as the 4M Fund).
Page 4
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
The Shorewood City Council hereby authorizes the following city staff to sell, assign and endorse for
transfer, certificates of deposit, and certificates representing stocks, bonds or other securities that are
registered in the name of the City of Shorewood: City Finance Director/Treasurer and City Administrator.
INVESTMENT REPORTING
The City Finance Director/Treasurer shall prepare an investment report at least quarterly, including a
management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio.
The investment report shall include the cost, date and place of each investment, the maturity date and
rate of interest earning on each as of that date; and any additional information as may be requested
from time to time by the City Council.
CONCLUSION
The intent of this policy is to ensure the safety of all City funds. The main goal of the City will be to
achieve a market rate of return while providing liquidity and maintaining the safety of its principal.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 12th day of
January, 2009.
_____________________________
Chris Lizeé, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Brian W. Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
Page 5
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood maintains cash balances beyond what is needed for
immediate expense payment; and
WHEREAS
, prudent investment of those funds will earn market rate interest revenues which
can be used to reduce the amount of tax and fee revenues required to run the city’s essential
services; and
WHEREAS
, Minnesota Statutes 118A authorize investments in certain types of securities; and
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood desires to further limit the type of authorized investments
preserve the safety of its principal; .
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
,
that the City of Shorewood, does hereby adopt the attached investment policy to direct city staff
in fulfilling their fiduciary duties as stewards of the city’s financial resources.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of
June, 2011.
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
_______________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
City of Shorewood, Minnesota
INVESTMENT POLICY
INTRODUCTION
This policy covers all monies and cash balances of the City of Shorewood and includes deposits and
investments of funds in interest bearing accounts. The policy is intended to be broad enough to allow
the Investment Officers to function properly within the parameters of responsibility and authority, yet
specific enough to adequately safeguard the investment assets.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish specific guidelines the City of Shorewood will use in the
investment of City funds. It will be the objective of this policy to invest City funds in order to attain a
market rate of return while preserving and protecting the capital of the portfolio. Investments will be
made, based on statutory and city policy constraints, in low risk instruments.
SCOPE
The Investment Officers are responsible for the investing of all funds in the custody of the City,
including, but not necessarily limited to, the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds,
Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Agency Funds.
PRUDENCE
The standard of prudence to be used by Investment Officers shall be the “prudent investor”, and shall
be applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio. Investment Officers acting in accordance
with this policy and with MN Statute 118A, and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal
responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided that reasonable
action is taken to control adverse developments and unexpected deviations are reported in a timely
manner.
OBJECTIVE
There are three main objectives of all investment activities that are prioritized as follows:
A. Safety - Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Each investment
transaction shall seek to first insure that capital losses are avoided. The
objective is to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. Credit Risk is the risk
of loss due to failure of the security issuer or backer. Interest Rate Risk is the
risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in
general interest rates.
B. Liquidity - The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating
requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by
structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs
to meet anticipated demands.
C. Yield - The investment portfolio of the City of Shorewood shall be designed to attain a
market-average rate of return through budgetary and economic cycles, taking
into consideration the city’s investment risk constraints, cash flow
characteristics of the portfolio and prudent investment principles.
Subject to the restrictions of the above objectives, it is the policy of the City of Shorewood to offer
financial institutions and companies within the corporate boundaries of Shorewood the opportunity to
bid on investments; however, the City of Shorewood will seek the best investment yields.
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
In accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A.02, the responsibility for conducting investment
transactions resides with the City Council of the City of Shorewood. Management responsibility for the
investment program is hereby delegated from the City Council to the Investment Officers (the City
Finance Director/Treasurer, and, in the absence of the Finance Director/ Treasurer, the City
Administrator). The Investment Officers shall establish procedures for the operation of the investment
program, consistent with this Investment Policy. Such procedures shall include delegation of authority
to persons responsible for investment transactions. The Investment Officers shall be responsible for all
transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of internal controls designed to prevent losses
from fraud and employee error.
AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTE AND DEALER
The Council authorizes the Investment Officers to exercise the powers of the Council in designating a
depository of the Funds. In selecting depositories, the credit worthiness of the institutions under
consideration shall be examined by the Investment Officers.
Only approved security broker/dealers selected by creditworthiness shall be utilized (minimum capital
requirement of $10 million dollars and at least five years of operation). These may include “primary”
dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c3-1 (uniform
net capital rule).
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The Council, at its discretion, may form an investment oversight committee for the specific and limited
purpose of reviewing the portfolio of investments and earnings with the Investment Officers, with the
purpose of ensuring the investment practices are in conformance with the provisions established in this
policy. The committee shall have no authority to suggest or direct the Investment Officers to invest city
funds in a particular security, with a particular broker, or in a particular manner. Members of the
Oversight Committee shall be the Finance Director, City Administrator, and two Council members. The
Committee shall meet at least twice each year but not more than quarterly.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any City Official (elected or appointed) involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal
business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could
impair his/her ability to make impartial investment decisions.
BROKER REPRESENTATIONS
Municipalities must obtain from their brokers certain representations regarding future investments.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A.04, Subdivision 9, requires municipalities to provide each broker with
information regarding the municipality’s investment restrictions. Before engaging in investment
transactions with the City of Shorewood, the supervising officer at the securities broker/dealer shall
submit a certification annually according to MN Statutes 118A.04. The document will be in the format
approved by the State Auditor.
AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS
Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A.04, lists all permissible investments for municipalities. This list
establishes the maximum investment risk permitted for a Minnesota municipality. Even though MN
Statutes 118A provides for more instruments to be used for investing purposes; the following is a listing
of investments the City will be authorized to invest in:
1. United States securities.
Public funds may be invested in governmental bonds, notes, bills, mortgages (excluding high-risk
mortgage-backed securities), and other securities, which are direct obligations or are guaranteed or
insured issues of the United States, its agencies, its instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act
of Congress.
2. State and local securities.
Funds may be invested in any security which is a general obligation of any state or local government
with taxing powers which is rated "A" or better by a national bond rating service;
3. Commercial papers.
Funds may be invested in commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian
subsidiaries that is rated in the highest quality category by at least two nationally recognized rating
agencies and matures in 270 days or less.
4. Time deposits.
Funds may be invested in time deposits that are fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
5. Investment Pools and Money Market Mutual Funds
Additionally, investments may be made in state-wide investment pools, including Minnesota Joint
Powers Investment Trust (4M Fund) and money market mutual funds which invest only in authorized
instruments according to MN Statutes 118A.
COLLATERALIZATION
Collateralization will be required on two types of investments: Certificates of Deposit (above the FDIC
insurance amount) and Repurchase Agreements. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a
level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be 110 percent of the market value of
principal and accrued interest. When the pledged collateral consists of notes secured by first
mortgages, the collateral level will be 140% of the market value of the principal and accrued interest.
Collateral shall be deposited in the name of the City of Shorewood, subject to release by the Investment
Officers.
SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
All invested assets of the City of Shorewood involving the use of public funds custodial agreement shall
comply with all rules adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statute 118A. All custodial agreements shall be in
writing and shall contain a provision that all custodial services are provided in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
DIVERSIFICATION
The City will attempt to diversify its investments according to type and maturity. The portfolio, as much
as possible, will contain both short-term and long-term investments. The City will attempt to match its
investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Extended maturities may be utilized to take
advantage of higher yields; however, no more than 30% of the total investments should extend beyond
five (5) years and in no circumstance should any extend beyond fifteen (15) years. No more than 10% of
available funds shall be kept in commercial paper.
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
The Shorewood City Council hereby authorizes the following city staff to sell, assign and endorse for
transfer, certificates of deposit, and certificates representing stocks, bonds or other securities that are
registered in the name of the City of Shorewood: City Finance Director/Treasurer and City Administrator.
INVESTMENT REPORTING
The City Finance Director/Treasurer shall prepare an investment report at least quarterly, including a
management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio.
The investment report shall include the cost, date and place of each investment, the maturity date and
rate of interest earning on each as of that date; a cash flow analysis that shows investment maturities
and available cash sufficient to cover estimated bills, and any additional information as may be
requested from time to time by the City Council.
Modified June 10, 2011.
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution to Support New County 911 Communications Center
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn
Attachments: Letter from Sheriff Stanak and Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the Council adopt the Resolution supporting the construction of a new
E911 Center for the County?
Background: The letter from Sheriff Stanak indicates that the existing communications center in Golden
Valley is over 40 years old and is not adequate to house a modern emergency communications center.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, public safety communications has evolved to include more
communications via mobile computers and update radio systems. A facility designed four decades ago
may not be suitable to house the type of equipment needed to efficiently manage the growing
communications needs of the County.
The request of the Sheriff is for the City Council to pass a resolution in support of the joint facility so the
County is in a better position to seek state and federal assistance in constructing and equipping the
communications center.
I will note that Ramsey County completed a new joint dispatch center approximately 2.5 years ago and
includes the City of St. Paul.
Financial or Budget Considerations: There is no known direct cost to the city
Options:
1)Approve the resolution
2)Deny the resolution
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution
Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, staff will forward the signed resolution to Sheriff Stanak.
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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
NEW REGIONAL 911 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood values public safety as a core service of
government; and
WHEREAS
, reliable emergency communications is a critical component in the delivery
of public safety; and
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood receives police and fire dispatch service from the
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, with over 11,830 police dispatch events handled in
2010 for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department; and
WHEREAS
, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office currently provides dispatch to 36
entities across Hennepin County from a 60 plus year-old building in Golden Valley scheduled
to be replaced in 2012/2013 with a new facility on county-owned property in Plymouth,
adjacent to the Adult Correctional Facility at Parkers Lake; and
WHEREAS
, the new Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office emergency communications
facility is important to public safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, that the City of Shorewood supports
the construction of a new Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Regional 911 Communications
Facility at no cost to the city and with the understanding that no fees will be assessed to the city to
support ongoing operations of the new facility; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
, that due to the regional nature of this project, the City of
Shorewood encourages the Minnesota State Legislature and Federal Elected Officials to support
this project through state bonding and state and federal grants.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 13th
day of June, 2011.
_________________________
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
__________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
10D
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Adopting a Reimbursement Resolution for the Smithtown Way Storm Water Project
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Brian Heck
Larry Brown
James Landini
Attachments: Reimbursement Bonds Regulations Memo
Resolution
Policy Consideration:
Adoption of this resolution will allow Shorewood to potentially pay for storm water project costs from a
bond issue to be sold in a future year.
Background:
Staff has previously discussed with the City Council the probability that the Stormwater Management
Fund will run out of cash at some point in the next couple of years. The reason for the potential deficit
is that many new and replacement projects are scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan. The CIP
shows almost $1,900,000 over the course of the next five years (see attachment). Staff intends to
discuss the financial condition and funding options for the Stormwater Fund during the budgeting
process.
In order to preserve the ability to bond for some or all of the project costs, a reimbursement resolution
needs to be adopted in a reasonable time frame to the project.
The IRS has issued regulations to limit what can be bonded on a tax exempt basis. In order to prevent
City Councils from bonding for every project back to the date of incorporation, the IRS adopted rules
that limit how long you can go back or forward from a bond issue for a project. Paul Donna, the city’s
financial advisor from Northland, has provided a memo that discusses the rules and how they apply to
this situation.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The adoption of this resolution does not commit the City Council to issuing bonds for the project, but
preserves the option to do so.
Options:
The City Council may choose to:
1.Decline to adopt a reimbursement resolution for this project;
2.Adopt a resolution showing intent to reimburse project costs.
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
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff.
Next Steps and Timelines:
This resolution will go into effect immediately upon adoption. Bonds would not be issued until
sometime in the 2012-2014 timeframe.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This process contributes to sound financial management.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD TO REIMBURSE
CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS
OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the
“Reimbursement Regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse
prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and
WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily
from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a tax-exempt bond;
WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent
(“Declaration”) to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the
Reimbursement Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City proposes to undertake the following project (the “Project”).
Construction of stormwater utility improvements on Smithtown Way.
2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain costs of
the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount of $1,600,000.
All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other
expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement
Regulations.
3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any
original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of
bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount
not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) “preliminary expenditures”
up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that
finance or are reasonably expected by the City to finance the project for which the preliminary
expenditures were incurred. The term “preliminary expenditures” includes architectural,
engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of
acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation,
and similar costs incident to commencement of construction.
4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based
on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original
expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are
consistent with the City’s budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other than
proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved,
allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City's budget or financial
policies to pay such Project expenditures.
5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for
purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of
June, 2011.
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
_______________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
th
45 South 7 Street
Suite 2000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(800) 851-2920
(612) 851-5900
Fax (612) 851-5917
EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM
DATE
: May 10, 2011
TO: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
City of Shorewood
FROM: Paul Donna, Senior Vice President
Northland Public Finance
RE: Reimbursement Bonds Regulations
Bruce - The following is a summary review of the current Reimbursement Regulations.
Issuers often will pay capital costs out of available cash in anticipation of long-term
financing with tax-exempt bonds. Bonds or other municipal obligations issued to
permanently finance prior expenditures in this way are commonly called “reimbursement
bonds”.
In June 1993 the IRS issued new regulations describing permitted uses of reimbursement
bonds. Those regulations are effective for bonds or other municipal obligations issued after
June 30, 1993. Municipalities that expect to issue reimbursement bonds are required to take
actions specified in the regulations within 60 days of when the expenditures to be
reimbursed are made.
Declaration of Intent
Under the June 1993 regulations, if a current expenditure is to be permanently financed by a
later issue of tax-exempt obligations, the municipality must declare its reasonable intent to
do so within 60 days after the expenditure is made. Without this declaration of intent, the
ability to obtain permanent tax-exempt financing for that expenditure is lost (unless the
preliminary expenditure or deminimus exceptions described below apply).
The declaration of intent usually will be stated in a resolution approved by the
Issuer Council, and must:
1.describe the project (i.e., property, project, or program) for which the expenditure
will be made OR identify the fund or account (by name and functional purpose)
used to pay for the expenditure; AND
2.state the maximum principal amount of bonds expected to be issued for the
project.
Preliminary Expenditure and Deminimus Exceptions
Preliminary expenditures in an amount not in excess of 20% of the aggregate issue price of the
issue may be financed even if paid before a declaration if intent is made. Preliminary
expenditures include architectural, engineering, surveying, soil testing, reimbursement bond
issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition,
construction, or rehabilitation of a project, but do not include land acquisition, site
preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction. A special exception
also applies for amounts not in excess of the lesser of $100,000 or 5% of the proceeds of the
issue.
Reasonableness Test
A declaration of intent must be “reasonable,” meaning that the issuer reasonably expects the
reimbursement to occur. Whether an issuer’s expectation that the reimbursement will occur is
reasonable will be determined under all of the available facts and circumstances, including
whether the issuer has a history of making declarations of intent without following through
with an actual reimbursement or of making declarations in amounts substantially in excess of
the amounts expected to be necessary. Blanket declarations of official intent that are routinely
adopted and that indiscriminately cover all or most of an issuer’s expenditures are not
sufficient.
Other Requirements
18 Month Rule - Generally, the reimbursement bonds must be issued not later than 18
months after the later of (a) the date on which the expenditure is made or (b) the date the
financed property is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event later than 3 years after the
expenditure is made. Small issuers (governmental units that issue $5 million or less of tax-
exempt bonds during the calendar year) get a 3 year period instead of 18 months. A special
rule for long-term construction projects permits a 5 year rather than a 3 year reimbursement
period if both the issuer and a licensed architect or engineer certify that 5 years is necessary to
complete construction of the project.
Expenditures - The expenditures to be reimbursed must be capital expenditures, costs of
issuance for a bond, extraordinary nonrecurring items, a grant, a qualified student loan, a
qualified mortgage loan, or qualified veterans’ mortgage loan.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
10D
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Adopting Performance Measures
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Brian Heck
Attachments: State Auditor’s Letter
Council on Local Results and Innovation Performance Benchmarks
Resolution
Policy Consideration:
Adoption of this resolution will allow Shorewood to receive approximately $1000 in state aid and
exempt the city from levy limits for the 2012 property tax levy.
Background:
The Council on Local Results and Innovation was created by the 2010 Legislature to set benchmarks for
city and county operations. Through several meetings, the group adopted standards which are relatively
easy to measure using survey tools. The legislation comes with two incentives to participate. There is a
standing appropriation available for participants equal to 14 cents per capita. The Office of State Auditor
recently realized that the appropriation is available for 2011. All we have to do to get the money this
year (at the end of 2011) is to pass a resolution and mail it in to the OSA by July 1 – no exceptions or
extension of time. The other incentive is participating entities are exempt from levy limits.
The OSA will not be looking for any results on the performance measures until 2012. It doesn’t sound
like there will be any repercussions if we don’t actually follow through other than we won’t be able to
participate in the aid distribution for 2012 and won’t be exempt from levy limits for pay 2013.
The performance measures are mostly community survey questions and the OSA is not going to dictate
how you get the results. To staff, that means we could do something like a Survey Monkey type of poll
on our web site and that would qualify. It does not need to be a Decision Resources-type, statistically
valid survey to qualify. At some future point, the Council is going to be looking for some progress
measurement from year to year, but that has yet to be decided. Apparently the legislative staff has said
that elected officials are very interested in this and they considered and rejected elimination of the
program this year.
The usefulness of the program will be kind of limited. Cities of under 2,500 are already exempt from
levy limits and there is a cap on the reimbursement of $25,000 for Minneapolis and St. Paul. The
performance measures are vague and, to a certain extent, out of the entity’s control - or at least not
controllable through modest annual spending changes.
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
Does this commit the city to exceeding the levy limit caps for 2012 taxes? No – this only gives us the
potential to go beyond the existing levy limit rules but does not require us to levy any more or less than
whatever the City Council decides during budget deliberations.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The adoption of these standards will allow the city to collect about $1,000 for both 2011 and 2012 to
help defray what seems to be a developing consensus to survey the community. The only additional
condition is that we survey on these exact questions with any other survey questions the City Council
decides.
Options:
The City Council may choose to:
1.Decline to participate in the program;
2.Adopt a resolution to participate.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff.
Next Steps and Timelines:
This resolution will go into effect immediately upon adoption and will be transmitted to the Office of
State Auditor. Results need to be provide to the OSA by June 30, 2012.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This program contributes to sound financial management.
Model Performance Measures for Cities
The following are the recommended model measures of performance outcomes for cities, with
alternatives provided in some cases. Key output measures are also suggested for consideration by
local city officials.
General:
1.Rating of the overall quality of services provided by your city (Citizen Survey: excellent,
good, fair, poor)
2.Percent change in the taxable property market value
3.Citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair,
poor)
Police Services:
4. Part I and II crime rates (Submit data as reported by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension. Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny,
motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting,
embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses,
narcotics, gambling, family/children crime, D.U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and
other offenses.)
OR
Citizens’ rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe,
neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe)
Output Measure:
Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first officer
on scene.)
Fire Services:
5.Insurance industry rating of fire services (The Insurance Service Office (ISO) issues ratings
to Fire Departments throughout the country for the effectiveness of their fire protection
services and equipment to protect their community. The ISO rating is a numerical grading
system and is one of the primary elements used by the insurance industry to develop premium
rates for residential and commercial businesses. ISO analyzes data using a Fire Suppression
Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then assigns a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10.
Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the
area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria.)
OR
Citizens’ rating of the quality of fire protection services (Citizen Survey: excellent, good,
fair, poor)
Output Measure:
Fire response time (Time it takes from dispatch to apparatus on scene for calls that are
dispatched as a possible fire).
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response time (if applicable) (Time it takes from
dispatch to arrival of EMS)
Streets:
6.Average city street pavement condition rating (Provide average rating and the rating system
program/type. Example: 70 rating on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI))
OR
Citizens’ rating of the road condition in their city (Citizen Survey: good condition, mostly
good condition, many bad spots)
7. Citizens’ rating the quality of snowplowing on city streets (Citizen Survey: excellent, good,
fair, poor)
Water:
8. Citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally-provided
system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Output Measure:
Operating cost per 1,000,000 gallons of water pumped/produced (centrally-provided
system) (Actual operating expense for water utility / (total gallons pumped/1,000,000))
Sanitary Sewer:
9. Citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of city sanitary sewer service (centrally
provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Output Measure:
Number of sewer blockages on city system per 100 connections (centrally provided
system) (Number of sewer blockages on city system reported by sewer utility /
(population/100))
Parks and Recreation:
10. Citizens’ rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, park
buildings) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES
WHEREAS
, the Minnesota Legislature created a Council on Local Results and Innovation ;
and
WHEREAS
, there are financial incentives for cities to participate in the programs adopted by
the Council ; and
WHEREAS
, participation in the program furthers the City of Shorewood’s goals of improving
service delivery and enhancing communication with residents; and
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood desires to participate in the program; .
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
,
that the City of Shorewood, does hereby adopt the ten performance measures developed by the
Council on Local Results and Innovation.
It is further resolved that city staff is directed to perform all necessary tasks to participate in the
program for 2011.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of
June, 2011.
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
_______________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA n o�wL -N V C .
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR I JUN 0 1 2011
REBECCA OTTO
STATE AUDITOR
June 1, 2011
SUITE 500 "°" ���
525 PARK S'T'REET 651) 9 551 (voice)
SAINT PAUL, N 55103 -2139 (651) 2 9 6 - 4 7 55
n.us (E (lax)
M
state.auditoc@s [ ate.nnn.us (F. -mail)
1 -800- 627 -3529 (Relay Service)
Dear City Clerk/Finance Officer /County Auditor:
In 2010, the Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation. In February
2011, the Council released a standard set of ten performance measures for counties and ten
performance measures for cities that will aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected
officials in determining the efficacy of counties and cities in providing services, and measure
residents' opinions of those services. By February of 2012, the Council must create
comprehensive performance measurement systems for cities and counties to implement in
2012. Cities and counties that choose to participate in the new standards measure program
may be eligible for a reimbursement in LGA, and exemption from levy limits.
Participation in the standard measures program by a city or a county is voluntary. Counties and
cities that choose to participate in the standard measures program must officially adopt the
corresponding 10 performance benchmarks developed by the Council, and implement them in
2011. They will be required to communicate the results of the measures to their residents the
following calendar year. A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures
program for 2011 is eligible for a reimbursement of $0.14 per capita in local govermnent aid, not
to exceed $25,000 and is also exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes
payable in 2012, if levy limits are in effect.
In order to receive the per capita reimbursement in 2011, and levy limit exemption for
calendar year 2012, counties and cities must:
✓ File a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July I, 2011. This report will
consist of a declaration approved by the city council or county board stating that the
city /county has adopted the corresponding 10 performance measures developed by the
Council.
Annual reporting will be required by the cities and counties that participate in the program. By
July 1, 2012, cities and counties will be required to report to the OSA that they have adopted
both the performance benchmarks, and the performance measure system released by the Council
in February of 2012. A declaration will be required that the city /county has reported or will
report the results for calendar 2011 of the 10 adopted measures to its residents before the end of
calendar year 2012.
To meet the reporting requirements for 2011, a copy of the declaration in a PDF format can be
attached to an email and sent to gid @osa.state.mn.us. Beginning next year, the Office of the
State Auditor will be using the State Auditor's Form Entry System (SAFES) for the local
performance measurement and improvement program reporting.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
To view the 10 performance measures for voluntary adoption for both cities and counties, please
go to the Office of the State Auditor's website at www.auditor.state.mn.us and then in the
middle of the home page under Meetings, click on Council on Local Results and
Innovation, and then on Measurements.
Please submit your declaration by July 1, 2011. There will be no extensions for the reporting
deadline. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 297 -3682 or email me at
Dave.Kazeck@osa.state.mn.us.
Sincer ^ el�y y, ,
`v ' ' ce "' " 4 ` - *"n- L �
David R. Kazeck, Supervisor
Government Information Division
Encl: Legislation for new program
An Equal Opportunity Employer
6.91 LOCAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING.
Subdivision 1.Reports of local performance measures.
(a) A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program must report its
results to its citizens annually through publication, direct mailing, posting on the jurisdiction's
Web site, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public
input allowed.
(b) Each year, jurisdictions participating in the local performance measurement and improvement
program must file a report with the state auditor by July 1, in a form prescribed by the auditor. All
reports must include a declaration that the jurisdiction has complied with, or will have complied
with by the end of the year, the requirement in paragraph (a). hor jurisdictions participating in the
standard measures program, the report shall consist of the jurisdiction's results for the standard set
of performance measures under section 6_9 sub 2 , paragraph (a). In 2012, jurisdictions
participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program must submit a resolution
approved by its local governing body indicating that it either has implemented or is in the process
of implementing a local performance measurement system that meets the minimum standards
specified by the council under section 6.90, subdiv ision2 paragraph (b). In 2013 and thereafter,
jurisdictions participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program must submit a
statement approved by its local governing body affirming that it has implemented a local
performance measurement system that meets the minimum standards specified by the council
under section 6.90, subdivision 2 , paragraph (b).
Solid. 2.Benefits of participation.
(a) A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures prograrn for 2011 is: (1)
eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed $25,000 for any
government entity; and (2) exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes
payable in 2012, if levy limits are in effect.
(b) Any county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2012 is
eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed $25,000 for any
government entity. Any jurisdiction participating in the comprehensive performance measurement
program is exempt from levy limits raider sections 2 75.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in 2013 if
levy limits are in effect.
(c) Any county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2013 or any
year thereafter is eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed
$25,000 for any government entity. Any jurisdiction participating in the comprehensive
performance measurement program for 2013 or any year thereafter is exempt from levy limits
under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in the following year, if levy linin's are in
effect.
Subd. 3.Certirication of participation.
(a) The state auditor shall certify to the commissioner of revenue by August 1 of each year the
counties and cities that are participating in the standard measures program and the comprehensive
performance measurement program.
(b) The commissioner of revenue shall make per capita aid payments under this section on the
second payment date specified in section 477A.015 in the same year that the measurements were
reported.
(c) The commissioner of revenue shall notify each county and city that is entitled to exemption
from levy limits by August 10 of each levy year.
An Equal Opponunity Employer
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: SouthShore Center Monument Sign
Meeting Date: Monday, June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Kristi Anderson and Bruce DeJong
Attachments: Cost estimate and proposed Design
Policy Consideration: Approve the purchase and installation of a monument sign for the SouthShore
Community Center to include a digital display.
Background: About a year ago, Kristi Anderson, contracted manager for the community center, began a
drive to collect donations for a replacement monument sign for the center to include a digital display.
Kristi then discussed the concept with the operating committee.
Council reviewed and discussed the installation of the sign earlier this year. The council decided to
include the possibility of a new monument sign in the 2012 budget plan. Last month, the item returned
to the Council at the request of the Mayor to consider including the installation of this sign in 2011. The
council agreed with that and directed staff to prepare information on costs and funding.
As part of the discussions, the council considered location for the new sign. The proposal is to have the
sign located in the same place as the current sign.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Sign w/digital display $17,966
Stone work for sign base $ 3,150
Total $21,116
The City received $12,080 in donations toward the sign leaving the City to fund $9,036. There are a few
options for funding the sign.
a.Community Investment fund by tapping into the $800,000 remaining from the sale of the liquor
store operations.
b.Public Facilities Improvement fund.
c.General Fund Reserves.
d.Technology Fund.
Staff suggests using fund from the $800,000 or public facilities improvement fund.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Options:
1.Approve the purchase and installation of the monument sign as presented at the location of the
current sign.
2.Approve the purchase and installation of the monument sign as proposed but place it in a
different location.
3.Schedule the purchase and installation in 2012.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the council authorize the purchase and
installation of the sign in the current location using funds from the Community Investment fund or the
Public Facilities fund.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the project is approved by Council, staff will work with Kristi Anderson in
the removal of the old sign and installation of the new sign. Completion of the project is expected to be
about two months.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Attractive amenities and quality public service.
#11B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: City Hall Monument Sign
Meeting Date: Monday, June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Cost estimates and design options
Policy Consideration: the installation of a monument sign for City Hall, Badger Park, and the Southshore
Community Center.
Background: At the last city council meeting, council discussed the installation of a monument sign to
complete the city hall project. Council directed staff to return with concepts and costs as well as where
the funding would come from for the project since it was not planned for in the 2011 budget.
Staff is providing council with two sign options. The first is a single sign design with directional arrows
for City Hall, Badger Park, and the SSCC. The second option consists of two individual monument signs,
one designating City Hall and a second with the directional arrows for City Hall, Badger Park, and the
SSCC.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
1.Option 1 – single sign Stone base $2,945
Sign w/Directional $6,440
Total $9,385
2.Option 2 – dual sign Stone bases $4,545
Directional sign $2,988
City Hall sign $4,846
Total $12,379
Staff suggests funding for the sign would come from the Public Facilities Fund.
Options:
1.Approve sign option 1 with funding from the Public Facilities Fund;
2.Approve Sign option 2 with funding from the Public Facilities Fund;
3.Do not approve either option;
4.Approve one of the options with funding from a different source.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the Council approve design option 1 and fund
the sign from the Public Facilities Fund.
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
Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, staff will contact the vendors and commence installation of the
signs. Depending on contractor work status, the sign could be completed by late July.
Connection to Vision / Mission: attractive amenities.
#11D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: LMCC Fiber To The Home Project (FTTH)
Meeting Date: Monday, June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Attachments: Letters from Sally Koenecke, Executive Director of the LMCC
Policy Consideration: should the City support the efforts of the FTTH project also known as Tonkaconnect?
Background: During the past two or so years, Council member Woodruff participated on a taskforce
contemplating the development of a fiber optic backbone serving the LMCC communities. The end result
would provide greater bandwidth and services including video, voice, and data via fiber to homes and
businesses.
The taskforce researched and with the blessing of the LMCC Board, brought on a consultant to evaluate the
feasibility of applying for funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It was around
this time, the taskforce adopted the moniker Tonkaconnect. Additional study was completed and the group
hosted a meeting in 2010 featuring speakers and providing information on the plan. Representatives from
the City of Monticello provided information on their experience and rational for developing a municipally
constructed and backed fiber system.
The LMCC Board allocated $30,000 in the 2011 budget to hire a firm to conduct a survey to assess the
potential market. Ken Hendrickson, citizen representative on the LMCC, presented information to the Council
during his quarterly update in March and provided the Council with an overview of the survey results.
The total amount expended by the LMCC toward this program is $63,988.23.
Staff asked a couple questions regarding this project. One deals with total potential cost to the City and the
other with the governance structure.
Financial or Budget Considerations: unknown
Options:
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff does not have a specific recommendation regarding this project
and seeks Council direction.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission:
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
�►
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
4071 SUNSET DRIVE ® BOX 385 ® SPRING PARK, MN 55384 -0385 ® 952.471.7725 ® FAX 952.47 1.9151 ® ImccOlmcc -morg
May 27, 2011 1 JUN 0 1 2011
Mr. Brian Heck crry OF
DEEPHAVEN Shorewood City Administrator
5755 Country Club Road
EXCELSIOR Shorewood, MN 55331
GREENWOOD Dear Brian,
INDEPENDENCE It has come to my attention that some questions arose at the Shorewood City Council
Meeting of May 23, regarding the LMCC's broadband investigation. I reviewed the
discussion and thought I might help clarify some of the questions or concerns that were
LONG LAKE
posed.
LORETTO My understanding is you may be holding a. work session to better understand the
Commission's investigation of broadband. The following information may aid in that
MAPLE PLAIN work session.. -
MEDINA According to the LMCC's.Joint Powers Agreement Article VIII. Powers, Rights and
Duties of the Commission, it authorizes in "Section 6. Advisory Authority: Investigation
MINNETONKA and Recommendations. It may investigate such matters or concerns regarding
BEACH communications and/or the regulation of communications services or the use of rights -of-
way within the member cities to provide such services which affect the member cities and
MINNETRISTA provide advice and recommendations relating thereto. The expense of making such
investigations and providing any such advice and recommendations shall be borne by the
ORONO. Commission or the relevant communications provider, to the extent provided by law."
ST BONIFACIUS The tonkaconnect Work Group Committee has conferred with our legal counsel Robert
Vose to determine what is legal in terms of taking the necessary steps to provide
SHOREWOOD recommendations and advice to the cities, to ensure that the recommendation is properly.
researched. This may include a number of items that affect the cities' rights -of -way,
broadband being one of them. In 2006, the commission researched wireless internet as
SPRING PARK another example.
TONKA B"'' The funding of these investigations has been approved through the Commission.
Last year $30,000 was approved by the cities in the 2011' Budget for Communications
VICTORIA Education and Assessment. This was to include the implementation . of broadband
market survey and possible legal work that might correlate to any assessments that may
WOODLAND need to be determined. Not all of that was spent and I had shared with councilor Siakel
that there was approximately $1 °1,000 remaining in that budgeted fund. The market
survey proposal was submitted for $21,355 but the final billing amounted to $18,049.
That left $11,951 unspent in that budgeted item. There was no legal work associated with
the survey.
There was also some question of our procedural policy with the airing of our LMCC
meetings and our dissemination of minutes. LMCC Committee meeting minutes are
distributed in the monthly packets to all seventeen city commissioner representatives on a
monthly basis. Even though the Full Commission only meets quarterly all commissioners
get full commission packets for the interim Executive Committee Meetings. The
commission does this to keep the commissioners informed of any business of the
commission that may take place between Full Commission Meetings.
The Executive Committee Minutes and the Full Commission Minutes are also distributed
in the monthly packets and are approved by the commission. The Full Commission
Minutes are only approved at Full Commission Meetings. Both Executive Committee
Minutes and Full Commission Minutes are sent monthly to all member city
administrators. We are unaware if the administrators distribute them to their city council
members. The LMCC is not required by law to put the minutes on the website although
they may consider doing this in the future.
The LMCC Commission meeting is aired on Channel 20 every other Tuesday evening at
7:30 PM and every other Wednesday morning at 9:30 AM. Some months may vary
depending on the number of weeks. The programming schedule is sent to the cities every
month and we encourage the cities to post the information. The LMCC meetings can also
be viewed on demand through the LMCC website under the Channel 20 listings. We
archive one year's worth as we do the city council meetings. Program schedules are also
listed on our website and channels and posted in the newspapers (if they have room).
This may help to answer any questions you have on our funding mechanisms, our minutes
and our meeting distribution. If you have any questions please let me know.
Thank you for your interest, questions and discussion. We have appreciated working with
the City of Shorewood and your active involvement in the Commission.
Sincerely, /
Sally Koenecke
Executive Director
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
952- 471 -7125
June 3, 2011
U 'll,
DEEPHAVEN-
L 31
F' 0 EW00[3_;
EXCELSIOR
Mr. Brian Heck
GREENWOOD
Shorewood City Administrator
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
INDEPENDENCE
Dear Brian,
LONG LAKE
In answer to your questions regarding the total cost of the fiber investigation to date
LORETTO
This is the total of project invoices that was paid prior to the survey by CCG as you
requested.
MAPLE PLAIN
1. Lookout Point Pre -ARRA study
MEDINA
to determine qualification for federal stimulus funding $15,376.73
2. Lookout Point (Phase Two Consulting) $A562.50
MINNETONKA
$45,93923
BEACH
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to Shorewood.
MINNETRISTA
Sincerely,
ORONO
t
Sally Koenecke
ST. BONIPACIUS
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
SHOREWOOD
SPRING PARK
TONKABAY
VICTORIA
WOODLAND
#11E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: LMCC Appointment of an alternate
Meeting Date: Monday, June 13, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: Consider appointment of an alternate to the LMCC Board
Background: Council member Siakel attended the LMCC board meeting in the place of Council member
Zerby and discovered she was unable to participate as a voting member. She was told that to be a voting
member, the Council needed to formally appoint an alternate.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None
Options:
1.Select and appoint an alternate to the LMCC Board
2.Do not appoint an alternate
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends appointment of a council member to serve as
an alternate on the LMCC Board to ensure the city has a voting member present at all meetings.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the Council selects and appoints an alternate, staff will send a letter of
appointment to the LMCC.
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