The URL can be used to link to this page

06-27-11 CC Regular Mtg AgP C. B. A. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 27, 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, June 13, 2011 Minutes B. City Council Executive Session Minutes, June 13, 2011 Minutes C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 13, 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 Bids and Award Contract for Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Engineer’s memo, Improvements, City Project 10-11 Resolution C. Accept Bids and Award Contract for 2011 Bituminous Mill and Overlay Engineer’s memo, Project, City Project 11-08 Resolution D. Shorewood Ponds CUP Amendment Planning Director’s memo, Resolution 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. CenterPoint Energy Community Grant Presentation by Mark Spanton Minne CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – JUNE 27, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Attachments B. Ken Hendrickson, Board Representative, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 7. PARKS - Report by Representative Minutes A. Terrence Haines, Eagle Scout Project and Funding Request Deputy Clerk’s memo 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. Thomas Hayes – Conditional Use Permit Planning Director’s Location: 21135 Christmas Lane memo, Resolution B. Minnesota GreenSteps Program Planning Director’s memo, Resolution 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Public Works Equipment - Loader Director of Public Works’ memo 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Christmas Lake Boat Launch Administrator’s memo B. Water Connection fee Administrator’s memo C. Community Survey RFP Administrator’s memo 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Monthly Financial Report Finance Director’s memo 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, 27 June, 2011 7:00 p.m. A 6:00 p.m. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. nd Agenda Item #3B: Bids were received, opened, and tabulated on June 22 for the Murray Hill Road storm improvement project. W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. is the lowest bidder with a total bid of $199,318.90. Staff recommends approval of a resolution that awards a contract to W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. Agenda Item #3C: Bids were received, opened, and tabulated on June 22nd for the bituminous mill, overlays and appurtenant work for Afton Rd, Christopher Rd, Fatima Place, Ivy Ln and Rustic Way. Midwest Asphalt Corp. is the lowest bidder with a total bid of $173,699.00. There is $166,000.00 budgeted for the mill and overlay portion of the 2011 road maintenance. Staff recommends approval of a resolution that awards a contract to Midwest Asphalt Corp. Agenda Item #3D: The Shorewood Ponds Homeowners Association has submitted an affidavit from its secretary indicating that they have achieved the required vote of its membership to amend the declaration of covenants, allowing the ages restriction for Shorewood Ponds to lowered from 62 to 55 years of age. A draft resolution approving an amendment to the original conditional use permit and the amendment to the declaration are attached for your consideration. The Planning Commission had recommended in May that the amendment be approved. Agenda Item #5A: There are no public hearings this evening. Agenda Item #6A: CenterPoint Energy is presenting the City with a check in the amount of $740 for part of the cost to acquire an AED for City Hall. Agenda Item #6B: Ken Hendrickson is present to provide the quarterly LMCC update. Agenda Item #7: Park Commissioner Edmondson will report on the June 14 Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #7A: The Park Commission is recommending the Council allocate $1,500 to Terrence Haines for his Eagle Scout Project. Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #8: A representative will report on the recent Planning Commission meeting. Agenda Item #8A: Thomas and Sheila Hayes have requested a conditional use permit allowing them to keep an existing nonconforming barn on their property in conjunction with the construction of a new home and attached garage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on 7 June and determined that the applicants had demonstrated that the old barn has historic and cultural significance. The Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. Agenda Item #8B: Pursuant to direction given at the joint meeting between the Council, Planning Commission and Park Commission, the Planning Commission has prepared a draft resolution of support initiating the Minnesota GreenSteps Program for Shorewood. Assuming the Council adopts the resolution, the Commission will incorporate the best practices referenced in the program into its 2011 and 2012 work programs. Agenda Item #9A: Staff is recommending authorization for the expenditure of funds for one Wheel Loader/Tool Carrier within the Equipment Replacement Fund. This replacement is occurring earlier than what was programmed. Staff has suggested modifications to the Equipment Replacement Schedule with this purchase. Agenda Item #10A: The Lake Association for Christmas Lake is seeking support for a pilot project designed to prevent the spread of zebra mussels from infested lakes to Christmas Lake. The project includes centralized inspection and gated access to the landing. Members of the Lake Association will be present. Agenda Item #10B: A resident requested the Council review the current charge for connecting to municipal water and consider lowering it from the current charge of $10,000. Agenda Item #10C: Request for the Council to approve a Request for Proposals for consultant services to conduct a comprehensive Residential Survey. Agenda Item #12A.1.: The monthly financial report is provided. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Acting Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 5:31 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane (arrived at 5:48 P.M.) Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong (arrived at 6:06 P.M.); Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: Mayor Lizée B. Review Agenda Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. SOLID WASTE Administrator Heck stated the purpose of this meeting is to discuss a comprehensive approach to solid waste management. He reviewed various components of waste collection in the City. Garbage waste (things other than organic waste, yard waste, recyclable waste, hazardous waste and so forth) – The City currently operates under an open collection system for garbage. Under this type of system residents and businesses contract with a refuse hauler licensed by the City to collect their garbage and they are billed directly from the hauler for that service. The City determines which days the collection can occur on. Recyclable waste (e.g., paper, certain types of plastics, cardboard, aluminum cans) – The City operates under an organized collection system for recyclable materials. Under an open system the City bids out for the service and then contracts with a single hauler for collection of recyclables. It manages the service. The City bills residents for the service on their quarterly utility bill and pays the hauler from the funds received for providing the service. Yard waste (e.g., grass clippings, leaves, branches, brush) – Currently, if residents want their yard waste collected they must contract directly with a service provider. Organic waste (e.g., paper towels, lint from a clothes dryer, pizza boxes, frozen food boxes, etc.) – The City has been awarded a grant from Hennepin County to help fund a pilot organic waste collection program. Residents are able to directly contract for such services. The City conducts a drop-off spring clean-up program where residents can bring household items. It also sponsors a household hazardous waste collection program in coordination with Hennepin County in the fall. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Heck stated the meeting packet contains the results of a survey staff conducted of what other cities in the metropolitan area have for solid waste management programs. Some of the information gathered in the survey includes: type of garbage collection system (open or organized) and if there is there a limit on the number of haulers; what the license fee is; the type of recycling waste collection program; if there’s yard waste collection; if the city provides a drop-off site for yard waste and if so what the fee is; and is organic waste collection provided and if so how. Heck explained that in addition to the open and the organized garbage collection systems there are also a franchise collection system and a municipal collection system. A franchised system is somewhat similar to an organized system with the difference being the City is divided into service areas. Each area is competitively bid out and a single hauler provides services to each specific area. A hauler could provide service to more than one area. Under a municipal system the City collects the garbage. He recommend against going to a municipal system. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Heck reiterated the City has been awarded a grant from Hennepin County to help fund a pilot organic waste collection program. Staff is working through the details for the pilot program. Councilmember Hotvet stated Council has discussed that the number of collection trucks that traverse the City roadways cause a great deal of wear and tear on the roadways which ends up costing the taxpayers money. She suggested the City research the feasibility of partnering with the Cities of Excelsior and Tonka Bay for organized collection services in order to get better pricing. She stated it would be beneficial to be provided with pricing options for a multi-city contract. She then stated based on her experience in dealing with large companies cost/benefit reports could be customized and they could be used to help educate the residents on the prose and cons of an organized system. Councilmember Siakel thanked Staff for conducting the survey and providing Council with the results. She stated she found it helpful. She asked how to quantify the costs for repairing the roadways because of the wear and tear from by collection trucks. Director Brown responded studies have been done but he’s not sure they identify costs. Brown stated Staff will look into that. Siakel asked if there is a way to make garbage waste collection more efficient while keeping it cost effective for the residents. She noted she is not in favor of changing something just for the sake of change. If the change would result in it being more efficient for the City and at least as cost effective for residents as what the residents currently have then she supports a change. She stated she did want to consider waste collection from a comprehensive view point. Siakel then asked for more information about the pilot organic waste collection program. Administrator Heck explained staff member Julie Moore is coordinating the grant. The City is going to offer a certain number of residents the opportunity to participate in the pilot program. The City will select a single hauler to provide that type of service. There are a few who have expressed interest in doing that. The cost for the program will in part be funded by the grant and the program participants will pay a fee for the service. The outcome at the end of the one-year pilot program period will be used to help the City decide whether or not it wants to continue with organic waste collection for the entire City. That will in part be determined by assessing if organic waste collection reduces the amount of material going into waste stream. Councilmember Siakel asked how the City will know if organic waste collection reduces the impact on the waste footprint. Administrator Heck explained the State and Hennepin County have statistics on average CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 6 waste production by household of a certain size. The City would estimate, based on those statistics, the amount of waste a household would generate and compare that to the amount of organic waste collected. It may not be an exact science but it will be in the ballpark. Councilmember Siakel asked if participants will have another trash container to put their organic waste in similar to recyclable waste. Administrator Heck stated he assumes there will be a separate container of some sort that will be placed curbside. Heck commented that there are a few communities that are considering making organic waste collection a requirement for their recycling collection program. Administrator Heck explained Ms. Moore attended a session where she received a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that compares collection rates for different municipalities with regard to open collection and organized collection systems. The comparison data indicated that organized collection systems charge $3 – $4 per month less than the average open systems. It’s difficult to get pricing information from haulers about open collection systems for competitive reasons. Attorney Keane arrived at 5:48 P.M. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the information from the MPCA was pretty good. He then stated the MPCA information about what the cost impact is on roadways with open systems shows the results to be very broad. He then stated Council needs to make a list of things it’s interested in exploring with regard to waste collection. He noted that a number of cities proscribe the size of trucks haulers can use in order to reduce the wear and tear on roadways. He agreed that data supports that open collection is more expensive then organized collection in general. Woodruff then stated he has heard that the last time the City was considering an organized collection system for garbage residents came to a meeting with torches and pitchforks. Residents wanted to be able to select what service provider collects their garbage. He thought the residents deserve to be able to have input about what type of collection system there should be. He noted the City changed providers for recyclable collections effective 2010. The recyclable hauler uses large trucks. Acting Mayor Zerby stated Council has made a decision to be a GreenStep Cities participant. The GreenStep Cities program has a good list of best practices for reducing solid waste and he suggested the City use that as a guideline for reducing solid waste for the City. He recommended adopting them and also making a decision as to whether or not the City should have open or organized waste collection. He then stated it would be a compelling argument for residents if they understand there will be a savings from going to an organized system from both the actual collection fee and the reduced wear and tear on City roadways. Councilmember Siakel concurred with that statement. Councilmember Siakel stated for residents there is weekly garbage collection, bi-weekly recyclable collection, and then there may be yard waste collection. Bringing that many different waste collection devices to the curbside can be difficult for residents. She recommended common sense be factored into making sure it’s efficient for residents and easy to do. Administrator Heck asked Council for its thoughts on organize versus open collection for garbage. Councilmember Hotvet stated she supported adopting the GreenStep Cities best practices for reducing solid waste. She then stated she would like to know how much a service provider would want to have a contract with the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Councilmember Siakel commented that the only time her household has changed garbage haulers is when they offered her a better price. She stated what’s important to her is efficiency, good service and ease of use for the residents. She then stated based on the discussion an organized system will help save money in repairs to the City’s roadways. If it meets the residents’ needs then saw no reason not to entertain an organized system. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought there is some merit to having an organized collection system. He then stated the MPCA document indicates the city has a responsibility to make sure the level of service is contractually defined. Under an open system residents define their expected level of service somewhat with a personal relationship with their waste collection hauler. Residents want some assurance that if their waste wasn’t picked up the hauler will make a special trip to come out and do that at no cost. He expressed his support for adopting the GreenStep Cities best practices. He commented he did not think that program would support one system over another. Acting Mayor Zerby noted that is why he had stated that’s a separate decision. Acting Mayor Zerby suggested the City start having some time of dialogue with residents about organized systems versus open systems. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought that would be a good idea but before the City does that it has to have something that describes to them what the City is considering doing and what the impact would be on the cost and service. Acting Mayor Zerby asked Administrator Heck if Staff can prepare some type of document that would describe what an organized system would look like for the City from a financial and customer service perspective. Administrator Heck stated cost information would be difficult to provide without issuing a request for proposals. Zerby responded other cities nearby have switched to an organized system and maybe the savings they realized could be used on a percentage basis. Heck stated something could be prepared and it would include the expected service level. Administrator Heck commented that independent of the type of collection system for garbage residents would still have to have separate containers for the various types of waste. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior and Tonka Bay have organized systems. He suggested Staff take the information about one city’s organized collection program and use it to help explain to residents what an organized program could look like for the City. He stated he suspected there would be savings. Administrator Heck stated the City of Greenwood decided to stay with an open collection system two years ago but it does require haulers to use small trucks for residential waste pickup. Councilmember Woodruff stated Deephaven has an organized system and it requires haulers to use small trucks. Councilmember Woodruff asked Council and Staff to consider what will work on the islands. There are haulers that collect waste on the islands that don’t do that in the rest of the City and vice versa. Administrator Heck stated Staff will prepare a document describing what an organized system could be like for the City. Projected costs will be based on cost information from neighboring cities. Councilmember Woodruff suggested including service level information which could be based on other cities’ service requirements in their contracts. Acting Mayor Zerby stated the City has some service level information of its own because it has an organized collection system for recycling, and that service is provided by a hauler that also offers garbage collection services. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Councilmember Siakel stated today a resident’s fee for garbage collection is based on the size of their waste container. She asked if any garbage haulers charge based on weight. Administrator Heck stated most haulers charge by the size of the can. Acting Mayor Zerby noted haulers are charged by weight when the dispose of the waste they collect. Administrator Heck suggested either Director Brown or Director Nielsen highlight the key concerns residents had the last time the City considered an organized system. Director Nielsen stated it was very clear that residents were very attached to their haulers mainly because of the level of service the haulers provided. Residents also thought waste collection was a service they could manage themselves; they didn’t need government doing that. They had concerns that if the City became involved the level of service they received would go down. Director DeJong arrived at 6:06 P.M. Director Nielsen then stated the last time organized collection was discussed there wasn’t a hauler that could cover the entire City. The City therefore proposed a four-district franchise system. A franchise system would allow some level of choice in haulers. He then stated he thought the City did a good job of explaining the merits of a franchise collection system. He commented that at one point the City only had four licensed haulers, but that’s no longer the case. He stated it’s difficult to quantify the damage caused to the roadways, but he didn’t think it could be illustrated. He explained refuse haulers’ trucks are the toughest vehicles on the roadways because of their size, the fact they are double axel vehicles, and they drive on the edge of the roadway surface. That is the most vulnerable part of the roadway. He stated if the City were to decide to go to an organized collection system it would be prudent to first explain why to the residents. He noted roadway improvements are one of the most costly expenditures in the City’s budget. Director Brown stated Staff was amazed by how attached residents were to their haulers. He then stated based on what Staff learned the last time it will take an extended education process that could potentially be six months long before ever converting to an organized collection system, if a decision is made to do that. When this was considered the last time the economy was much better. Today people may be more willing to have the City manage garbage collection if that can get them a better value. If residents can be convinced that having one hauler in an area for garbage collection will reduce the wear and tear on roadways which ultimately equates to fewer roadway repairs (a benefit to them) they may be more willing to entertain such a system. Director Nielsen stated the last time haulers universally told the City it would cost more to use smaller trucks because the waste would have to be handled a second time in order to get it into a larger truck and they would have to buy new equipment. The residents picked up on that. Acting Mayor Zerby noted he was on the Council the last time organized collection was considered and he thought it was 8 – 9 years ago. He stated today there are separate trucks; one for garbage waste and recycling waste. That warrants reducing the number of garbage trucks on the roadways. He then stated the City has many cul-de-sacs in it and some haulers use the cul-de-sac on his street just to turn around; they don’t provide service down that street. Councilmember Woodruff stated from his perspective what ever the City decides to do for garbage collection he would like the contract for services to remain between the hauler and the customer. He commented that some residents who go to a warmer climate in the winter have asked if there is a way they can suspend paying for recycling when they are gone. Today those residents cancel their garbage collection service when they are gone. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Administrator Heck asked Directors Brown and Nielsen what type of billing approach was being considered the last time this was discussed. Director Nielsen stated back then it was quickly decided the billing would be done by the hauler. Heck expressed his preference would be to have the hauler bill the customer and the customer would contact the hauler to change the size of their waste container. Heck stated the City would get involved if there are service issues. Heck explained the City’s recycling collection provider may have to spread the collection over a two day period, not including the islands, because it’s difficult for a hauler to cover the entire City in one day. That could be a reason to consider garbage collection by areas. Councilmember Woodruff stated all garbage collection in an area should be done the same day. Acting Mayor Zerby summarized that he understands Council to be interested in getting information about what an organized garbage collection system would be like for the City. Based on what it looks like, an educational campaign could be started with the residents and their feedback solicited. He also understands Council to be interested in Staff determining how the GreenStep Cities best practices would be applicable for the City. Councilmember Woodruff asked Staff to bring back information on how the City is doing when compared to the GreenStep Cities best for reducing solid waste. Administrator Heck stated Staff will prepare a description of what organized garbage collection would look like in the City including cost projections, service levels and so forth. Staff will also assess what the City is already doing to reduce solid waste when compared to the GreenStep Cities best practices and what additional things could be done. Councilmember Hotvet expressed interest in having Staff research a weight-based pricing model for garbage waste. She stated she wants to know what the term length options for a contract would be. She also wants to know how smaller trucks fit in. Administrator Heck stated he thought Staff could have the information requested by Council available in July. 3. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of June 13, 2011, at 6:18 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizée, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION Acting Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:25 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane: Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Mayor Lizée B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. LAND ACQUISITION Acting Mayor Zerby, Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, and Woodruff, Attorney Keane, Administrator Heck, Finance Director DeJong, and Director Nielsen were present. The discussion was about land acquisition. 3. ADJOURN Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of June 13, 2011, at 6:48 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Scott Zerby, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk #2C CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, May 23, 2011 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of May 23, 2011, as amended in Item 2, Page 2, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1, change “the dog has been tested” to “the dog has been vaccinated”. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2011 Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 1,, 2011 Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of June 1, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Hotvet moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 22 B. Accept Bid And Award Contract For Smithtown Way (This item was moved to Item 9.D under Engineering/Public Works.) C. Covington Road Storm Sewer Outlet Cover 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. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Report by Tad Shaw and Tim Litfin Mayor Lizée stated Tad Shaw, the City’s representative on the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council, and Tim Litfin, MCE Executive Director, are present this evening to discuss MCE activities and the Tour de Tonka event, an event the MCE coordinates. Mr. Shaw stated he had been the City’s representative on the MCE Advisory Council for many years. Enough years that he thinks he as set a record for his tenure on the Advisory Council. MCE has grown from giving music lessons and running sports programs to the all encompassing program it is today. There have been three Executive Directors since MCE was started with Executive Director Litfin being the third one. He noted Mr. Litfin has been with the MCE for six years and he brought a new breath of creativity to the MCE program. He also noted that Mr. Litfin started the Tour de Tonka event and the event is becoming one of the premier bicycle events in the area. Shaw turned control of the podium over to Mr. Litfin. Mr. Litfin stated the City of Shorewood is well represented on the Advisory Council with Mr. Shaw. Mr. Litfin first highlighted the Tour de Tonka event. The event begins and ends at the Minnetonka High th School. This year’s event is scheduled for August 6. He explained 2,425 riders participated in the 2010 event. Twelve states and 170 communities were represented. The number of Shorewood residents participating ranked number 2. In 2010 there were 2-mile, 16-mile, 23-mile, 38-mile, 65-mile and 100- mile routes. The 2-mile ride is for young riders and it’s held before the actual day of the event. There were representatives from 22 cities, 10 police departments, 7 fire departments and approximately 394 community volunteers who helped with the 2010 event. He thanked the volunteers and noted the event could not happen without them. This year there will be a 3,000 cap for the number of riders that can participate in this event. There will be some new routes this year and routes will go through 26 cities combined. There will be 2-mile, 17-mile, 23-mile, 40-mile, 70-mile and 100-mile routes this year. Mr. Litfin then recapped 2010 MCE activities. Christine Best, a MCE Program Manager in recreation, received a Minnesota Communication Education Association (MCEA) Emerging Leader Recognition award (only two were given out) and Lynn Johnson, CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 22 a member of the MCE Advisory Council, received the one MCEA Outstanding Advisory Council Member award. With regard to marketing, MCE publishes a catalogue of programs it offers three times each year. Early Childhood Family Education publishes one catalogue a year. A youth summer catalogue is also published. MCE also does a number of email blasts. MCE surveys all of its customers in all of the program areas. Since the start of the survey in 2008, the average has been that for 20 percent of the participants, it’s the first time they have taken a MCE class/program. The recent winter survey results indicate that 94 percent of the respondents rated the MCE class/activity as excellent or good. It’s the highest rating the MCE has received. The MCE is drawing people from outside of the MCE community into classes/activities through its open enrollment program. Mr. Litfin reviewed the participation in several areas. In its survey the MCE asks what new programs the survey responders would like the MCE to provide. MCE works with the Minnetonka High School on a Youth Development Council. Five seniors received a Caring Youth Award from the City of Minnetonka this year. The MCE wrote a new curriculum for adult basic education early language learners (ABE/ELL) where they can become certified as child care providers. Participation in some ABE/ELL programs is paid for by the State. For this new program participants had to pay a fee. Mr. Litfin concluded by informing Council that the MCE Center is again being remodeled to accommodate growth, noting that it was expanded two years ago. Councilmember Woodruff commented that for those Shorewood residents who are not part of the Minnetonka School District (i.e., those that live on the Islands) the Westonka School District has a similar program. He noted those residents can take advantage of the MCE programs as well. Councilmember Zerby asked Mr. Litfin if there is anything the City can be doing better or different for MCE. Mr. Litfin stated the cooperation MCE and the schools in the Minnetonka School District receive from the cities represented by the District is remarkable. He then stated he can’t think of anything. Councilmember Siakel asked Mr. Litfin if he envisions expanding some of the MCE programming to utilize the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) and maybe focus on a senior population or some other group that is under served. Mr. Litfin stated MCE doesn’t offer as many activities at the SSCC as it once did, but it does offer some there. He then stated the MCE is going to have a summer program in the parks with the City. Mayor Lizée stated collaboration is key and not just between the School District and MCE and the cities served by the District, but also all of the other community assets such as the SSCC. Mayor Lizée thanked Mr. Shaw and Mr. Litfin for coming this evening. Mayor Lizée noted volunteers are needed to help with the Tour de Tonka event. Mr. Litfin explained that for the 2010 event there were almost 400 volunteers that helped with it. For 2011 there is a need to fill almost 500 spots, noting volunteers can serve in multiple locations based on scheduling. Discussion moved to Item 7 on the agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 22 B. Linda Murrell, Director of the South Lake – Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, Request for Funding for the Lake Minnetonka Fourth of July Celebration This was discussed after Item 9.D on the agenda. Mayor Lizée stated Linda Murrell, Director of the South Lake – Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, was present this evening to make an annual request for funds for the Lake Minnetonka Fourth of July celebration. Ms. Murrell noted that three weeks from tonight at this time a salute to the veterans will begin at the Excelsior Commons for the Lake Minnetonka Fourth of July Celebration. That will be preceded by a bevy of events. Ms. Murrell then stated the day’s activities as outlined on the South Lake Excelsior Chamber of Commerce website. Ms. Murrell stated attempts are being made to get more sponsors for the events. She made a request of the public to make donations for the fireworks display. The fireworks display is not funded by corporations or out of the Chamber budget. It’s been harder to get corporate contributions and sponsorships during these tough economic times. She asked if the City of Shorewood would contribute at least the same amount as it contributed in 2009. Some funds for the display were raised in February 2011 with an auction. She noted that approximately $11,000 has been raised to date and the goal is $23,000. The amount of fireworks that will be displayed will depend on the amount of funds raised. She would appreciate it if those that plan on watching the display would contribute a few dollars to the fireworks fund. Mayor Lizée stated each year the City makes a contribution to the celebration held in the City of Excelsior. She commented that many Shorewood residents consider downtown Excelsior as their downtown. She stated on our national holiday many residents spend a lot of time in Excelsior. The celebration starts at 8:00 A.M. and ends at 11:59 P.M. People of all ages can enjoy at least some of the events. She encouraged everyone to make a donation to the fireworks fund. She stated personal contributions are needed from people community wide. She likened the contribution amount to that equal to the cost of going to a movie. She stated the display is 20 minutes of visual excitement. Lizée noted the 2011 budget anticipates a $2,500 donation to the celebration. She suggested increasing the amount to $7,500 which equates to approximately $3.00 per household. She opened this up for discussion. Councilmember Zerby explained that he recently watched a video recording of the most recent Greenwood City Council meeting and that Council increased the Greenwood contribution. It used a formula to justify it somewhat similar to the funding formulas in the police and fire joint powers agreements. That Council considered what its percentage of the population is when compared to the entire South Lake community [the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay] as well as its tax capacity when compared to the entire South Lake community tax capacity. If that same approach were to be used to determine what the City’s contribution would be the amount would be more than $8,600. He stated he thought at some point a joint powers agreement should be entered into to help fund the celebration because it does serve the five South Lake cities. The Chamber is currently burdened with all of the cost and the risk associated with it. The event should be sponsored by the community. He noted the Chamber is a not for profit organization. He expressed his support for a $7,500 contribution. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 22 Councilmember Siakel stated she has not missed the celebration in 25 years and that she believes that everyone should contribute in some way. In response to a question from Siakel, Ms. Murrell stated she has developed a direct mail list she uses to solicit donations. Ms. Murrell explained that of the $11,000 collected so far almost all of has come from about 50 people. Pledges are not included in the $11,000; it only includes what has been received. Siakel stated that means $7,500 would get the fireworks fund closer to the $23,000 goal. Councilmember Woodruff asked what the other South Lake cities have contributed. Ms. Murrell responded Greenwood has pledged $1,345. Excelsior approved the permit early this evening but it did not talk about a contribution. To date Deephaven hasn’t made a donation and it’s her recollection it contributed $2,000 in 2010. She explained she thought the South Lake cities contributed a combined amount of $7,200 in 2010. She noted that $7,200 did not go toward the fireworks display. Woodruff then asked what the total amount contributed toward the display in 2010 was. Ms. Murrell stated last year $23,500 was spent of fireworks. Woodruff expressed his reluctance to tripling the amount of the City’s contribution. He stated that during the 2011 budgeting process a need for $7,500 was never discussed. Councilmember Siakel asked what the $2,500 amount budgeted for in 2011 was based on. Councilmember Woodruff stated it was based on what had been donated before and it was what Staff suggested. He commented that Mayor Lizée, Councilmember Zerby and he approved the 2011 budget. Administrator Heck explained the amount was based on what had been done the previous year. Heck noted that one year the amount went down from the previous year,from $2,500 to $2,200. Zerby noted that was done by mistake. Heck stated he didn’t know how the $2,500 amount was arrived at. Siakel agreed with increasing the amount of the contribution. She stated that maybe it should be increased to $5,000. Councilmember Hotvet asked how many years the contribution had been $2,500. Ms. Murrell responded in 2009 it was $2,500 and in 2010 it was $2,200 and prior to that it had been $2,000. Ms. Murrell noted that the City has the largest population of all the five cities. Mayor Lizée stated it’s time to increase the amount of the contribution. She again explained that $7,500 amounts to about $3.00 per household. The costs are not just about fireworks. Police and fire services have to be provided. Emergency services have to be provided. The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office is always present with one of its large vans. She then stated it’s a wonderful event for the South Lake community. Councilmember Woodruff asked Mayor Lizée where she would like to take the funding for the additional $5,000 from. Lizée expressed confidence that $5,000 can be found in the budget. Administrator Heck explained that Council allocated $36,000 to the Council budget for consulting services of which has not all been spent and he thought the $5,000 could be taken out of there. Mayor Lizée expressed support for taking the $5,000 from the Council budget. Councilmember Siakel stated that although she appreciates Councilmember Woodruff’s concern she thought it was time to increase the City’s contribution. She commented that some unbudgeted projects have come up and some projects were deleted. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 22 Councilmember Hotvet stated during times like this there is an even greater need to celebrate the national holiday and recognize all of the aspects of the holiday. Ms. Murrell noted that the celebration is a teaching tool for children. When children see the right way to celebrate the Fourth of July it has an impact on them and it sets a nice tradition going forward beyond our lifetimes. Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, approving a $7,500 contribution toward the 2011 Fourth of July fireworks display and directing that $5,000 of that come from Council budget. Motion passed 4/1 with Woodruff dissenting. Ms. Murrell thanked Council and the City. Discussion moved to Item 10.A on the agenda. 7. PARKS No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last Council meeting. 8. PLANNING Commissioner Arnst reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 7, 2011, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Deer Feeding Ban Survey Director Nielsen explained during 2010 the Planning Commission asked the City to include three or four articles in various publications of its newsletter advising people not to feed deer and explaining the reasons why. In spite of that there are a number of people in the City who continue to do that. He noted the most recent aerial deer survey showed some extensive feeding operations. He explained because the feeding continues the Planning Commission has recommended Council approve an ordinance that would ban deer feeding. The Commission and Staff have crafted a model ordinance. Nielsen then explained the Commission decided it would be appropriate for the City to conduct a brief resident survey to find out what type of support there would be for such an ordinance. Council has been provided with a sample survey card that will be placed in with the utility bills for next quarter. The survey asks whether or not a person supports an ordinance banning the feeding of deer. The bottom of the card, which will be perforated, can be mailed in with a person’s utility payment. People dropping their payment off at City Hall can clip the response to their payment. People who pay their bill electronically, approximately 16 percent, can mail their payment in because the response portion will be set up like a st post card. Responses are due by the billing due date of July 31. The Commission will analyze the results of the survey during its first meeting in August. The Commission will hold an informal public meeting after that. Nielsen stated if Council is in agreement it would like to have the ordinance in place this fall, noting people start feeding the deer in earnest during the winter. He complimented the Commission on making the survey brief. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 22 Councilmember Zerby suggested putting the name of a short link on the survey card that would point to the articles published in the newsletter to make it easier for residents to get to additional information on deer feeding. He stated it may be worthwhile to allow people to answer the survey online. Director Nielsen explained the Commission decided to conduct the survey in print form to control the number of times a resident can vote. There was concern a person would load the ballot box if they could do it online. Zerby stated the survey could require a person to enter their address and thereby control duplicates. Nielsen stated he wasn’t sure that could be set up in time, but he will look into that. Councilmember Hotvet asked how such an ordinance would be enforced. Director Nielsen responded the Commission discussed enforcing the draft ordinance on a complaint basis similar to other nuisances. Nielsen explained there is the exception of the extensive feeding stations; those may be addressed without receiving a complaint. Councilmember Siakel stated she supports soliciting community feedback on this. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the deer ban feeding ordinance questionnaire and authorizing it be included with utility bills for the next quarter. In response to a question from Councilmember Zerby, Director Nielsen stated the weblink will be included on the questionnaire card. Motion passed 5/0. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Shoreline Restoration Grant Engineer Landini explained in 2010 the City received a Cynthia Krieg Watershed Stewardship Grant through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to help restore some shoreline along Lake Virginia. Staff met with Metro Blooms and representatives from the MCWD at the site to discuss the restoration project. MCWD informed Staff that it did not think the selected site was appropriate for a demonstration project because of its location. MCWD suggested restoring a ditch that feeds Lake Virginia instead. It would be a better demonstration and there would be access from the road. Because of the change in site the City asked for and obtained an extension to allow the restoration to be done in 2011. Landini displayed a photograph of the ditch site. He explained the ditch is starting to undercut. As the water moves through the ditch it erodes some of the soil and deposits it into Lake Virginia. A phosphorus total maximum daily load study has been approved for Lake Virginia. There is now a waste load allocation which means the City has to remove a specified amount of phosphorous from the stormwater before it flows into the Lake. The proposed project will assist in removing some of the phosphorous. The grant will fund $5,730 of the restoration. Landini explained the culvert that runs under Lake Virginia Drive is rusted and the roadway has heaved. According to the Capital Improvement Program Lake Virginia Drive is scheduled to be milled and overlaid in 2014 and the culvert will be replaced as part of that project. Staff is proposing replacing the culvert this year and providing excavation assistance to the shoreline restoration project. If the culvert is not replaced until 2014 the area will be disrupted a second time. Councilmember Siakel asked what the difference in cost is between the grant and what it will cost for the restoration, replacing the culvert and providing excavation assistance. Engineer Landini stated he does not CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 22 have plans or quotes for the culvert replacement and excavation assistance. Landini explained he did not want to spend a great deal of time on this until he received some direction from Council. Siakel asked Landini to provide his best guess. Landini estimated the cost to replace the culvert at $8,000 – $10,000 and the excavation assistance at $4,000. Councilmember Hotvet asked how long the project would take. Engineer Landini stated he anticipated it would take a contractor a day to replace the culvert. The patching of Lake Virginia Drive would probably take two days. Landini explained Metro Blooms will be the project manager for all of the plantings and the Minnesota Conservation Corp will actually do the planting all the way down the creek for the creek restoration. Councilmember Siakel stated Lake Virginia’s water quality is rated a D and she assumed doing the proposed work will help improve the quality. Engineer Landini explained that all of the cities that border Lake Virginia have a waste load allocation. The mandated removal requirement for the City is relatively small and it’s being accomplished through sweeping the streets. Part of the reason the City received a grant was to remove more phosphorous than is required. Director Brown stated the mill and overlay of Lake Virginia Drive will be a minor inconvenience to the residents. He then stated from his vantage point the proposed project has more significance; it provides the City an opportunity to restore a problem area with some external financial assistance. If the City were to fund such as restoration on its own it may not make the priority list. Councilmember Zerby asked if the City owns the property or has an easement for it. Engineer Landini stated the City does not have an easement but the owner of the property is willing to at least give the City a maintenance agreement provided the City commits to maintaining the area. Zerby then asked if there is a plan to create a holding pond to capture some of the phosphorous. Landini stated Metro Blooms’ project proposal includes installing “check dams”, for lack of a better word, on the way down with some organic rolls to provide some pooling. It would be somewhat like speed bumps. Zerby stated based on his experience engineers are not are not always the best landscapers. Engineers focus on practicalities and not so much on aesthetics. Engineer Landini noted that an engineer has not drawn up the landscaping plan. Metro Blooms has been responsible for the plantings plan. Councilmember Siakel stated that Metro Blooms does nice projects. Zerby stated he would error on the side of over communicating with the residents in the area about the project. Mayor Lizée stated she’s impressed with the projects she has seen that Metro Blooms has done in collaboration with different cities and the MCWD. Lizée expressed confidence that Metro Blooms would give the City a project plan to look at. Councilmember Woodruff asked Engineer Landini if this evening he was asking Council for authorization to prepare plans and solicit quotes for the culvert replacement. Engineer Landini responded that is correct. Woodruff then asked if the project restoration, culvert replacement and excavation will again be brought before Council with design and cost information. Engineer Landini responded that is correct. Woodruff stated based on photograph of the ditch area it’s obvious something has to be done. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the proposed project is worthy and that the City should proceed with it. She then stated she thought the MCWD has done a good job establishing various pilot projects. She asked why the ditch area was selected over other places in the City that could use some restoration. Engineer Landini explained that Lake Virginia had been sold to the MCWD because of the total maximum daily load study that had recently been completed. MCWD wants to reduce the phosphorous levels in the Lake. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 9 of 22 Councilmember Zerby commented that a speed bump isn’t always bad and that he has some concern about removing it. He stated it hasn’t been his experience that rust causes a roadway to heave. Engineer Landini stated the rusty pipe has nothing to do with the bump in the road. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, directing Staff to replace the culvert and provide excavation assistance for the grant project. Mayor Lizée thanked Staff for pursuing the grant for the restoration project. Motion passed 5/0. B. Otta Seal Enchanted Point Road Engineer Landini explained during its March 14, 2010, meeting Council authorized a project to Otta seal Enchanted Point Road this year provided results of the soil borings were favorable. Two borings were taken and showed there was a sufficient gravel base to move forward with the Otta seal. Staff solicited quotes from four firms to do the project. The only quote it received is from Allied Blacktop for an amount of $52,800. The project estimate was $12,000. He encouraged Council to accept the quote and direct Staff to come back with other options for doing maintenance to that roadways’ surface. Councilmember Woodruff commented he read a memorandum authored by someone at the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in 2008 describing the Otta seal process. It included some cost estimates. He stated the $52,800 quote is out of line. He asked that Staff come back with other options soon being the plan was to improve the surface of the roadway this summer. Councilmember Siakel asked what the sense of urgency is for repairing the roadway. Engineer Landini stated Council does not have to move forward with the project, noting it’s a maintenance project. The City could continue to do what it has been doing to the roadway’s surface which is grading it and adding rock to the surface a few times a year. That could be done indefinitely, but the residents prefer something else be done. Administrator Heck stated this Otta seal project was approached from a pilot perspective. Staff and Council wanted the City to get some experience about the benefits of using the Otta seal process on the surface of gravel roads. The process is supposed to reduce dust and the number of potholes. Otta seal was thought to be a reasonable alternative for maintaining a roadway’s surface until the quote came in. In response to a comment from Councilmember Siakel, Administrator Heck explained the residents want the roadway’s surface restored to what it was like before it was disturbed when the City installed a sewer system. There are a couple of other gravel roads in the City that if this process works it could be considered for them. Councilmember Hotvet stated she looked at the MnDOT study and found it to be very intriguing. She expressed hoped that the City could find firms that would do this type of process for a much lower cost. Jim Thibault, 4565 Enchanted Point Road, stated he lived at this location when the surface on Enchanted Point Road was either tarred or something similar to that. After the roadway was torn up to install the sewer system, crushed rock was put down for the surface. He and his wife would like to have some improvements made to the surface and the residents with properties abutting the roadway are willing to work with the City to help getter pricing. He commented they don’t know what the bid criteria were. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 10 of 22 Wally Larson, 4385 Enchanted Point Road, stated after having spent more than 40 years in the construction industry he doesn’t think the quote the City received represents that job that needs to be done. The roadway surface being discussed is less than two tenths of a mile long. He explained the surface of the roadway alternates between dust and mud because it’s too low. He noted that during the fifteen years he has lived in this location he has tried to get the City to put down a decent amount of class 5 rock. He stated that to keep grading the road and putting down a small amount of rock costs the taxpayers a lot of money. He then stated he thought if the roadway surface was elevated and crowned to shed water the surface would last a much longer time. Mayor Lizée stated Council and Staff want to do the right thing. She then stated the next step is to have Staff research additional options and bring some options back that would be at a more reasonable cost. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, accepting the quote for the Otta seal of Enchanted Point Road but not authorizing the project. Without objection from the maker, the seconder amended the motion directing Staff to research other options for improving the roadway’s surface as soon as possible. Motion passed 5/0. C. 5750 Covington Road Storm Water Land Acquisition Engineer Landini explained Staff has met with the owners of the property located at 5750 Covington Road several times over the previous six months regarding the City’s desire to acquire a portion of that property located near a storm sewer outlet. Staff and the owners have agreed upon a purchase price of $23,000 for the land. A copy of the offer had been placed at the dais. Landini then stated the land is intended to be used for stormwater retention and installation of a stormwater tank system/grit chamber to reduce sediment and improve water quality flowing into Silver Lake. The acquisition is subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions: no construction of buildings or structures above grade; no public parking; and no hard surface paving beyond that necessary to maintain the shoreline, water quality and stormwater facilities. Landini went on to explain that in order to proceed with the purchase of the land Staff will have to order an ALTA certified survey, title work and legal documents associated with the lot division and purchase of the property. He advised the City to offer $1,000 in earnest money and to have the simple lot division go through the Planning Commission process. Landini stated Staff recommends Council accept the offer and authorize Staff to proceed with the acquisition. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, directing 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 for a portion of the property located at 5750 Covington Road. Motion passed 5/0. D. Accept Bid and Award Contract for Smithtown Way This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Hotvet’s request. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 22 Councilmember Hotvet stated she didn’t think Smithtown Way was very old. She asked if there is any recourse with the firm that constructed the roadway. She noted the cost to replace the storm sewer pipe and repair the roadway’s surface is very expensive. Administrator Heck stated after speaking with Councilmember Hotvet about this item he understands one of her questions to be about whether or not there are any warranties or other commitments that the City could pursue to help offset the cost of the repairs. He noted he left a message about this with someone at the League of Minnesota Insurance Trust but he has not received a response as of yet. He stated he is all but certain the City doesn’t have insurance coverage for stormwater infrastructure that moves due to freeze and thaw conditions and water table issues. Engineer Landini explained the utilities and the first lift of blacktop and curb and gutter were installed in the construction season of 1996 and 1997. The then council accepted the project on October 26, 1998. The City did have to draw on the letter of credit to finish the roadway because the contractor (Topline) had gone out of business. The developer’s agreement included a one-year workmanship defect from materials clause. The clause expired at the end of 1999. Director Brown explained fifteen years ago the City had a one-year warranty policy and that term was fairly common throughout the metropolitan area. The City has a fair amount of clay in its road bases. The roadways surfaces started to heave after about two years. The City did what many other cities in the area did and that was to extend the warranty demand in the contract document to two years. The two-year period seemed to cover the period when most roadways began to heave. Because of the frost conditions and water conditions that occurred over the last fall/winter season there were a number of roadways that heaved and had unique configurations that had not been seen before. For example, there had been minor deformations on the pavement surface area of Dellwood Circle. He stated he thought there was a unique set of heave conditions for Smithtown Way; conditions that would not be covered by a warranty of workmanship or insurance. Councilmember Hotvet asked if it’s possible to purchase insurance coverage for these types of issues. Director Brown explained most of the warranties that are put in place deal with workmanship or something that would not be foreseeable. The issue on Smithtown Way would not be covered. He stated Staff will look into insurance coverage. Administrator Heck stated maintenance of the storm sewer infrastructure and Smithtown Way are not planned for in the Capital Improvement Program. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-029, “A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the 2011 Smithtown Way Street and Storm Sewer Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 11-05.” Motion passed 5/0. Discussion returned to Item 6.B on the agenda. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Investment Policy Director DeJong stated there is an issue in the City’s investment policy that needs to be clarified. The current policy only allows the City to invest in state bonds that are general obligation and rated “A”. There is some confusion over that. There are three items in State Statute 118A.04 that talk about investments. One item talks about bonds of any state or local government. He explained that he interprets CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 12 of 22 the current policy to allow the City to buy local government general obligation bonds which are probably not allowed under the strict language of the current policy. The City has seven investments in those types of bonds equaling about $1.9 million in total. They mainly average under $300,000. The bonds were primarily Build America Bonds. Special federal legislation allowed local governments to issue bonds on a taxable basis and that provides for a higher interest rate. They are a much better investment for the City. DeJong asked if Council wants the City to only invest in state obligations or amend the language in the policy to allow investing in general obligation bonds of local governments. He stated he made a few other minor corrections to make sure the policy tracks the language in the State Statute for allowable investments. He noted copies of the current policy and the proposed revised policy are provided. Councilmember Woodruff stated the current investment policy was put in place three years ago when the financial market was crashing. At that time there was a great deal of concern about the credit worthiness of non Minnesota local government bonds. The market has stabilized somewhat and there have been few defaults. He expressed his comfort with taking on some additional risk in order to earn a little more interest. He stated the revised policy has removed a restriction about how much money the City needs to keep in money market funds and in cash. He expressed confidence that Director DeJong’s investment strategy will keep the City solvent. In response to a question from Councilmember Siakel, Director DeJong explained the interest rates on the local government bonds range from 0.75 percent to 2.58 percent. The rates for bonds allowable under the current policy range from 1 percent to 1.25 percent for bonds he would be comfortable with. Earning 0.5 percent on $1 million is $5,000. He stated it’s worthwhile for the City to invest in local government bonds. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-030, “A Resolution Modifying the Investment Policy.” Motion passed 5/0. B. Support for the Hennepin County Sheriff’s New 911 Communications Facility Mayor Lizée stated Hennepin County Sheriff Stanek is present to ask Council to adopt a resolution expressing the City’s support for a new Hennepin County Sheriff’s 911 communications facility. She then stated the aging facility located in Golden Valley has not kept up with modern advances. Hennepin County Sheriff Stanek stated at 40 years old the existing facility was doing pretty good, but at 64 years old it’s really hurting. He noted that he has spoken with South lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Chief Bryan Litsey and Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Chief Scott Gerber about the proposed new facility and they both understand the importance of the project and what it means for 911 dispatch services and interoperable radio communications in the County and particularly in Shorewood. Sheriff Stanek gave a brief overview of the resolution he was asking Council to adopt. The Sheriff’s Office provides emergency 911 dispatch services to 42 local police and fire agencies covering 36 communities located in Hennepin County. It is the largest consolidated dispatch facility in the Upper Midwest. There is a need to replace critical infrastructure (e.g., heating and cooling systems). There is also a need to be able to handle the new generation of 911 communications technologies people are using. The new facility will be located in Plymouth adjacent to the Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility. The County already owns the land the facility will be built on and there is already a more than CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 13 of 22 100 foot tall antenna near the location. The schematic design of the facility is underway. Last fall the Hennepin County Board approved moving forward with the project. The project is included in the County’s 5-year capital improvement project plan. The reason cities are being asked to adopt the resolution is because of the regional and statewide significance of the 911 center. The County 911 center provides redundancy for those communities in the County that want to have an independent PSAP. The Sheriff’s Office is working with the Hennepin County Board to secure state and federal funding to support the project. That funding would help decrease the amount of property taxes necessary to fund this project. Adopting the resolution will tell the state and federal elected officials that represent the residents in the City that the City of Shorewood supports the new facility. Sheriff Stanek stated the Sheriff’s Office has been before 19 city councils that have adopted the resolution. Seven city councils will be visited this week alone. He noted the high quality public safety personnel and supportive local elected officials in this area. Mayor Lizée stated 911 dispatch services are an important part of public safety. She noted SLMPD Chief Litsey did discuss this request with the SLMPD Coordinating Committee and EFD Chief Gerber has spoken about it with the EFD Governing Board. Councilmember Woodruff asked Sheriff Stanek to identify two or three reasons why the existing 911 facility can’t be used to enhance the services Stanek is talking about providing. Sheriff Stanek provided four reasons. First, when the current facility was built over 60 years ago it was built for a certain amount of capacity. That capacity was exceed 20 years ago in terms of 911 calls. He noted that about 60 – 65 percent of the 911 calls received at the dispatch center come from cellular phones or smart devices. The existing center wasn’t built for that. That infrastructure needs to be changed. Second, the current facility is located in a residential neighborhood. There is no room to expand the facility. The County sold additional land it had close to the facility 15 years ago. There are issues with the heating and cooling systems. Third, if one facility could be raised and a new one built in its place he asked who would answer the 600,000 911 calls received annually during that construction period. The Sheriff’s Office is working with the County Board on an overall integration plan for the other public safety answering points in the County. Fourth, the Sheriff’s Office communications facility does more than just dispatch 911 emergency calls. It also provides the interoperable radio system for all police and fire agencies and for emergency medical services in the County. It’s also the hub for the rest of Minnesota. The State can’t function without the radio system. When a disaster happens regionally, across the metro area, in greater Minnesota and in the Upper Midwest agencies rely on the communications facility. Councilmember Zerby asked if the existing communications facility functions as an emergency operations center (EOC). Sheriff Stanek responded the existing facility is not an EOC. Stanek explained traditionally the County operates its EOC at its facility located in Medina. The County also relies on communities themselves. There are 47 municipalities in the County and 37 of them have local police departments with some of them covering more than one municipality. Stanek stated Sheriff’s Office is the County’s first line of response when a disaster hits. The Sheriff’s Office uses mobile command posts when a disaster occurs and it provides personnel to be at the scene. Councilmember Zerby clarified that he wanted to know if the current facility is strong enough to survive a disaster like a tornado or severe hail or a flood. He stated he assumed a 64 year old structure would have CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 14 of 22 some structural deficiencies. He then stated the communications facility is a building that needs to survive a disaster. Sheriff Stanek stated he calls making a facility capable of surviving a disaster target hardening. At the current facility in Golden Valley the employees, the communications equipment and millions of dollars of gear are at risk if a tornado, flood or fire came through that area. The new facility will be target hardy in the areas that need to be in terms of the infrastructure and the employees. Sheriff Stanek noted when he became sheriff the project was projected to cost $53 - $54 million. That cost has been reduced substantially by making difficult choices. Councilmember Siakel stated that adopting the resolution makes common sense. She applauded Sheriff Stanek and his colleagues for going to the many city councils in Hennepin County and asking them for their support. She noted that her husband is one of a number of volunteers that dedicate a lot of time to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol. She stated the Water Patrol does an amazing job. She then stated when it comes to the Water Patrol she thought Stanek has been very efficient with the taxpayer’s dollars. She thanked Stanek and his organization for everything it does for the community. Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-031, “A Resolution Supporting Hennepin County Sheriff’s New Regional 911 Emergency Communications Facility.” Motion passed 5/0. Sheriff Stanek thanked Council for providing him the opportunity to come before Council. He stated it appears to him that city councils in the western part of the County seem to get things done quickly, noting it’s not like that everywhere. He then stated the Sheriff’s Office likes to work with the areas local police and fire agencies. C. Reimbursement Resolution for the Smithtown Way Storm Water Project Director DeJong explained that this item allows the City the flexibility to keep open the option to potentially issue bonds for stormwater management projects. The City’s Financial Management Plan reflects the Stormwater Management Fund will go into a deficit state in 2012. By the end of 2014 the Fund will be approximately $700,000 in the red if the Smithtown Way Storm Water Project and all of the other projects in the 5-year Stormwater Management Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are done and the scheduled maintenance is done for the existing stormwater infrastructure. That deficit has to be funded through either transfers in from other City funds or by bonding for those costs and then increasing the residents’ stormwater utility fee to pay back the bonds. DeJong stated the meeting packet contains a document describing the reimbursement regulations provided by the City’s financial advisors as well as a resolution prepared by the City’s bond counsel that will give the City the flexibility to consider bonding in the future. He explained that CIP reflects there are about $1.9 million in projects over the next five years. The existing fees for stormwater management are insufficient to pay that expense off. He noted a reimbursement resolution would have to be passed within 60 days of expenditure for the project. That is why this came before Council during the same meeting Council was considering approval of the Smithtown Way Storm Water Project. He also noted this does not commit the City to issuing bonds for the project. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Smithtown Way Storm Water Project amounts to about 10 percent of a maximum of $1.6 million in bonds that could be issued. He questioned why there was such a difference. Director DeJong explained the resolution contains an upper dollar figure on the total amount of bonds the City would issue. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the resolution be amended to include other projects as designated in the CIP. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 15 of 22 Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-032, “A Resolution Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Shorewood to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City” subject to changing: in Item 1 “The City proposes to under take the following project (“the Project)” to “The City proposes to under take the following” and “Construction of stormwater utility improvements on Smithtown Way” to “Construction of stormwater utility improvements on Smithtown Way and other projects as designated in the 5-year Shorewood Capital Improvement Program”; in Item 2 “the Project” to “projects”; in Item 3 “by the City to finance the project” to “by the City to finance a project”; and, in Item 4 “The anticipated original expenditures for the Project” to “The anticipated original expenditures for a project”. Motion passed 5/0. D. Adopting Performance Measures Director DeJong stated he recently became aware of an opportunity for the City to get funds from the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) through the adoption of performance measures. He explained he has participated in a few Council on Local Results and Innovation (CLRI) meetings. During the last CLRI meeting the State Auditor related that there is reimbursement funding available for 2011. People had been under the assumption that funding would not be available until 2012. The appropriation is a standing appropriation for 2011. The reimbursement rate is $0.14 per capita. Therefore, the City could receive about $1,000 in both 2011 and 2012 if it decided to move forward with this. He stated that a lot of the performance measures are survey based. Council and Staff have discussed engaging the residents more through surveys. This would be a great way to help defray the costs of surveys the City was planning to conduct anyway. He noted the performance measures resolution has to be adopted by the Council and received by the OSA by no later than June 30, 2011, in order to participate in the program in 2011. He also noted that by the City participating in this program it removes the City from any levy limits. The City has not exceeded any levy limits the last few years. Mayor Lizée stated it makes sense to her. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-033, “A Resolution Adopting Performance Measures.” Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizée recessed the meeting at 8:58 P.M. Mayor Lizée reconvened the meeting at 9:03 P.M. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Monument Sign for the Southshore Community Center Administrator Heck stated during its May 23, 2011, meeting Council approved the purchase and installation of a monument digital display sign for the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) to replace the existing sign on located near County Road 19. During that meeting Council asked staff to bring back cost estimates for doing that and to identify the total amount of donations that have been contributed to date. The quoted price for the sign and installation is $21,116. To date the donations for this purpose total $12,080. That leaves $9,036 for the City to fund. Heck then stated during that same meeting Council asked Staff to identify funding sources for the $9,036 being the sign was not budgeted for in 2011. Staff recommends the sign be funded out of either the Public CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 16 of 22 Facilities Fund or the Community Investment Fund. The Community Investment Funds was established with the funds earned by the City’s liquor operations and from the sale of those liquor operations. Staff needs to know where Council wants the sign to be located, noting Staff recommends putting it where the current sign is. Mayor Lizée stated this item has been discussed numerous times. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the total price includes electrical work that may be needed to hookup the sign. SSCC contract manager Kristi Anderson stated she didn’t think there would be any required. Woodruff then asked how about the computer connection to change the sign. Anderson stated a wireless connection will be used. Director Brown stated there will be some small amount of electrical costs incurred for the hookup of the sign. State Statute requires the City to have a commercial licensed electrician involved and it will be inspected by the State. He estimated the cost to be no more than $1,000 and that would be in addition to the $21,116. Councilmember Siakel recommended the City’s contribution come out of the Community Investment Fund. Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, authorizing the purchase and installation of a monument sign for the Southshore Community Center as presented and locating the sign where the current sign is located. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the motion include the City’s portion of the funding will come from the Community Investment Fund. Without objection from the maker or the seconded, the motion was amended to specify the City’s contribution toward this will come out of the Community Investment Fund. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizée suggested some tree and under brush trimming be done around that area. B. Monument Sign for Shorewood City Hall Administrator Heck stated during its May 23, 2011, meeting Council directed Staff to bring back to Council design concepts and costs for a monument sign to complete the City Hall renovation project. Staff was also directed to identify funding options for the sign being it isn’t budgeted for in 2011. Heck explained Staff has prepared a single-sign option and a dual-sign design option for Council’s consideration. The single-sign option will say City of Shorewood and the street address and it will have directional arrows on it pointing to City Hall, Badger Park and Community Center. One of the two signs in the dual-sign option will say the City of Shorewood and street address, and the second sign will have directional arrows pointing to City Hall, Badger Park and Community Center. The cost for purchase and installation for the single-sign option is $9,385 and the cost for the dual-sign option is $12,379. Staff recommends the single-sign option and taking funds from the Public Facilities Fund to pay for this. Councilmember Zerby stated he prefers the single-sign option and he recommended Community Park be changed to Community Center. Mayor Lizée suggested it say Southshore Community Center. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 17 of 22 Councilmember Woodruff asked if there will be a need for electrical work for this sign. Administrator Heck stated Staff has not looked into what it will cost to install ground lighting, noting that will be an added cost. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, authorizing the purchase and installation of a monument sign for City Hall as presented in the single-sign option subject to the changes recommended above and using funds in the Public Facilities Fund to pay for this expenditure. Motion passed 5/0. C. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Fiber to the Homes Discussion Mayor Lizée noted that Sally Koenecke, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) Executive Director, is present this evening. Administrator Heck stated during its last meeting Council asked that a work session be scheduled to tm discuss the potential LMCC’s fiber to the premise (FTTP) initiative (tonkaconnect). Since then Mayor Lizée asked that it be put on a regular Council meeting agenda sooner versus later. He then stated the meeting packet contains a document he prepared regarding background information he was aware of about the initiative. He noted that to date the LMCC has spent just under $64,000 on the initiative. Mayor Lizée stated the reason she asked for this to be put on tonight’s agenda is there has been discussion at different levels about the initiative. The LMCC has been talking about it for quite a while. She noted she has spoken with some of the Shorewood Councilmembers as well officials on other LMCC member city councils. She stated Council discussed this during its last meeting. She asked the other Councilmembers if this Council supports the LMCC continuing to pursue this initiative. The initiative would cost tens of millions of dollars. Councilmember Zerby stated it’s his impression that Council wanted to see this initiative through the recently conducted market interest survey. He stated the survey results do not reflect there is an overwhelming demand for a government entity to provide a FTTP service. The results also show the majority of responders are satisfied with the service they receive from Mediacom. Sixty percent of the responders are not dissatisfied with the service they receive from Mediacom. Only 3 - 4 percent of the responders would work from home more if they had FTTP (a faster service). People were willing to consider changing to the FTTP service provider if they could get it for a lower price than they pay today and still get the same or better service. He questioned if that can really be provided by a relatively new organization when it’s not currently being offered by current service providers. He stated the cost to put the enterprise together is estimated to be $50 – $80 million. Financing for it would be done through bonding and that will likely have to be guaranteed by some type of municipality. He noted he does not think the demand is there. Councilmember Siakel stated she concurs with Councilmember Zerby. She then stated that during the rd May 23 Council meeting she stated the LMCC had spent about $65,000 to date on the initiative. In actuality, to date the LMCC has spent $63,988.23. She expressed concern about the LMCC’s General Fund reserves. Siakel explained it’s her understanding that entering into 2011 the LMCC had an approximate $400,000 fund balance. The next phase of this initiative is going to cost $40,000 – $50,000 and that will be paid out of the 2011 budget. The phase after that will cost $70,000 and that will be paid in 2012. In 2011 the LMCC received a windfall from Mediacom for underpaying the public, environment and government (PEG) fees due the LMCC. She stated the continued spending of money on the initiative is draining the LMCC’s reserves and that concerns her. She then stated she can see that there may be benefit in the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 18 of 22 LMCC community being able to access a FTTP network, but she doesn’t think its value is worth $50 – $80 million to the public. She then stated FTTP is a want and not a need. Siakel stated it’s her understanding a board of directors has been proposed to manage tonkaconnect moving forward. She doesn’t think there has been a lot of discussion about who will be on that board. She expressed concern that those involved with building the enterprise tonkaconnect could potentially be on the proposed board. She also expressed concern over possible conflicts of interest. Ms. Koenecke stated Councilmember Woodruff chairs the tonkaconnectWork Group Committee (the Committee). The LMCC has been studying FTTP for about three years. A number of the Committee members have been to many different seminars and educational sessions at both the state and national level to learn about what’s going on with regard to FTTP around the country and the world. She stated because Woodruff has led the Committee for the last three years he is best suited to explain why spending of LMCC funds have been warranted. The first step in the FTTP initiative was to conduct a survey to determine in people in the LMCC community even want FTTP. Ms. Koenecke stated the next thing the Committee has to do is develop a business plan and identify the costs to build a FTTP system. The Committee and the LMCC doesn’t have that information yet. In order to provide the LMCC member cities with educated answers about whether or not tonkaconnect would be viable the Committee has felt it worthwhile to spend LMCC funds to accomplish that. She commented in 2006 the LMCC had a wireless study done and questions about cost, reliability and what problems would be solved were raised in terms of Mediacom issues. She stated in the market survey Mediacom came out looking pretty good. She noted at this time Mediacom doesn’t have a FTTP system; it does have a fiber to the node system. Councilmember Woodruff stated the research into FTTP was initiated at the request of the LMCC. He noted he became involved with the initiative shortly after he became a Commissioner. The full Commission and the LMCC Executive Committee have had discussions about tonkaconnect during most of their meetings. In 2010 a workshop was held to present technology information and details of the tonkaconnect project plan. There was a panel discussion of experts about FTTP. The work to date on tonkaconnect has been driven by the LMCC and its member cities at some level. Woodruff then stated he has not been involved with the financial side of the LMCC even when he was a Commissioner with regard to the budget. In 2010 the Committee did request $30,000 be included in the 2011 budget to fund a market survey and to pay any potential legal expenses related to tonkaconnect. The survey was done earlier in the year and it cost less than the $20,000 budgeted. No expenditures have been incurred to date in 2011 for legal expenses. Woodruff went on to state the Committee recommended to the full Commission that the next logical step would be to develop a business plan and a financial model. After that is done a decision can be made whether or not it makes sound business sense to move forward with tonkaconnect. He commented that he partially disagreed with Councilmember Zerby’s comment that 60 percent of the market survey responders are satisfied with the service they receive from Mediacom. That’s only true if those that are neutral are included. The opposite could be said if those that were neutral were included in those that are disappointed with the service. He commented the full Commission has spent time discussing the LMCC’s level of reserves. Ms. Koenecke stated the Commission created a contingency fund in part to ensure there were funds available for these types of investigation projects. The LMCC has been given the mandate to do investigations of communication technology for its member cities. She noted the LMCC has a 10 percent CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 19 of 22 contingency fund in its budget for projects that might come up, like tonkaconnect, need to be moved on quickly. The contingency funds could be used for anything that was not budgeted for. The $30,000 in the 2011 budget was in an assessment and education fund and it was used for tonkaconnect related expenditures. A portion of that was used to pay for the tonkaconnect market survey. Councilmember Zerby stated he has a philosophical issue with where the funding is coming from. He explained the only money the LMCC gets is from cable television subscribers. There is a 5 percent fee and there are PEG fees cable subscribers are paying for. He expressed his displeasure with building a digital network that competes with Mediacoms’s digital network with Mediacom cable subscribers paying for it. He stated this is a time people want less government involvement not more. He noted he strongly opposed spending any more money coming from the cable subscribers to pursue tonkaconnect. He stated if people are interested in FTTP and if there is a demand for it then the LMCC member cities can fund the next steps. He also stated he does not want this to proceed at the LMCC level. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, stating the City of Shorewood does not support the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission spending any more money on its tonkac project. onnect Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought doing that is ill conceived and it’s a mistake. He then stated he agreed that the funding the LMCC receives comes from Mediacom cable subscribers. He expressed he thought there is a significant value to moving forward with tonkaconnect even if it doesn’t come to fruition. He stated the City of Shorewood does have a vote on the Commission and that the LMCC operates under a joint powers agreement. The City’s representative on the Commission needs to express this Council’s perspective in a full LMCC Commission meeting. He commented that the City did not have a voting member present at the last meeting. Woodruff then stated during the last Council meeting Councilmember Siakel commented that LMCC residents don’t know what’s going on with tonkaconnect. Articles have been published in the local newspapers about tonkaconnect. He commented he had a document that described what’s going around the country with regard to similar projects. He stated that to say people have to rely on private industry is not the correct approach at this juncture. Councilmember Zerby noted that he is not apposed to FTTP; he would love to have the internet speed. He is opposed to the funding coming from the LMCC. He stated if the tonkaconnect project is going to continue he is willing to have it at the Council level. He noted that he could not attend the last LMCC Commission meeting because he was celebrating his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. Unfortunately, the City did not have an alternate who could vote. He also noted that his technology business relies on digital downloads; it’s his income. He wants to have more and faster digital download capabilities for everyone. Mayor Lizée stated this Council supports FTTP technology but not by having the public pay for it. The FTTP is a business that is viable and certain to be a money maker for the private industry. She then stated FTTP isn’t a need for public infrastructure it’s a desire. Councilmember Zerby stated the LMCC’s mission is to provide community access. Taking LMCC funds away from community access needs is not appropriate. Motion passed 4/1 with Woodruff dissenting. D. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Appointment of an Alternate CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 20 of 22 Mayor Lizée asked Council if it would like to appoint an alternate member with voting privileges to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC). Administrator Heck stated he had not reviewed the LMCC joint powers organization to determine if the City can do that. Sally Koenecke, LMCC Executive Director, stated the LMCC joint powers agreement states each member city can appoint at least one alternate director. Lizée moved, Hotvet seconded, nominating Councilmember Siakel to be the Shorewood alternate to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission. Councilmember Woodruff stated the idea of having an alternate is well founded. He expressed concern that having been a Commissioner for three years he knows that the City’s representative is only obligated to attend four meetings a year. If the regular representative and the alternate tag team in attending meetings he would be really concerned about lack of continuity and that the City would not be represented well. If the City would be represented by someone every other meeting that would be a problem for him. Mayor Lizée stated that is not her intent in making the motion; it was to have the availability of an alternate with voting privileges. Councilmember Siakel stated she would not be in favor of attending every other LMCC Commission meeting. She would simply be a backup if Councilmember Zerby could not attend. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizée thanked Ms. Koenecke for coming this evening. 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff Administrator Heck stated the City ranked nineteenth for overall steps and eighth for the average steps per participant in the Step To It challenge. The results reflect that Councilmembers did not participate in the challenge. Councilmember Woodruff clarified he thought three Councilmembers participated and he noted he made an entry every day of the challenge. Heck then stated Director DeJong and he met with representatives from the Minnetonka School District to discuss the City possibly using the District’s fiber optic network to connect into Carver County’s fiber ring that’s being built. The District has twelve pairs of fiber that go off to the Minnewashta Elementary School. The District is going to research the legal aspects of possibly allowing the City to do that. The District is also going to look at the feasibility of doing that long term from a capacity perspective because ninth grade high school students in the District are going to be getting ipads to use. The District plans to push that type of technology into the elementary schools. The City has the option of running two fiber lines to patch into the Carver County fiber ring. Heck went on to state Councilmember Hotvet and he had a good meeting to talk about the strategic planning process and he thought Hotvet presented him with some very good ideas. He noted he will write up notes from that discussion and distribute them to Council. Heck reviewed topics for upcoming work sessions. They are: the review of the City’s licensing and permitting processes and fees; the water connection charge; and the 2012 budget starting the first meeting in July. There will also be a need to discuss how Council wants the City to proceed with regard to a CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 21 of 22 managing the Southshore Community Center (SSCC). The City’s commitment to managing the SSCC is up in 2012. Director Brown stated he has been asked by Administrator Heck and Director DeJong to update Council on the following situation. He explained the City’s loader, a critical piece of equipment for the Public Works Department, stopped working this past week. The Public Works staff had the equipment at Crescent Beach while it was putting in the dock when the loader experienced a mechanical failure. The Caterpillar dealer was called to take the loader away. The loader is one of the two pieces of front line equipment. If trees go down that is the first piece of equipment out the door. The Excelsior Public Works Department has been asked to provide backup to the City for that. Brown noted that he has been working with the dealer regarding what the problem is. He explained the equipment is sixteen years old and the goal was to try and get twenty years out of it. He noted that the loader was scheduled to be replaced in 2014. He also noted that when he first started with the City the loader was on a ten-year replacement schedule. He took some flack for pushing it out to a fifteen-year replacement schedule. Due to budget constraints the schedule was pushed out to twenty years. He explained Staff is discussing whether the loader should be repaired or replaced. The current estimate to repair the loader is about $25,000, and the first estimate he received was $50,000. A new machine costs approximately $190,000. He and the Public Works shop technician have been discussing how to adjust the Equipment Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to advance the purchase of a new loader and delay the purchase of other replacement equipment. Mayor Lizée expressed that she was pleased Director Brown is working with the City of Excelsior. 1. Update on Zoning Violations a. Mr. Mason Director Nielsen explained the property located at 27680 Island View Road and owned by Bill Mason had multiple decks/docks on it. The City’s Code limits the number of docks per lot to one. Therefore, the property was in violation. Mr. Mason had appealed the City to consider allowing more than one dock on a pieced of property or to consider his dock a deck. Since then Mr. Mason has removed the older dock so he is no longer in violation. b. Mr. Johnson Director Nielsen explained Ron Johnson appealed a zoning violation he had received. The City initiated its administrative enforcement process by issuing an administrative citation to Mr. Johnson and he appealed that. An administrative hearing was started two weeks ago to begin to hear arguments. Mr. Johnson appealed for additional time in order to have his attorney present at the hearing. The hearing has been continued to July 26, 2011. c. Mr. Eastman Director Nielsen explained Jerry Eastman received a zoning violation notice for property he resides at located at 5490 Vine Hill Road about a car repair business he is allegedly running on that property. Mr. Eastman has not responded to the notice. Complaints persist. The City is going to take the next steps. B. Mayor and City Council CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2011 Page 22 of 22 Councilmember Siakel explained the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has removed its high water declaration for Lake Minnetonka earlier in the day. Milfoil harvesting on the Lake is th scheduled to begin the week of June 20. Four out of five bays in the Lake that were selected for herbicide treatment of Eurasian Watermilfoil and Curly Leaf Pondweed have been treated. The LMCD has been receiving a lot of support from the Army Corps of Engineers about the treatment program. th During the June 10 the LMCD Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force meeting a representative from the Corps that was there from Florida doing some point intercept studies and looking at different invasive species in the Lake. Grays Bay may not be treated this year because of the heavy flow of water from the Lake into Minnehaha Creek. Councilmember Zerby stated he attended the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board’s regular meeting on st June 1. Things are going well for the District. There was a report from the EFD Reserve Unit Captain that was very informative. The Reserve Unit does a lot for the District and the Department. The draft 2012 EFD Operating Budget was discussed for the third time. The original proposed budget projected a mandatory contribution in the amount of $80,000 to the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) fund for pensions. That amount in the budget has been reduced to $40,000 because the most recent contribution calculations indicate the required contribution will be significantly less. EFD Chief Gerber identified some areas to reduce the budget per the Board’s direction and the Board asked him to make a few of the proposed cuts. There was a lengthy discussion about the medical response service the EFD provides to the EFD community. Mayor Lizée stated the Art on the Lake event held this past weekend was very successful. She noted see saw many Shorewood residents and Shorewood staff members at the event. 13. ADJOURN Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 13, 2011, at 9:57 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk COUNCIL ACTION FORM Department Council Meeting Item Number Finance June 27, 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 51831 through 51875 totaling $291,084.73. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 6/23/2011 11:45 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 6/14/2011 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 6/21/2011 000000 11,883.31 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 6/21/2011 000000 2,119.69 20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 6/21/2011 000000 1,092.39 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 6/21/2011 051831 1,511.00 00052 PERA R 6/21/2011 051832 7,052.79 00650 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY R 6/27/2011 051834 263.38 01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 6/27/2011 051835 319.00 29289 ARAMARK R 6/27/2011 051836 99.10 15485 ATHLETIC METRO SUPPLY R 6/27/2011 051837 202.96 29315 BOLTON & MENK, INC. R 6/27/2011 051838 2,201.50 04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 6/27/2011 051839 84.69 07600 CITY OF EXCELSIOR R 6/27/2011 051840 7,879.70 29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 6/27/2011 051841 847.47 05875 CUB FOODS R 6/27/2011 051842 278.97 02000 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. R 6/27/2011 051843 242.91 29248 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG R 6/27/2011 051844 490.46 29396 EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC R 6/27/2011 051845 63.08 29387 FASCHING, GREGORY R 6/27/2011 051846 1,600.00 09501 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIAT R 6/27/2011 051847 170.00 29324 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, I R 6/27/2011 051848 7,963.75 11055 INFRATECH R 6/27/2011 051849 2,205.00 1 JIM & NANCY STUBBE R 6/27/2011 051850 1,000.00 6/23/2011 11:45 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 6/14/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 12250 KLM ENGINEERING INC R 6/27/2011 051851 4,300.00 13320 LEE PEST CONTROL, INC. R 6/27/2011 051852 70.00 21340 LOCAL LINK R 6/27/2011 051853 69.95 29380 MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING R 6/27/2011 051854 34.16 00079 MEDICA R 6/27/2011 051855 15,053.69 15176 MENARDS R 6/27/2011 051856 47.40 15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. R 6/27/2011 051857 500.00 00085 MINNESOTA LIFE R 6/27/2011 051858 433.91 14050 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY R 6/27/2011 051859 253.82 15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 6/27/2011 051860 206.62 20283 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. R 6/27/2011 051861 96.11 20805 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS. R 6/27/2011 051862 334.70 29281 PYRAMID HOME SPECAILTIES R 6/27/2011 051863 69.73 21550 RANDALL, DANIEL R 6/27/2011 051864 23.00 22476 SAFETY SIGNS R 6/27/2011 051865 286.50 22482 SAM'S CLUB R 6/27/2011 051866 341.24 22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 6/27/2011 051867 75.84 23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 6/27/2011 051868 82,642.00 07651 SOUTH LAKE-EXCELSIOR CHAMBER O R 6/27/2011 051869 7,500.00 29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 6/27/2011 051870 878.60 17200 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS R 6/27/2011 051871 68.72 70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 6/27/2011 051872 78.64 6/23/2011 11:45 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 6/14/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 27190 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY R 6/27/2011 051873 45.90 29269 WARNER CONNECT R 6/27/2011 051874 2,800.00 28350 WOODRUFF, RICHARD R 6/27/2011 051875 388.58 00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN E 6/27/2011 999999 408.00 05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 6/27/2011 999999 2,418.00 12900 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION D E 6/27/2011 999999 7,810.50 13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 6/27/2011 999999 74.06 15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER E 6/27/2011 999999 59,486.26 19435 SPRINT E 6/27/2011 999999 131.55 19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 6/27/2011 999999 182.00 29363 DeJONG, BRUCE E 6/27/2011 999999 37.23 * * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED REGULAR CHECKS: 44 151,074.87 0.00 151,074.87 HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DRAFTS: 3 15,095.39 0.00 15,095.39 EFT: 8 70,547.60 0.00 70,547.60 NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00 VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 55 236,717.86 0.00 236,717.86 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 55 236,717.86 0.00 236,717.86 REPORT TOTALS: 56 236,717.86 0.00 236,717.86 06-23-2011 11:44 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 1 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 6/27/11 UTILITY TRUCK General Fund Public Works 263.38_ TOTAL: 263.38 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 6/27/11 CHARLIES DAVIS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 6/27/11 GREG FASCHING General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 6/27/11 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 6/27/11 BRADLEY MASON General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 6/27/11 CHRISTOPHER POUNDER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 6/27/11 DANIEL RANDALL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 6/27/11 BRUCE STARK General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 6/27/11 TERRY TOWER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00_ TOTAL: 408.00 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 6/27/11 PARK COM & REG MTG 06/14 General Fund Parks & Recreation 319.00_ TOTAL: 319.00 ARAMARK 6/27/11 SSCC-SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 99.10_ TOTAL: 99.10 ATHLETIC METRO SUPPLY 6/27/11 PITCHING RUBBERS & BASES General Fund Parks & Recreation 202.96_ TOTAL: 202.96 BOLTON & MENK, INC. 6/27/11 MILL & OVERLAY Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 2,201.50_ TOTAL: 2,201.50 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 6/27/11 IGNITION SWITCH General Fund Public Works 13.94 6/27/11 IGNITION SWITCH RETURN General Fund Public Works 12.99- 6/27/11 IGNITION SWITCH General Fund Public Works 12.99 6/27/11 LAMPS & FILTERS General Fund Public Works 7.81 6/27/11 OIL, FILTER LUBE General Fund Public Works 62.94_ TOTAL: 84.69 CITY OF EXCELSIOR 6/27/11 2ND QTR JOINT Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 7,879.70_ TOTAL: 7,879.70 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 6/27/11 C.H. SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 531.01 6/27/11 P.W. SVC General Fund Public Works 316.46_ TOTAL: 847.47 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 6/27/11 PCS- 06/13-06/24 General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,250.00 6/27/11 ASSISTANT-06/13-06/23 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 168.00_ TOTAL: 2,418.00 CUB FOODS 6/27/11 SSCC- 05/17/11 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 278.97_ TOTAL: 278.97 DeJONG, BRUCE 6/27/11 MAY-JUN MILEAGE General Fund Finance 37.23_ TOTAL: 37.23 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. 6/27/11 GALVANIZED CHANNEL POST-SI Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 242.91_ TOTAL: 242.91 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,937.57 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,193.37 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 757.25 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80.60 06-23-2011 11:44 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 2 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18.87 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 263.43 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 61.60 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 527.29 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 123.32 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 307.69 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 71.95 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 264.86 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 61.94 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 214.86 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 50.25 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 155.82 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 36.44 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 371.89 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 86.97 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 339.75 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 79.46 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 4.80 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 1.12 6/21/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 242.18 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 56.63 6/21/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 42.96 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 10.06 6/21/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 160.33 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 37.50 6/21/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 128.67 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 30.10 6/21/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 3.13 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 0.73 6/21/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 129.61 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 30.31_ TOTAL: 11,883.31 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC 6/27/11 LIGHT TRAFFIC SAFETY General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 331.60 6/27/11 LIGHT TRAFFIC SAFETY General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 158.86_ TOTAL: 490.46 EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC 6/27/11 CONTROLS ROAD & DITCH REPA General Fund Streets & Roadways 63.08_ TOTAL: 63.08 FASCHING, GREGORY 6/27/11 DEPENDENT CARE EXP General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,600.00_ TOTAL: 1,600.00 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 6/27/11 BRUCE DEJONG RENEWAL General Fund Finance 170.00_ TOTAL: 170.00 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 6/27/11 MAY-SMITHTOWN WAY ST SW RE Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 7,963.75_ TOTAL: 7,963.75 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,175.00 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 336.00_ TOTAL: 1,511.00 INFRATECH 6/27/11 ST DRAIN TILE INVESTIGATIO Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,205.00_ TOTAL: 2,205.00 06-23-2011 11:44 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 3 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ KLM ENGINEERING INC 6/27/11 T-MOBILE ANTENNA REVIEW General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,500.00 6/27/11 CIP-SE WA TOWER INSPECTION Water Utility Water 2,800.00_ TOTAL: 4,300.00 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 6/27/11 2ND QTR LEVY PYMT General Fund Council 7,810.50_ TOTAL: 7,810.50 LANDINI, JAMES 6/27/11 MILEAGE General Fund City Engineer 74.06_ TOTAL: 74.06 LEE PEST CONTROL, INC. 6/27/11 SSCC-2ND QTR SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 70.00_ TOTAL: 70.00 LOCAL LINK 6/27/11 JUL-WEB SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 69.95_ TOTAL: 69.95 MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING 6/27/11 SSCC- GEN SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 34.16_ TOTAL: 34.16 MEDICA 6/27/11 MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 15,053.69_ TOTAL: 15,053.69 MENARDS 6/27/11 SAKRETE CONCRETE General Fund Parks & Recreation 27.40 6/27/11 PART-MANOR PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 20.00_ TOTAL: 47.40 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 6/27/11 WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 59,486.26_ TOTAL: 59,486.26 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 6/27/11 JUL NEWSLETTER POSTAGE General Fund General Government 500.00_ TOTAL: 500.00 MINNESOTA LIFE 6/27/11 LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 433.91_ TOTAL: 433.91 MISC. VENDOR JIM & NANCY STUBBE 6/27/11 JIM & NANCY STUBBE:EARNEST Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,000.00_ TOTAL: 1,000.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 6/21/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,119.69_ TOTAL: 2,119.69 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 6/27/11 IRRIGATION PARTS General Fund Parks & Recreation 149.92 6/27/11 IRRIGATION REPAIR PARTS General Fund Parks & Recreation 103.90_ TOTAL: 253.82 NIELSEN, BRADLEY 6/27/11 SLUC-REG General Fund Planning 182.00_ TOTAL: 182.00 OFFICE DEPOT 6/27/11 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 64.11 6/27/11 PAPER COPY General Fund General Government 84.90 6/27/11 P.W. SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 57.61_ TOTAL: 206.62 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/27/11 GRINDING WHEELS General Fund Public Works 96.11_ TOTAL: 96.11 06-23-2011 11:44 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 4 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,265.17 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 318.02 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 610.61 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 370.52 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 340.54 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 280.74 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 182.79 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 451.26 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 410.20 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 5.89 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 259.57 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 50.24 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 195.51 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 156.26 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 3.66 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 151.81_ TOTAL: 7,052.79 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS., LLC 6/27/11 3RD QTR RENTAL General Fund Municipal Buildings 334.70_ TOTAL: 334.70 PYRAMID HOME SPECAILTIES 6/27/11 WEED CONTROL General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 69.73_ TOTAL: 69.73 RANDALL, DANIEL 6/27/11 SEWER CERT LIC RENEWAL Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 23.00_ TOTAL: 23.00 SAFETY SIGNS 6/27/11 TRAFFICE CONES & SIGNAGE General Fund Streets & Roadways 286.50_ TOTAL: 286.50 SAM'S CLUB 6/27/11 CITY HALL General Fund Municipal Buildings 206.56 6/27/11 PUBLIC WORK General Fund Public Works 134.68_ TOTAL: 341.24 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 6/27/11 RURAL MAILBOX General Fund Public Works 42.74 6/27/11 PAINT TRAILER General Fund Public Works 25.63 6/27/11 PARK PLUMBING General Fund Public Works 7.47_ TOTAL: 75.84 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 6/27/11 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE General Fund Police Protection 82,642.00_ TOTAL: 82,642.00 SOUTH LAKE-EXCELSIOR CHAMBER OF COMMER 6/27/11 JULY 4TH DONATION General Fund Council 7,500.00_ TOTAL: 7,500.00 SPRINT 6/27/11 SVC 05/13-06/12 Water Utility Water 65.77 6/27/11 SVC 05/13-06/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 65.78_ TOTAL: 131.55 SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/27/11 BIT MILL -06/02 & 09 Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 147.58 6/27/11 2010 WATER REPORT 06/09 Water Utility Water 583.44 6/27/11 MURRY HILL ST IMPROVEMENT Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 147.58_ TOTAL: 878.60 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 6/27/11 ORD NO.476 -06/04 General Fund General Government 31.97 6/27/11 HAYES CUP HEARING 05/28 General Fund Planning 36.75 06-23-2011 11:44 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 5 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ _______________ TOTAL: 68.72 VERIZON WIRELESS 6/27/11 BRAD -SVC 5/11-6/10 General Fund Planning 78.64_ TOTAL: 78.64 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 6/27/11 MOWER PARTS General Fund Public Works 45.90_ TOTAL: 45.90 WARNER CONNECT 6/27/11 MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 2,800.00_ TOTAL: 2,800.00 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_ TOTAL: 1,092.39 WOODRUFF, RICHARD 6/27/11 CONF-06/15-17 EXP-HOTEL General Fund Council 243.73 6/27/11 CONF-06/15-17 EXP-MILEAGE General Fund Council 112.20 6/27/11 CONF-06/15-17 EXP-FOODS General Fund Council 32.65_ TOTAL: 388.58 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300.00 General Fund Administration 4,386.58 General Fund General Government 8,521.08 General Fund Finance 5,110.70 General Fund Planning 4,697.08 General Fund Protective Inspections 3,872.22 General Fund City Engineer 2,521.22 General Fund Public Works 6,224.34 General Fund Streets & Roadways 5,657.81 General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 81.21 General Fund Parks & Recreation 4,305.26 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 692.88 Water Utility Water 2,696.62 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,155.45 Recycling Utility Recycling 50.48 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,093.94_ TOTAL: 54,366.87 06-23-2011 11:44 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 6 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ =============== FUND TOTALS ================ 101 General Fund 196,801.98 402 Park Capital Improvements 242.91 404 Street Capital Improvemen 2,349.08 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 1,446.37 601 Water Utility 6,539.17 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 69,925.22 621 Recycling Utility 58.00 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 13,722.00 -------------------------------------------- GRAND TOTAL: 291,084.73 -------------------------------------------- TOTAL PAGES: 6 06-23-2011 11:43 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 1 DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_ NON-DEPARTMENTAL General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FEDERAL W/H 4,937.57 6/21/11 FICA W/H 2,193.37 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 757.25 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,265.17 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,175.00 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 336.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 6/21/11 STATE W/H 2,119.69 KLM ENGINEERING INC 6/27/11 T-MOBILE ANTENNA REVIEW 1,500.00 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 803.94 FASCHING, GREGORY 6/27/11 DEPENDENT CARE EXP 1,600.00_ TOTAL: 18,687.99 Council General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 80.60 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 18.87 SOUTH LAKE-EXCELSIOR CHAMBER OF COMMER 6/27/11 JULY 4TH DONATION 7,500.00 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 6/27/11 2ND QTR LEVY PYMT 7,810.50 WOODRUFF, RICHARD 6/27/11 CONF-06/15-17 EXP-HOTEL 243.73 6/27/11 CONF-06/15-17 EXP-MILEAGE 112.20 6/27/11 CONF-06/15-17 EXP-FOODS 32.65 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 1,300.00_ TOTAL: 17,098.55 Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 263.43 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 61.60 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 318.02 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,386.58_ TOTAL: 5,029.63 General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 527.29 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 123.32 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 610.61 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 6/27/11 JUL NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 500.00 OFFICE DEPOT 6/27/11 GEN SUPPLIES 64.11 6/27/11 PAPER COPY 84.90 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 6/27/11 ORD NO.476 -06/04 31.97 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 288.45 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 8,521.08_ TOTAL: 10,751.73 Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 307.69 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 71.95 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 370.52 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 6/27/11 BRUCE DEJONG RENEWAL 170.00 DeJONG, BRUCE 6/27/11 MAY-JUN MILEAGE 37.23 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,110.70_ TOTAL: 6,068.09 Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 264.86 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 61.94 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 340.54 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 6/27/11 HAYES CUP HEARING 05/28 36.75 NIELSEN, BRADLEY 6/27/11 SLUC-REG 182.00 VERIZON WIRELESS 6/27/11 BRAD -SVC 5/11-6/10 78.64 06-23-2011 11:43 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 2 DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_ **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,697.08_ TOTAL: 5,661.81 Municipal Buildings General Fund PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS., LLC 6/27/11 3RD QTR RENTAL 334.70 LOCAL LINK 6/27/11 JUL-WEB SVC 69.95 SAM'S CLUB 6/27/11 CITY HALL 206.56 WARNER CONNECT 6/27/11 MAINT SVC 2,800.00 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 6/27/11 C.H. SVC 531.01_ TOTAL: 3,942.22 Police Protection General Fund SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 6/27/11 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE 82,642.00_ TOTAL: 82,642.00 Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 214.86 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 50.25 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 280.74 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,872.22_ TOTAL: 4,418.07 City Engineer General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 155.82 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 36.44 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 182.79 LANDINI, JAMES 6/27/11 MILEAGE 74.06 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,521.22_ TOTAL: 2,970.33 Public Works General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 371.89 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 86.97 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 451.26 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 6/27/11 UTILITY TRUCK 263.38 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 6/27/11 IGNITION SWITCH 13.94 6/27/11 IGNITION SWITCH RETURN 12.99- 6/27/11 IGNITION SWITCH 12.99 6/27/11 LAMPS & FILTERS 7.81 6/27/11 OIL, FILTER LUBE 62.94 OFFICE DEPOT 6/27/11 P.W. SUPPLIES 57.61 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/27/11 GRINDING WHEELS 96.11 SAM'S CLUB 6/27/11 PUBLIC WORK 134.68 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 6/27/11 RURAL MAILBOX 42.74 6/27/11 PAINT TRAILER 25.63 6/27/11 PARK PLUMBING 7.47 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 6/27/11 MOWER PARTS 45.90 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 6/27/11 P.W. SVC 316.46 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 6,224.34_ TOTAL: 8,209.13 Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 339.75 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 79.46 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 410.20 SAFETY SIGNS 6/27/11 TRAFFICE CONES & SIGNAGE 286.50 EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC 6/27/11 CONTROLS ROAD & DITCH REPA 63.08 06-23-2011 11:43 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 3 DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_ **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,657.81_ TOTAL: 6,836.80 Traffic Control/Str Li General Fund EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC 6/27/11 LIGHT TRAFFIC SAFETY 331.60 6/27/11 LIGHT TRAFFIC SAFETY 158.86_ TOTAL: 490.46 Sanitation/Weeds/Waste General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 4.80 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 1.12 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 5.89 PYRAMID HOME SPECAILTIES 6/27/11 WEED CONTROL 69.73 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 81.21_ TOTAL: 162.75 Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 242.18 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 56.63 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 259.57 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 6/27/11 PARK COM & REG MTG 06/14 319.00 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 6/27/11 PCS- 06/13-06/24 2,250.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 6/27/11 IRRIGATION PARTS 149.92 6/27/11 IRRIGATION REPAIR PARTS 103.90 MENARDS 6/27/11 SAKRETE CONCRETE 27.40 6/27/11 PART-MANOR PARK 20.00 ATHLETIC METRO SUPPLY 6/27/11 PITCHING RUBBERS & BASES 202.96 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,305.26_ TOTAL: 7,936.82 Unallocated Expenses General Fund MEDICA 6/27/11 MEDICAL PREM 15,053.69 MINNESOTA LIFE 6/27/11 LIFE INS 433.91 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 6/27/11 CHARLIES DAVIS 51.00 6/27/11 GREG FASCHING 51.00 6/27/11 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI 51.00 6/27/11 BRADLEY MASON 51.00 6/27/11 CHRISTOPHER POUNDER 51.00 6/27/11 DANIEL RANDALL 51.00 6/27/11 BRUCE STARK 51.00 6/27/11 TERRY TOWER 51.00_ TOTAL: 15,895.60 Park Capital Improveme Park Capital Impro EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. 6/27/11 GALVANIZED CHANNEL POST-SI 242.91_ TOTAL: 242.91 Street Capt Improvemen Street Capital Imp SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/27/11 BIT MILL -06/02 & 09 147.58 BOLTON & MENK, INC. 6/27/11 MILL & OVERLAY 2,201.50_ TOTAL: 2,349.08 Senior Community Cente Southshore Communi EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 42.96 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 10.06 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 50.24 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 6/27/11 ASSISTANT-06/13-06/23 168.00 CUB FOODS 6/27/11 SSCC- 05/17/11 278.97 LEE PEST CONTROL, INC. 6/27/11 SSCC-2ND QTR SVC 70.00 ARAMARK 6/27/11 SSCC-SVC 99.10 MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING 6/27/11 SSCC- GEN SVC 34.16 06-23-2011 11:43 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 4 DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_ **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 692.88_ TOTAL: 1,446.37 Water Water Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 160.33 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 37.50 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 195.51 KLM ENGINEERING INC 6/27/11 CIP-SE WA TOWER INSPECTION 2,800.00 SPRINT 6/27/11 SVC 05/13-06/12 65.77 SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/27/11 2010 WATER REPORT 06/09 583.44 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,696.62_ TOTAL: 6,539.17 Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 128.67 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 30.10 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 156.26 CITY OF EXCELSIOR 6/27/11 2ND QTR JOINT 7,879.70 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 6/27/11 WASTEWATER SVC 59,486.26 SPRINT 6/27/11 SVC 05/13-06/12 65.78 RANDALL, DANIEL 6/27/11 SEWER CERT LIC RENEWAL 23.00 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,155.45_ TOTAL: 69,925.22 Recycling Recycling Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 3.13 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 0.73 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3.66 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 50.48_ TOTAL: 58.00 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Managem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/21/11 FICA W/H 129.61 6/21/11 MEDICARE W/H 30.31 PERA 6/21/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 151.81 MISC. VENDOR JIM & NANCY STUBBE 6/27/11 JIM & NANCY STUBBE:EARNEST 1,000.00 INFRATECH 6/27/11 ST DRAIN TILE INVESTIGATIO 2,205.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/27/11 MURRY HILL ST IMPROVEMENT 147.58 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 6/27/11 MAY-SMITHTOWN WAY ST SW RE 7,963.75 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/20/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,093.94_ TOTAL: 13,722.00 06-23-2011 11:43 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT-JUNE 27, 2011 PAGE: 5 DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_ =============== FUND TOTALS ================ 101 General Fund 196,801.98 402 Park Capital Improvements 242.91 404 Street Capital Improvemen 2,349.08 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 1,446.37 601 Water Utility 6,539.17 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 69,925.22 621 Recycling Utility 58.00 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 13,722.00 -------------------------------------------- GRAND TOTAL: 291,084.73 -------------------------------------------- TOTAL PAGES: 5 #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: A Resolution Accepting Low Bid and Awarding Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Contract to the Successful Low Bidder Meeting Date: June 27, 2011 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Exhibit A None Policy Consideration: Background: Exhibit A is the Bid Tabulation for the Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvement Project which were opened and summary tabulated on June 22, 2011. The low bidder is W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $199,318.90. Based on the other bids received, it appears that the costs for this project are reasonable. Financial or Budget Considerations: This project will be funded by the Storm Sewer Enterprise Budget which has $150,900.00 budgeted for the improvement in 2011. The project creates an over budget situation of $48,418.90. The CIP does have Murray Hill Road scheduled for a mill and overlay for $47,000 in 2015, this storm project would alleviate that future mill and overlay project. This project will be eligible for reimbursement from future bond sales as approved at the June 13, 2011 Council meeting. Options: 1.Approve the resolution directing staff to enter into a contract with W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. For the construction project. 2.Direct staff to utilize a different contractor and approve an amended resolution. 3.Do nothing. Leaves the streets in poor condition. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the contract for the Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvement Project be awarded to W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. for the proposed improvement. A resolution is attached for your consideration. Next Steps and Timelines: Connection to Vision / Mission: Improving the drainage is a sound financial strategy and provides 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 -___ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE MURRAY HILL ROAD STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT. CITY PROJECT NO. 10-11 WHEREAS , pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as the Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvement, City Project No. 10-11, bids were received, opened on June 22, 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 W. M. Mueller and Sons, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 10-11, 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 27th day of June, 2011. ________________________ Christine Lizée, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: A Resolution Accepting Low Bid and Awarding Mill & Overlay Contract to the Successful Low Bidder Meeting Date: June 27, 2011 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Exhibit A None Policy Consideration: Background: Exhibit A is the Bid Tabulation for the 2011 Bituminous Mill, Overlays and Appurtenant Work for Afton Road, Christopher Road, Fatima Place, Ivy Lane and Rustic Way, Project which were opened and summary tabulated on June 22, 2011. The low bidder is Midwest Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $173,699.00. Based on the other bids received, it appears that the costs for this project are reasonable. Financial or Budget Considerations: This project will be funded by the Streets & Roadways Operating Budget which has $166,000.00 budgeted for the mill and overlay portion of street maintenance in 2011. The project creates an over budget situation of $7,699.00 and can be shortened to fit within the budget amount. Options: 1.Approve the resolution directing staff to enter into a contract with Midwest Asphalt, Inc. For the construction project. 2.Direct staff to utilize a different contractor and approve an amended resolution. 3.Do nothing. Leaves the streets in poor condition. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the contract for the 2011 Mill and Overlay be awarded to Midwest Asphalt for the proposed street distances. A resolution is attached for your consideration. Next Steps and Timelines: Connection to Vision / Mission: Maintaining the infrastructure is a sound financial strategy and provides 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 -___ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2011 BITUMINOUS MILL, OVERLAYS AND APPURTENANT WORK FOR AFTON ROAD, CHRISTOPHER ROAD, FATIMA PLACE, IVY LANE AND RUSTIC WAY. CITY PROJECT NO. 11-08 WHEREAS , pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as the 2011 Bituminous Mill, Overlays and Appurtenant Work for Afton Road, Christopher Road, Fatima Place, Ivy Lane and Rustic Way, City Project No. 11-08, bids were received, opened on June 22, 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 Midwest Asphalt Corp. 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 Midwest Asphalt Corp. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 11-08, 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 27th 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: Shorewood Ponds - Amendment to C.U.P. to Allow Reduction to Age Restriction Meeting Date: 27 June 2011 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City allow the age restriction for the Shorewood Ponds senior housing project to be reduced to comply with revised federal law? Background: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 17 May to consider a request by the Shorewood Ponds Association to lower the age restriction for the project from 62 to 55 years of age. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of an amendment to the original conditional use permit, lowering the age. The Commission made it clear that the recommendation was based on making the C.U.P. consistent with the change in the Federal Fair Housing Act and not based on changing market conditions for home sales. An issue regarding legal procedure arose when this request went to the City Council on 23 May and the Council continued the matter until 27 June to consider adoption of a draft resolution (attached). An affidavit (Page 5 of Exhibit A of the resolution) from the secretary of the Association has been submitted stating that the association had achieved the required number of votes for amending the covenants. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. Options: Approve the amendment as presented; modify the amendment; or deny the request altogether. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. A resolution to that effect is attached for your consideration. The resolution also authorizes the Mayor and Administrator to execute the amended declaration of covenants. Next Steps and Timelines: Once executed by the City, the amendment to the declaration can be returned to the association for recording with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision / Mission: Provide quality public service. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 FORMEM A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SHOREWOOD PONDS P.U.D. WHEREAS, in June of 1999, the City of Shorewood approved a conditional use permit for an elderly housing project named Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. (the Project), located north of State Highway 7 and west of Eureka Road, on property legally described as: "Shorewood Ponds, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota "; and WHEREAS, the Project was approved as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the City Code and subject to a Planned Unit Development Agreement (the Agreement), dated 28 October 1999, which restricted the age of occupants residing in the Project to 62 years of age or older; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc. (the Applicant), has requested an amendment to the Agreement, that would lower the age restriction to 55 years of age or older; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated I I May 2011, which memorandum is on file at City Hall, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 17 May 2011 to consider the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting of 27 June 2011, at which time the City Planner's memorandum and minutes of the Planning Commission meeting were reviewed, and comments were heard by the City Council from the Applicant, City staff and members of the audience attending the meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT The Shorewood City Code and the Agreement for Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. were approved pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA), which provided at the time that elderly housing projects were restricted to residents 62 years of age or older. The age restriction could be reduced to 55 years of age, if the project provided "significant services and facilities, exclusive to the elderly ". 2. Subsequent to the approval of the Project, the FFHA was revised, eliminating the requirement of "significant services and facilities, exclusive to the elderly ". The reduction of age to 55 was allowed as long as the housing project "published and adhered to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to qualify for the exemption ". The Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. is subject to a Declaration of Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc. (the Declaration), to which the City is a signatory, that is recorded against all of the properties in the Project. The Declaration currently contains language restricting the age of residents of the Project to 62 years or older. The Applicant's attorney has prepared an amendment to the Declaration revising the age restriction to 55 years or older. The amendment to the Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit A. CONCLUSIONS A. The amendment to the Declaration of Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc. (Exhibit A) satisfies the FFHA requirement to "publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to qualify for the exemption ". B. The Applicant's request for approval of an amendment to the Agreement reducing the age restriction from 62 to 55 years of age or older in the Shorewood Ponds P.U.D. is hereby approved, subject to the following: The Applicant must record this Resolution and the amended Declaration (Exhibit A) with the Hennepin County Recorder no later than 27 July 2011. 2. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the amended Declaration (Exhibit A). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27"' day of June 2011. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk 2 RMT11 I I lI III Ij l'; WHEREAS, the Declaration was filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County on November 10, 1999 as Document No. 7213567; and WHEREAS, the Declaration provides for amendment of the Declaration by the consent: (i) Owners of Units to which are allocated at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the votes in the Association, (ii) the percentage of Eligible Mortgagees required by Section 20 as to matters prescribed to said Section, (iii) the City of Shorewood, and (iv) the consent of Declarant to certain amendments as provided in Section 17.7; WHEREAS, the consent of the Declarant is not required pursuant to Section 17.7 of the Declaration as Declarant no longer owns any unsold Units within the Association; WHEREAS, the Association desires to subject the real property described in the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") to this Amendment; WHEREAS, the necessary percentage of votes of the members has approved the Amendment to the Declaration as set forth in the attached Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, the Association makes this Amendment declaring that the Declaration shall be amended as set forth herein, and that the covenants and restrictions hereafter set forth shall be binding upon all persons having any right, title or interest in the Property, including their heirs, personal representatives, grantees, successors and assigns, effective as of the date of the filing of this Amendment. 1. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and is hereby incorporated by this reference. Exhibit A 2. Section 7, Paragraph 7.3 of the Declaration shall be amended, modified and restated as follows: 7.3. Elderly Housing. Occupancy of a Dwelling is limited to no more than (2) adults, fifty-five (55) years of age or older, except that the a limit need not apply to: 1 One (1) adult live care provider serving the needs of the primary occupant(s). If such care provider resides in the Dwelling for than thirty (30) days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator for the City of Shorewood. b. :o shall annually file with the City Clerk and the Zoning Administrator for the City of Shorewood a certified copy of a quarterly resume of occupants of each Dwelling listing the name and age of each occupant." All other terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the Declaration a any prior amendments thereto shall remain in full force and effect, except as otherwi specifically amended or modified hereby. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as President of Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation, has executed this instrument effective on the day and year first set forth above, on behalf of the Association. ji, � 1 � 41 1 NO "NOW11 'r-Alk Ma kyl 11.1 to silrt NJ - 2 Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Ostrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2011, by the President of Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., a Minnesota nonprdfit corporation. /I __ REBECCA A LEMBR ' 1: �� - __�; N OTARY Notary Public My Comm. Exp. Jan. 31, 2015 N IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as _ of the City of Shorewood, has executed this instrument effective on the ■ day and year first set forth above, on behalf of the Association. M STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing 1 2011, by of Shorewood. instrument was acknowledged before me this . the — day of A&k-A& W 3 22wf§`2$ « ». © ! 9 »?lmgwi ?}`.`rr% EXHIBIT A 2« FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION Los 1 d;#»#» 25, inclusive, Block \ and C #d I through ?f inclusive, Block « Shorewood fonds Hennepin County, Minnesota. 112 EXHIBIT B TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION Such approval and vote was obtained and conducted as of 2011 by mailed ballot and/or written consent and was done in accordance with the Declaration and Bylaws. 'Secretary STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this X 201 by Shorewood Ponds Association, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, non-profit corporation. REBECCA A LEMBRICH - 4� NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA L My Comm. Exp. Jan.. 31, 2015 Notary Public day of Secretary of on behalf of the R #7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 MINUTES PARK TOURS The Commission met at the Southshore Community Center at 5:45pm to begin their tour. SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER Anderson gave the Commission a tour of the Community Center facilities. Robb suggested the Center consider upgrading the technology on site, for instance, adding flat screen panels to the conference room. Anderson shared an idea to enhance the deck and landscaping area around the creek side of the facility to provide an attractive outdoor space. The Commission questioned the possibility of removing the ‘garage’ structure, keeping the concrete pad and installing a shelter in its place. Recovering the banquet room chairs was brought up as well. GIDEON GLEN Kjolhaug questioned the erosion control methods used for the trails. Anderson explained a bit of the history and desire by the MCWD and City to maintain this space as an interpretive passive space only, but indicated that little has been done to partner with the schools or program it for educational purposes. The Commission agreed offering programs would be a good addition but did question the cost for maintaining the storm water pond. SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY PARK (SKATE PARK) The Commission complimented the appearance of the new park signs. They noticed the drinking fountain, questioned the condition of the skate equipment as looking a bit tired, and noticed space in the community garden. MANOR PARK Anderson and the Commission both acknowledged how lovely the park looks now and how well used it has become as a model in the community. The Commission noticed immediately that the bathrooms were not open and asked why they were not available for use, as well as when the ‘bif’ would be removed. Anderson stated that the park lead had just informed her the other day that the bathroom timers were not working properly and that the building inspector still had a few details he was working on. The Commission voiced their disappointment that, having spent the money to provide indoor facilities and update the building, why mid way thru the season the park building was not up to snuff. They also wished to see the porta-potty removed. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 2 OF 9 In addition, the Commission asked when the info boards discussed for Manor and Freeman would be installed. Anderson explained that the installation of the cases had been placed on hold during construction due to vandalism. The Commission directed her to get them put back on the work list. Since it was pouring rain during the tour, the Commission made note of the excessive amount of runoff pouring from the building and directed staff to investigate the installation of gutters and downspouts directing the water under the gravel walkway near the door and out to the pond - As well as away from the corner point where the building and shelter overhang meet. Someone questioned why a rain garden had not been installed at this junction, as they seemed to remember discussion around this point. In addition, the Commission noticed some large scale erosion around the picnic shelter concrete pad where water has been pouring off the roof and feared that, without gutters and downspouts; we may be compromising our new facility. The Commission suggested an orange fence or barrier of some kind be installed around the dirt, or supposed grassy area, around the shelter to encourage grass growth. They suggested more grass seed be added to the area. Finally, the Commission asked why the gravel area next to the warming house had not been planted and suggested that, even though the ice maintenance trucks drive on this path during the winter months, the area could be improved aesthetically by just planting grass, which in turn would improve runoff. SILVERWOOD PARK The Commission was pleased with the new park sign but requested that public works staff trim up the pine tree and either trim back, a lot, or remove the ‘junkie’ small bushes that block its view coming west on Covington Road. The Commission asked that the path be completed that attaches the shelter to the blacktop path by the playground and bench to complete the accessibility route to the picnic shelter. They requested that the oddly placed picnic table near the chain link fence be moved. It was noted that the damaged tennis backboard sheeting should be replaced, as well as, the bathroom fence surround re-enforced. 1.CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING The Park Commission convened its regular Park Commission Meeting at 7:45pm. A.Roll Call Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Robb, Edmondson, Swaggert, Kjolhaug, and Hartmann; Park Coordinator Anderson Absent: Commissioner Trent and City Council liaison Hotvet PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 3 OF 9 B.Review Agenda Item 3A, presentation by Eagle Scout, Terrence Haines, was added to the Agenda. Robb moved, Edmondson seconded, approving the amended Agenda. Motion passed 6/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of May 10, 2011 Swaggert moved, Kjolhaug seconded, approving the Minutes of May 10, 2011, as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR A.Presentation by Eagle Scout Terence Haines Haines summarized his proposed project for the Southshore Community Center and asked the Commission to make a recommendation to Council for a financial contribution. Robb stated that, as the previous Council liaison, the council had suggested Terrence come back and share his project details with the Commission, though they already committed to supporting it and making a financial contribution. They were looking to the Park Commission to make a recommendation of support and amount. An ambitious project, Anderson indicated that the steps, small, loop trail, and benches would be a good addition to the park space near the SSCC. Robb pointed out that the long term CIP does reflect a loop trail which surrounds Badger Park, contending that this could be the first step in completing that project. Anderson suggested it be phased in with the help from Eagle Scouts each year, and asked the Haines family to refer scouts our way. She stated that public works would be assisting Haines with the removal of some fallen trees. The Commission asked how much Haines had raised towards his $3600 estimate. Haines stated that he was approximately half way there, including contributions from Greenwood of $266, the Excelsior Chamber $80, Deephaven to be determined and others. Kjolhaug acknowledged that there would be quite a few man hours required to complete this expansive project and asked if he had help. Haines stated that he, his troop, and some friends will provide the labor, while another individual will help with the chipper, and other adults with power tools. He asked that public works advise him on the buckthorn removal and who will spray the round-up on the stumps. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 4 OF 9 Robb moved, Edmondson seconded, that the Park Commission recommend to City Council a contribution of $1500 be allocated in support of the project, since it fits with our overall CIP rationale for parks begin with. Motion passed 5/1, Swaggert dissenting, stating that he was uncomfortable with the amount. Mrs. Haines interjected that the troop would give back any leftover funds to the City when complete and had done so in the past if more was raised or donated than necessary. 4. REVIEW / DISCUSS PARK TOURS The Commission identified several items within each park for consideration. Southshore Community Center:  Consider upgrading the technology on site, for instance, adding flat screen panels to the conference room.  Enhance the deck and landscaping area around the creek side of the facility to provide an attractive outdoor space.  Discuss the possibility of removing the ‘garage’ structure, keeping the concrete pad and installing a shelter in its place.  Recovering the banquet room chairs was brought up as well. Gideon Glen:  Look into erosion control methods for the trails or additional gravel  Partner with the schools or program it for educational purposes.  Whose responsibility would the cost for maintaining the storm water pond be Southshore Community Park (Skate Park):  Questioned the condition of the skate equipment as looking a bit tired  Is the Community Garden at capacity, if not, why? Manor Park:  Get Bathrooms open and functional  Remove the ‘bif’  Install the info boards at Manor and Freeman Parks  Since it was pouring rain during the tour, the Commission made note of the excessive amount of runoff pouring from the building and directed staff to investigate the installation of gutters and downspouts directing the water under the gravel walkway near the door and out to the pond - As well as away from the corner point where the building and shelter overhang meet.  Investigate installation of a rain garden at this junction, with MCWD? PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 5 OF 9  Large scale erosion around the picnic shelter concrete pad where water has been pouring off the roof and feared that, without gutters and downspouts, we may be compromising our new facility.  Install an orange fence or barrier of some kind around the dirt, or supposed grassy area, around the shelter to encourage grass growth. They suggested more grass seed be added to the area.  Improve the gravel area next to the warming house by planting grass, which in turn would improve runoff.  Kjolhaug suggested we approach the watershed about a project for the parking lot and runoff. Silverwood Park:  Request public works trim up the pine tree and either trim back, a lot, or remove the ‘junkie’ small bushes that block its view coming west on Covington Road.  Complete the path that attaches the shelter to the blacktop path by the playground and bench to complete the accessibility route to the picnic shelter.  Move the oddly placed picnic table near the chain link fence  Attend to the very wavy surface of the ½ court next time it is overlaid  Replace the damaged tennis backboard sheeting  Re-enforce the wobbly bathroom fence surround 5. DISCUSS/MAKE A RECOMM ENDATION TO CITY COUNCILREGARDING ADDING GIDEON GLEN TO THE PARK & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Chair Quinlan indicated that he had requested the Commission consider the future of Gideon Glen and adding it to the Park System. He questioned what it could be with regard to the Smithtown Crossing and pointed out that there is little, if any, access to the Glen. Even if it was the original intent for it to remain a passive space, he maintained it should still be enjoyed by residents. Edmondson questioned what the future costs of the Glen might mean in the future. Anderson summarized the current agreement with the Commission acknowledging that maintenance of the storm water pond would be the City’s responsibility, whether that would be parks or the city’s storm water fund was unknown. Chair Quinlan maintained that it should be overseen by the Commission as stewards for its future, as it has sat in limbo for too long. Hartmann suggested that in any recommendation made to the Council we make reference to the wording that, ‘as stewards ‘of the park system we would manage the Glen. Edmondson pointed out that several issues arise, such as access by trails and parking, if one considers this addition. He questioned whether the costs would be too much. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 6 OF 9 Hartmann and Kjolhaug questioned whether the MCWD had provided the City with an ongoing maintenance or management plan. Anderson stated that, to her knowledge, there had not been a plan provided to the city. Robb agreed that, from a management perspective, there are big costs associated with parking and pond drudging. Anderson indicated that she could ask staff, Brown, Nielsen, and Heck for more information with regard to the agreement and maintenance and report back. Chair Quinlan noted that, this is exactly why the Park Commission should be involved in its stewardship. While Kjolhaug agreed that it would be appropriate for it to fall under parks. Just what that means must be explored further. He suggested they even consider annexing just the pond as a storm water item, not parks. He maintained that, clearly, from the tour it is apparent the MCWD is not doing what should be done so far to maintain the plantings. He suggested the City have the MCWD come out and perform maintenance and provide the city with a wetland conservation management plan. 6. DISCUSS PROS/CONS OF MOVING THE SSCC (SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER) TO THE PARK AND RECREATION UMBRELLA Anderson explained that staff had suggested she encourage the Park Commission to discuss to what level of support or involvement they’d like in the Southshore Community Center. She stated that, from a programming perspective, the SSCC would provide a wonderful addition to the Fun Friday activities we host in the parks by providing an indoor alternative. By hosting park events in the SSCC, we can continue joint promotion and offer year round programming. In addition, Anderson stated that if it were viewed as a park and recreation amenity to the City, the Park Foundation may be able to collect and donate money towards it, as well as, provide the non-profit status often necessary to apply for grants. While operations would continue to be tracked separately, since the Center is jointly owned, she asked for the Commission’s views and opinions. Edmondson stated that he continues to be one of the SSCC biggest fans. Robb stated that obviously the costs could be kept separate as a different line item. Chair Quinlan asked whether the Commission felt it should provide additional oversight or whether it should just encourage cross promotion in programming. On behalf of the Commission, Kjolhaug encouraged Anderson to continue to build a synergy between the parks and Center programming and maximize the best of both assets. 7. BADGER PARK REHAB RECOMMENDATION PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 7 OF 9 Anderson explained that she had contacted the organizations and found that most were interested in indoor storage and bathrooms. Chair Quinlan reported that liaison Hotvet had expressed her opinion to him that the whole building should be raised. He felt the building could be rebuilt, similar to what was done at Manor Park. Swaggert stated that he would support staffs recommendation to create some suggestions and bring them back for discussion. Robb stated that what we have now currently fulfills much of the need he is hearing from the users. It is a warming house, it has indoor storage, but it could be remodeled a bit to make the bathrooms year round user friendly. By refurbishing what we have and adding storage lockers, Robb believed we would accommodate the existing need. Edmondson pointed out that, in his opinion, the enclosed bids seemed awfully high. He believed the whole building did not need to be razed but instead cosmetic reconstruction and outdoor restroom access be considered. Swaggert stated that the line items for the bigger rehab items were attached for consideration. Robb stated that he would like to see the outside cosmetic rehab done this year and consider the interior options and outdoor access doors going forward next year. Hartmann stated that line item 5 should not be handled by the Commission as a CIP item. In her opinion, curb replacement, parking lot repair and cement work are clearly not the responsibility of the Park Commission CIP. Edmondson concurred, adding that nor should line item 3 be considered a CIP Park item - removal of the paving between the building and parking spaces, replacing the soil with class 5 and compacting it to a 4’ depth, replacing the soil with sand to correct drainage. Kjolhaug stated that, with regard to safety, these items need to be done in the near term. In the longer term, he asked to see some modest ideas for improvement. Chair Quinlan asked staff to put together a plan for the existing structure to serve the purposes outlines, with the minimal enhancements to the structure as discussed. Refurbishing the outside of the structure and dividing up the interior space. Robb stated that he did buy that the whole building was a structural hazard. Robb moved, Swaggert seconded, to proceed with the exterior painting project and directed staff to collect bids for the work to be done to complete items 1 and 4, Exterior paint and stoop work and report back. Motion passed 6/0. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 8 OF 9 Chair Quinlan also asked staff to proceed with the staff level plans for minor improvements to the existing structure to include outdoor access to the bathrooms, interior paint, and indoor storage and report back with hard cost estimates for these items for consideration in 2012. Hartmann asked if we should collect input from neighbors of Badger Park. Anderson agreed that this could be done in advance by survey, or as an open house prior to or after plans have been drawn up for their consideration. 8. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR JUNE- DECEMBER June 27 - Edmondson July 26 - Kjolhaug August 23 - Robb September 20 - Swaggert October 25 - Quinlan November 22 - Hartmann th 9. DISCUSS PARK TOUR OPTION OF JUNE 28 th Anderson asked if we wished to proceed with the June 28 park tour of other community parks. Robb suggested the Commissioners visit a couple of parks and bring back photos to discuss at a future meeting. If we see something we’d like to consider for our parks this would be a good way to share. th Anderson indicated that she would not be able to attend the July 12 meeting and asked if she should put this item on the Agenda for discussion. She encouraged the Commissioners to visit any of the parks from the PowerPoint packet she had sent out earlier, if they had seen any interesting elements in those photos, or visit other parks that contained items of interest, such as, Frisbee golf, ultimate Frisbee, hard surfaced rinks with basketball courts, etc. Chair Quinlan asked staff to send email reminders to the Commissioners to identify a couple of parks to visit, photograph and report back at the August meeting. He commented that it was a good time to review and discuss these as we begin our CIP review. 10. NEW BUSINESS Chair Quinlan announced that Commissioner Trent had sent a letter of resignation to him and staff that day when he realized that he would be missing another meeting. Quinlan indicated that Trent was apologetic and willing to stay on until a replacement was found. As a senior member of the Commission who always provided good input, Edmondson stated that he would embrace Trent’s participation as much as possible until he is replaced. He wanted Trent to feel welcome to attend as he is able while we search for a replacement. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 PAGE 9 OF 9 11. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES A.City Council B.Park Commission C.Staff – Anderson stated she would be gone July 12th D.Work Program – Anderson summarized the updates for the Commission E.Quarterly Expenditure Report 12. ADJOURN Edmondson moved, Hartmann seconded, adjourning the meeting of June 14, 2011 at 10:15pm. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder #7A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Terrence Haines Eagle Scout Project Meeting Date: June 27, 2011 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator and Kristi Anderson, CRR Attachments: none Background: Mr. Terrence Haines attended the Park Commission meeting on June 14 to discuss his Eagle Scout project and ask for a donation for the project. The Park Commission determined the project fit within their overall CIP rationale for the parks. Mrs. Haines, Terrence’s mother, was also in attendance at the meeting, and stated that the scout troop would return any excess funds to the city when the project is complete, as this is what they have done in the past if more donations were given than needed for a particular project. Financial or Budget Considerations: $1,500 from the Park CIP Options: 1) Approval of $1,500 for Terrence Haines Eagle Scout Project 2) Do not approve Recommendation / Action Requested: The Park Commission recommends Council allocate $1,500 in support of Mr. Terrence Haines’ Eagle Scout project. Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, Mr. Haines will commence work on the project. Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing attractive amenities. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 #sA MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Hayes — C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet Meeting Date: 27 June 2011 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Staff Report, dated 2 June 2011 Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the Council grant a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet, allowing for the preservation of a nonconforming structure with historic and cultural significance? Background: Thomas and Sheila Hayes are building a new home at 21135 Christmas Lane. The proposed attached garage, when combined with the area of an existing nonconforming barn exceeds 1200 square feet in area, requiring approval of a conditional use permit. For additional background, see attached staff report, dated 2 June 2011. Financial or Budget Considerations: The construction of the new home, with its attached garage enhances the tax base for Shorewood. Options: Adopt the draft resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission; modify the resolution; or deny the request for a conditional use permit. Recommendation / Action Requested: It is recommended that the resolution be adopted, approving the C.U.P. Next Steps and Timelines: Subject to the applicants executing and recording a maintenance agreement for the old barn, Staff will return their escrow that was posted to ensure compliance with the Code in the event the C.U.P. was not granted. Connection to Vision / Mission: Preservation of the old barn is viewed as contributing an attractive amenity to the area and construction of the new home and garage contributes to a sustainable tax base. 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 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE TO THOMAS AND SHEILA HAYES WHEREAS, Thomas and Sheila Hayes (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 21135 Christmas Lane, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as: "Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1237, Hennepin County, Minnesota "; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an attached garage, the area of which, when added to the area of existing accessory space on the property, will bring the total area of accessory space on the property up to 1764 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional use Permit for the construction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 2 June 2011, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 7 June 2011, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 27 June 2011, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in a R -lA /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and contains approximately 82,623 square feet of area. 2. The total proposed accessory space (1764 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the principal structure (2357 square feet on the main level alone). The total area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the R -lA /S zoning district in which it is located (4000 square feet). 4. That the design and materials of the proposed attached garage are consistent with the architectural character of the proposed home. The subject garage complies with all setback requirements for the R -lA /S. zoning- district. 6. The old barn located on the west end of the property does not comply with current height requirements for the R -lA /S zoning district. 7. The Planning Commission has recommended that the nonconforming barn has architectural, cultural or historical value, specifically: a. The applicants have demonstrated that the barn existed well in advance of the incorporation of the City of Shorewood. b. The applicants have provided written testimony from the Director of the Center for Rural Design at the University of Mimlesota, attesting to the approximate age of the structure and its historic and cultural value. C. The design of the building is unusual because of its hybrid nature, the lower level once serving to house animals and the upper level used as a work space and to store a carriage. d. The architecture of the structure is innovative for the area in that it was built into the side of the hill, allowing both the lower and upper levels of the building to be accessed from the ground. CONCLUSION A. The application of Thomas and Sheila Hayes for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth herein above be and hereby is granted. B. This approval is subject to the following: The attached garage and existing barn will be used strictly for purposes of a residential nature. 2. The Applicants are hereby advised that the City Code provides specific regulations relative to home occupations and any future use of the garage or barn for other than allowable residential purposes would have to comply with such regulations. The Applicants shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, suitable for recording, setting forth standards for the maintenance of the nonconforming nonconforming. C. That the City Administrator /Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the -2- Applicants with a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SHOREWOOD this 27` day of June 2011. ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk Christine Lizee, Mayor -3- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 June 2011 RE: Hayes, Thomas and Sheila — Conditional Use Permit — Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (11.06) BACKGROUND Thomas and Sheila Hayes have purchased the property at 21135 Christmas Lane (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They have demolished the home previously located on the property and are in the process of replacing it with a new home (see Property Survey — Exhibit B). As explained in their letter, dated 4 April 2011 and supporting materials (see Exhibit C) , they would like to keep an existing old barn located on the west end of the property. The barn is nonconforming with respect to its height (one and one -half stories), but complies with setback requirements for the R -1 A/S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district in which it is located. Since the barn, combined with the attached garage on the new house, exceeds 1200 square feet of floor area, keeping it requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The subject property contains 82,623 square feet of area and is accessed by a driveway shared with the property to the north. The proposed home will have 2356.7 square feet of floor area above grade on the main level. Elevations of the new house are shown on Exhibit D. The new attached garage contains 804 square feet of area. The existing barn has 480 square feet of floor area on each of two levels. If approved, the total amount of accessory space on the site will be 1764 square feet. The total percentage of impervious surface on the site will be 11.9 percent. A PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Hayes C.U.P. 2 June 2011 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Following is how the applicants' request complies with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4): The total area of accessory space (1764 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the new home (2356.7 square feet — main level). 2. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot size for the R -1 A/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). 3. Although the old barn is nonconforming with respect to its height, it does comply with the setback requirements for the R -IA/S zoning district. The height of the building is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the building is tucked into the hillside. While nonconforming structures have been afforded certain protections under recent state legislation, the City is not required to allow the expansion of nonconformities (in this case the total amount of accessory space). The applicants have cited the provisions of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)(e) as justification for retaining the old building. In 2007, the City adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan setting forth its intention to recognize and preserve special structures in Shorewood. This was followed by an amendment to the zoning regulations, providing for the preservation of certain nonconforming structures that have historical, architectural, or cultural significance. The Hayes' believe their barn is consistent with the criteria for keeping such structures. a. The applicants have submitted aerial photos dating back to 1937 which show the subject building. The scale of these photos is somewhat small and do not lend themselves well to photocopying so they are not contained herein. They have also submitted expert testimony (see Exhibit C -10) from the Director of the Center for Rural Design at the University of Minnesota, attesting to the approximate age of the structure and its historic and cultural value. b. While the structure has not been inspected by the Building Official as of this writing, preliminary observation of the building in question suggests it is in very good condition. The Hayes' plans for maintaining the structure are explained in Exhibit C -6. C. Arguably, the old barn could qualify under more than one of the criteria set forth in the code (i.e. historic and cultural). The Hayes' background material provides good evidence to that effect. -2- Memorandum Re: Hayes C.U.P. 2 June 2011 d. If the structure is found to have satisfied the criteria, a brief development agreement should be drafted, setting forth the applicants' right to keep the barn and their responsibility to maintain it in good condition. Repairs or alterations to the structure should be consistent with its current style, character and materials. 4. The issue of architectural compatibility between the accessory and principal structure is somewhat outweighed by the desire to retain the historical appearance of the barn (see 3.d., above). Nevertheless, the barn is not out of character with the style of the new home (e.g. narrow lap siding, well pitched roofline, etc.). RECOMMENDATION The applicants have done a good job demonstrating that the barn is consistent with the City's intent and with its current Code requirements. Staff should be directed to draft a development agreement, pursuant to paragraph 3.d. in the preceding section, approving the conditional use permit. The agreement should be recorded with Hennepin County within 30 days of the adoption of the resolution approving the C.U.P. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Thomas and Sheila Hayes 1192 / a a a a a a T 1 cn m E (n N L CU U� z CD a) CD z < CD 0 CD 0 M a a a 0 J a a a a a a a a 0 O U N Z m U c (D m cc U w O >, i w �a a a a a a d) �^ C L cn a a a a a Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Hayes C.U.P. N ? acres) —See approved building plan for final construction dimens —Lot corner elevations to be unchanged —House previously shown has been demolished. — Dimensions shown to face of stud obv — Sanitary Sewer invert 955.7 at manhole verify existin7 service elev. Proposed (sub) first floor elev. =968.5 1.9 acres) Proposed garage floor elev. =968.1 Proposed basement floor elev. =958.6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: M. - 97.77 2( KGV.D. -7979) CHRISTMAS LAKE 4 DM: 121ELVI F 931.74 t3�� ,Ili I IC ' III Ali �---- ;.�- -- -II III SITE ADDRESS: 21135 Christmas Lane Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY Tom Hayes 21135 Christmas Lane Shorewood. MN 55331 April 4, 2011 Mr. Brad Nielson Planning Director City of Shorewood Dear Mr. Nielson, I am the new owner of 21135 Christmas Lane. Thank you for meeting with my architecture and construction team to discuss our new home. From the feedback I received, it sounds like we essentially have a project that will meet all your requirements. The only issue remaining is gaining a conditional use permit on the 100 - year -old barn. My wife Sheila and I would prefer to retain the barn. We believe it is a charming part of our property, a rare example of the area's agrarian past, and a piece of Shorewood's history. We understand that it will take up to 3 months to secure the conditional use permit. However, we cannot afford to "carry" the cost of two homes for this period and need to get started right away. Rather than tearing the barn down in order to meet our timetable, I am hoping you might be open to an alternative approach on how the barn issue may be resolved. We would propose that the City allow us to begin construction immediately, leaving the barn "as is ", while concurrently pursuing the conditional use permit. If we do not get the Conditional Use permit by October 1 we would agree to tear down the barn or else understand that you would not issue Certificate of Occupancy. As a practical matter, we need the barn while our home is being constructed to store items that will be moved into our new home. Additionally, the barn was going to be used to store items taken from the old house that will be put in the new house as well as a temporary storage shed for our construction crews. I look forward to discussing this matter with you at your convenience. If there are other alternatives that would help us better achieve these ends, I would like to pursue them. The best way to reach me is my mobile phone: 612 - 791 -5461. Best Regards, Tom Hayes Exhibit C -1 APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER Dated 4 April 2011 Building description (see attached photos) Dimensions: • 20" x 24" Footprint • Two stories • Walk -out lower level • Upper level Materials: • Lower level: brick foundation covered with plaster • Upper level: wood siding and frame Features: • Upper level: o Grain chutes to basement • Hay loft • General storage • Lower level • Two milking stalls • Two horse stalls • Cistern watering system o Root cellar o Meat cellar There are no electricity or water hook -ups 2 d - Q--.- Residential conditional use permit for the historical barn at 21135 Christmas Lane Description and /or reason for request: Overview On April 6, 2011 we bought the property at 21135 Christmas Lane Road, Shorewood for the purposes of building a new home. On the property is a 100+ year -old barn. When we build our new home with a garage, the barn will put us in excess of the 1,200 Square foot requirement for accessory buildings found in Shorewood City Code Section 1201.03, Subd.1 (d)(4). Our request for a conditional use permit that would allow us to keep the barn is based on the exceptions provided in Shorewood City Code: • That the barn was built prior to August 2, 1956 • That the barn is structurally sound • That the barn has historic value for the City of Shorewood • That we will enter into an agreement with the City of Shorewood to maintain the barn Working with the City Planner, we have provided an escrow agreement and payment of 150% of the demolition cost, should the conditional use permit not be issued. 1 G ,� Evidence that the barn was built prior to August 2, 1956 (see attached photos) Arial photos dating back to the 1930s show the same barn in the same place. Its continual presence in this location is confirmed by photos from the 1940s and 1950s (see attached). Prior the Nevins's purchasing the property with the barn in the 1970s, the property was owned by Tom and Marie Bennett. They bought the property from the Baures in March of 1943. In her memoir Biography of Our Days at Christmas Lake (1987), Marie Bennett, mentions her use of the barn in the early 1940s. "Our barn was below our house and used for a chicken coop for our laying hens. The other part was for cows. Upstairs we kept straw for the chickens. We also had a small room and stove for the hired man that lived there when the cattle roamed." 3 4f 4 The barn is structurally Sound Previous homeowners have left the original barn largely intact and fairly well maintained. The only real concerns are holes made by woodpeckers in the siding. The roof is in good shape. The chimney is only decorative. There is no current water damage. Historical significance This barn is an excellent example of Shorewood's agrarian past. Up until the 1960s, the southwest side of Christmas Lake was filled with orchards. This smallish barn was typical for orchards in this area. This barn is also an excellent example of a bank barn. While this type of barn was more expensive to build, it had special advantages for the Minnesota climate. Without heat or electricity the barn was able to protect livestock and foodstuff from the cold of winter and summer heat. The bank barn gets its name from a simple but clever construction technique: the barn is built into the side of a hill, thus permitting two levels to be entered from the ground. The lower level housed animals, the upper levels served as threshing floor and storage. The hillside entrance gave easy access to wagons bearing wheat or hay. (Feed could also be dropped through chutes in the floor to the stabling floor below.) What is different about this bank barn is the root cellar and meat locker next to the milking stations and horse stalls in the basement Like most bank barns, it is constructed with their long side, or axis, parallel to the hill, and on the south side of it. This placement gave animals a sunny spot in which to gather in the winter. It is also typical in that it is sheathed with clapboards and had elaborate decorative metal ventilator cupolas. 4 C - �i' Plans for maintenance Should we be granted a conditional use permit, we would repair the siding and repaint the exterior. We also would like to source windows that are more representative of the era in which the barn was built. Other than those items, we plan to leave the barn in its current condition. Thank you very much for your consideration of this petition. Tom Hayes 21135 Christmas Lane Shorewood, MN 612- 791 -5461 5 � _� .T llllllll 1-1. IJ i h G -8 i � f r go • ' C -q '1 O J ct f 4- '1 O Carriage House/Barn in Shoreview Based on my observations and opinions this historic wood frame hybrid carriage house and barn appears to have been constructed in the early 1900s adjacent to a suburban home in Shoreview near Lake Minnetonka. Constructed with sawn lumber it has wood clapboard siding that was probably similar to siding used on the house. That was typical of many modest lake homes at that time and provides an historic example of lake living and caring for animals in the early 20 ffi century. It is very unusual because of its hybrid nature, but also because it has three levels. The lowest level had stalls for two cows and two horses along with milking parlor and cold storage area for milk and food. It probably had access to water for keeping the milk cool as well as for the animals (note the water tank on the wall). The main level facing the home was divided with space for storing a carriage and work area on the other side. It had a chimney so the work area probably had a coal or wood burning stove for heat during the winter months. The top level was for storing hay for the animals and probably had a chute to drop hay down to the lower level. I suspect there was a small summer pasture for the animals, particularly for the cows, but not sure where that would have been located. The structure seems to have structural integrity although there has been some sagging of the eaves on both ends while the ridge is straight. That could be easily remedied in any renovation. Based on my experience as an architect involved with restoration of historic barns, either eligible for or on the National Registry of Historic Places, I consider this hybrid carriage/barn structure to be eligible for historic designation; and certainly worthy of preservation. Because of the close historic architectural relationship between the home and the carriage/barn structure it will be important that any new or remodeled home on the property consider this relationship in its determining its design character. Renovation of the carriage/barn structure should follow the guidelines of the U.S. Department of the Interior for preservation of historic barns which "encourages their maintenance and use as agricultural buildings, and by advancing their sensitive rehabilitation for new uses when their historic use in no longer feasible." Dewey Thorbeck, FAIA, FAAR Thorbeck Architects 2121 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 and Director, Center for Rural Design at the University of Minnesota May 14, 2011 6-16 NOiE: vER>Fl ALL �� FwsN MATEpaLS Mr.7 GL. -nr. uNA- 4 ,AR SL AB AT PEF �►d e, �`�ov� Lw_ I _� _ - I FACE OF POST AT r.: PORCH ALIG16 WFTN _ WALL S�EAt1aPY: - H , � I _ GAQAGE TO OF SLAB • P ER" NOTE: STEP TOP OF WALL A; I REOTI 70 ALLOW FOR MC 4 VENTWS FROM MCN ROOM — — COORD NATE FOIPvD WALL ST ON EP I I I I B \ \ \ 51 COI C 115 AS RE07 I I \ I I FOR =LL HST ES.A5Er I I I EXCAVATION DIG \ SOUTH ELEVATION \ \ C tIPACT SOIL AS REOV ,� J 12.143.9650 General Contractor: Streeter & Associates, DBA Elevation Homes + 952.449.5146 Landscape Consultant: Winco Landscape K Design 18312 Minnetonka Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 1848 E. 50th St., Suite 101 Inver Grove I tecture.com Contact: Kim Krogstod kim @elevationhomes.com I Contact: Dee Larson I I J FIRST FLOOR TOP O SU BFi ' >1 968.9' — v II c M o Q 0 T O F fk' A$ Exhibit D PROPOSED HOME ELEVATIONS I— — -r—I — — — — — — — _ �. plcln ORpTEP ._...,, i T E w` — — — — — — — — — — — D D A PAN I — DO.W. WfS WEST ELE VATI O N i �`V I va° F Yv �►d e, �`�ov� Lw_ I _� _ - I FACE OF POST AT r.: PORCH ALIG16 WFTN _ WALL S�EAt1aPY: - H , � I _ GAQAGE TO OF SLAB • P ER" NOTE: STEP TOP OF WALL A; I REOTI 70 ALLOW FOR MC 4 VENTWS FROM MCN ROOM — — COORD NATE FOIPvD WALL ST ON EP I I I I B \ \ \ 51 COI C 115 AS RE07 I I \ I I FOR =LL HST ES.A5Er I I I EXCAVATION DIG \ SOUTH ELEVATION \ \ C tIPACT SOIL AS REOV ,� J 12.143.9650 General Contractor: Streeter & Associates, DBA Elevation Homes + 952.449.5146 Landscape Consultant: Winco Landscape K Design 18312 Minnetonka Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 1848 E. 50th St., Suite 101 Inver Grove I tecture.com Contact: Kim Krogstod kim @elevationhomes.com I Contact: Dee Larson I I J FIRST FLOOR TOP O SU BFi ' >1 968.9' — v II c M o Q 0 T O F fk' A$ Exhibit D PROPOSED HOME ELEVATIONS CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 7 JUNE 2011 7:00 P.M. MINUTES DRAFT EXCERPT CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Hutchins, Arnst, Hasek, Charbonnet, and Garelick; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison Siakel. Absent: Commissioner Davis. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Agenda of June 7, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  May 17, 2011 Hasek moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2011. Arnst said she had corrections in regard to Item Nos. 6. New Business, and 8. Reports, stating that she had referenced a list of items under New Business and none were reported, and her report about a conference she attended needed to be clarified. She requested that approval of the May 17, 2011 Minutes be continued pending the revisions. There were no objections to continuation of approval of the Minutes. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. – ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Thomas and Shiela Hayes Location: 21135 Christmas Lane Chair Geng explained the public hearing process for the benefit of members of the audience. Director Nielsen stated that this item is actually a two-part request. One part is the issue of accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet, which requires a conditional use permit, and the second part is the historic preservation aspect which is addressed in the same section of the zoning code. Nielsen reviewed his report, stating that the applicants have demolished the home previously located on the property and are in the process of building a new home. There is an old barn that exists on the property that complies with current setback requirements, but is nonconforming with respect to its height (one and one-half stories), and the applicants would like to keep this barn. However, since the barn, combined with the attached garage on the new house exceeds 1200 square feet of floor area, keeping it requires a conditional use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 June 2011 Page 2 of 2 Nielsen reported that the request complies with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) in that the proposed total amount of accessory space on the site would be 1764 square feet, but this is still less than the 2356.7 square feet of floor area on the main level of the house. The total percentage of impervious surface on the site will be 11.9 percent. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1A/S zoning district. Nielsen said although the old barn is nonconforming with respect to its height, the height of the building is somewhat mitigated by the terrain, and is tucked into the hillside. As to its historic significance, the applicants have submitted aerial photos dating back to 1937 which show the building. They have also submitted expert testimony from the Director of the Center for Rural Design at the University of Minnesota, attesting to the approximate age of the structure and its historic and cultural value. Thomas Hayes, the applicant, was present and stated that he was available for any questions. As there was no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Geng opened and closed the public hearing at 7:14 P.M. Commissioner Hasek said that he visited the site and his only concern is that the building be maintained as is and not converted to any other type of use in the future. Commissioner Hutchins noted that the letter from the architect providing expert testimony referred to the barn as having three levels, where the staff report describes one and one-half stories. Nielsen said that due to the code’s definition of story, as well as head-room height, and the fact that the building is partially below grade, the building is technically one and one-half stories even though it does have three levels. Hutchins inquired, in keeping with Commissioner Hasek’s concern, if the development agreement that will be part of the C.U.P. will reflect the guidelines of the U.S. Department of the Interior for preservation. Nielsen said the City has a template that is used for this type of application and it may include some of that criteria. He said while the City Code requires historic buildings to be maintained as is, it is not the same as if they were being placed on a historic register, and it would not preclude the demolition of the building in the future if the owners chose to do that. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit and to direct staff to draft a development agreement setting forth the applicants’ right to keep the barn and their responsibility to maintain it in good condition. And that repairs or alterations to the structure be consistent with its current style, character and materials. Motion passed 6-0. #8g MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Resolution of Support - Minnesota GreenSteps Program Meeting Date: 27 June 2011 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Draft Resolution Coordinator Tasks Policy Consideration: Should the City use the Minnesota GreenSteps Program as a means of addressing the issue of sustainability? Background: The Planning Commission, at staff's suggestion, has recommended that the City use the Minnesota GreenSteps Program as a tool for addressing sustainability. The Commission agreed that this program provides a certain structure to a topic that has many facets. The 28 best practices contained in the Program provide a good basis for future study and work efforts. The Commission will be revising its 2011 work program to include some of the practices in this year's work. More will be identified for their 2012 work program. Not part of the resolution, but attached for your review, is a brief "job description" for the GreenSteps Coordinator referenced in the resolution. Financial or Budget Considerations: - Mostly staff time initially. Although future efforts will undoubtedly include items with costs associated, the goal is to save money in the long run. Options: Adopt the resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission; modify the resolution; direct staff to prepare a different approach to sustainability. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends adoption of the Planning Commission's proposed resolution Next Steps and Timelines: If the resolution is adopted, the Planning Commission will begin to incorporate best practices into their work programs for this year and next. Various practices will be forwarded to appropriate departments or commissions to be implemented. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality services, healthy environment, attractive amenities, sustainable tax base and sound financial management —you name it this one has it all! 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 r A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD'S PARTICIPATION IN THE MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM WHEREAS, a broad coalition of public and private stakeholders, including the League of Minnesota Cities, the MPCA, Office of Energy Security and Clean Energy Response Team (CERTs), responded to 2008 State legislation by establishing the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program to provide a series of sustainable development best practices focusing on local government opportunities to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases, and to conserve economic and non - economic resources; and WHEREAS, the GreenStep Cities Program aims to provide Minnesota cities a pathway to greater sustainability based upon implementing best practices specific to Minnesota cities, and WHEREAS, the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program provides cost - effective, sustainable development best practices in the following five categories: (1) Buildings and Lighting; (2) Transportation; (3) Land Use; (4) Environmental Management; and (5) Economic and Community Development; and WHEREAS, due to the multiple enviromnental, economic, and social dimensions of the sustainability best practices, leadership from a city's council is needed to oversee their implementation and coordination/integration with other city activities; and WHEREAS, the GreenStep Cities Program champions sustainability goals and practices consistent with the City of Shorewood's goals and mission statement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood does hereby authorize the City of Shorewood (the "City ") to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City will take the following steps to be recognized as a Minnesota GreenStep City: 1. Appoint Brad Nielsen , Planning Director as a Minnesota GreenStep Coordinator to facilitate the City's GreenStep Program development and implementation; and 2. Facilitate the involvement of the Shorewood Plarming Commission, the City Council, the Park Commission, City staff, and constituents in the planning, promotion and consideration of implementing GreenStep Cities best practices; and 3. Identify which GreenStep best practices the City has already implemented and which best practices will initially be considered for implementation; and 4. Implement a minimum number of required and optional GreenStep best practices that will result in energy reduction, economic savings and reduction in the community's greenhouse gas footprint; and Will work with the MPCA to post a summary of the City's implementation of best practices on the Minnesota GreenStep Cities website. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this day of , 2011. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- GreenStep Cities Program Coordinator 5/17/11 • Prepare resolution — City Council support for GreenSteps program • Prepare and maintain list of best practices • Coordinate inventory of best practices (completed, planned and desired) • Work with communications personnel to publicize program • Liaison to MPCA's GreenSteps Cities program coordinator • Register City with GreenSteps Cities program • Report to City Council • Serve as staff liaison to future work group or committee (Step 2) • Community outreach #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Authorization for Expenditure of Funds Public Works – One Wheel Loader Meeting Date: June 27, 2011 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Attachments: CIP Excerpt, State Contract, Revised CIP Background: The City of Shorewood owns Unit 56, one 1995 Wheel Loader/Tool Carrier. th On June 7, 2011 this machine broke down, while performing a mission. Unfortunately, due to the severity of the breakdown, the machine could not be moved under power, and had to be hauled off-site via semi-truck and trailer to the dealer for analysis and repairs. Tear down and inspection of the machine has resulted in a very substantial list of required repairs, just to make the machine road worthy again. Total estimated repairs, of just the basic items equals $25,437.69. The major systems that are to be overhauled to make the machine operable include:  Rear Braking System – Failed.  Drive axle and planetary gears rear axle – near failing condition.  Front Lift Cylinders – currently leaking and requires rebuilding.  Front brakes have not failed, but are severely worn.  Center articulation post and bushings need machining, boring, and rework.  Tires will have to be replaced within one season, prior to winter.  Hydraulic lift points and bushings for bucket and attachments are all worn and need be machined and re-bored. Admittedly, the Department has been feeling more than a bit handicapped without this machine. While not meant to be a complete list, this machine is used every single day and is the Department’s first and primary front line piece of equipment. While not all inclusive, some of the duties that are performed with this machine include:  Any and all material to be loaded into the dump trucks  Lifting of equipment  Loading Salt Sand  Mixing Salt Sand mixture  Clearing trees and road debris 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  Loading and unloading palletized equipment and deliveries with loading forks  Filling and grading of roadway excavations  Managing piles and materials at the Public Works site  Plowing of cul-de-sacs and winging back snow  Boom lifting for any heavy machines or material  Pulling and installing posts or foundations This vehicle has even been used as a rescue rig in pulling out stranded Public Works dump trucks that have left the road. And, last and most notable, the loader with the boom attachment has even been used in an assist to the Excelsior Fire District to lift an overturned construction vehicle from on top a victim that was pinned underneath the piece of equipment. Just this week, a tree fell on Strawberry Lane that completely blocked the entire roadway to traffic. It took the crew over one hour to just clear the tree and debris and open the road back to traffic, without the loader. With a loader, the roadway would have been open in approximately 15 minutes, under much safer conditions. In addition, crew personnel had to stack the remains of the tree and debris along the side of the roadway for the night, until such time as logs and branches could be sawn into manageable/smaller sizes, and lifted in the trucks with the existing equipment. With the loader, material would have been loaded immediately, in a much safer manner, into the dump trucks and hauled to the Public Works site that very evening. This, for just one tree. During a storm event, this becomes even more critical. Currently, the Department has postponed two substantial deliveries, until such time as we have adequate means to unload the deliveries at our site. This machine is simply the Department’s first response vehicle and is the most critical and most versatile piece of equipment within the Department. Attachment 1 to this memorandum is the City’s Equipment Replacement Plan within the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) In an effort to maximize the investment of the City’s equipment, the service life of many of the pieces of equipment has been pushed out to the maximums. Many years ago, the loader was on a replacement schedule of once every 10 years. Over time, staff has attempted to push this replacement out to every 20 years. Unfortunately, the machine has failed at 16 years of age. In checking in with other communities, we find the following for an anticipated service life for wheel loaders/tool -carriers: No. of Loaders/ Anticipated Service City Tool Carriers Life Mound 1 12-14 Years Excelsior 1 15 Minnetrista 1 10 Chanhassen 4 Varies Table 1 Similarly, in discussing the repairs and condition of the vehicle with dealers, a 15 year service life is a very common expectation within the industry. Staff will review how this impacts the long term impact within the 20 year equipment schedule, during up and coming budget sessions. The City of Shorewood is a member of the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) with the State of Minnesota. This permits the City to take advantage of and participate in large volume contracts that have already been competitively bid by the State of Minnesota. Such is the instance for this equipment. Staff has reviewed the State Contract and has found a wheel loader that is of comparable size that allows the use of all of the City’s existing attachments. That being the hydraulic lifting boom, wing plow and center plow, and fork lift attachments. By selecting this same type of equipment, the attachments can be retained and used. Financial or Budget Considerations: Attachment 2 is the State Contract for the unit bid. The unit cost, considering a trade value of $15,000 yields a net sale value of $134,220. With sales tax, this equates to $143,950.95. The 5 year CIP has $191,000 programmed for the replacement of the loader in 2014. For the immediate and 5 year CIP, staff is suggesting revisions to the current 5 Year CIP, to keep things in balance with what was approved. As noted earlier, Attachment 1 is an excerpt of the Equipment Replacement Plan of the current CIP, with suggested revisions. Staff is recommending shifting the planned replacement of the loader, originally planned in 2014to be shifted to 2011. In addition, the purchase of two dump trucks would be extended out an additional year, for each of the trucks, thereby minimizing the overall impact to the Equipment Replacement Fund. Attachment 3 shows the revised CIP with the suggested revisions and resultant total amounts. It is noted that while the amounts for the dump trucks were moved out an additional year, inflation factors were not applied. These will be applied when the CIP is updated in the up and coming budgeting discussions. The impact of the inflators will be minor, compared to the overall program. Finance Director DeJong has indicated that the current balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund is $504,853.06. Options: 1.Authorize the expenditure of funds for One Wheel Loader, as specified. 2.Take No action. 3.Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Authorization for the expenditure of funds for One Wheel Loader, as specified. Next Steps and Timelines: No further action is required by the City Council. Connection to Vision / Mission: To provide means and equipment to safely and effectively carry out care and maintenance of the City’s infrastructure. ® #10A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Christmas Lake AIS Prevention Pilot Project Meeting Date: Monday, June 27, 2011 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Public Works Director Attachments: Boat Launch Diagram, Letter of Commitment Policy Consideration: Should the Council support creating a controlled access at the Christmas Lake public boat launch to prevent the spread of AIS? Background: The DNR declared Lake Minnetonka water infested with zebra mussels last year. Since this declaration, several area lake associations began discussing ways to prevent the spread of the mussel to these lakes. Earlier this spring, the Lake Association for Christmas Lake contacted the Mayor, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Waters, and the DNR to discuss a proactive prevention program including on -site watercraft inspections. The MCWD hosted a meeting to discuss the possibility and funding for an on -site inspection program. In addition to the discussion of inspections, the Lake Association brought up the idea of a controlled access via some type of gate. Following the meeting, the MCWD sponsored a grant for funding inspections, which the MCWD received. The Christmas Lake Association then contacted the Lotus Lake Association, Minnewashta Lake Association, RPBCWD, Carver County, and Chanhassen and talked about their idea of inspections and controlled access. Their concept plan broadened to include the other two lakes to consolidate the inspection funds and create a central inspection site at Minnewashta Regional Park and install electronic type gates at Christmas Lake and Lotus Lake. On June 17, the parties met at Chanhassen to listen to a presentation of the pilot plan from the Lake Associations. In addition to the parties listed above, the DNR and MWCD attended the meeting. The Christmas Lake Landing exists through an agreement between the City, the Lake Association, and the DNR. The City is responsible for the physical landing including parking lot, docks, facilities, etc. The DNR is responsible for the facilities under the water. According to an e-mail sent to the City of Chanhassen (see attached) the DNR does not support the installation of a gate at the public landings. During the June 17 meeting, those at the meeting raised several legal questions including who controls the landing, what is "public access," are gates allowed, can one require inspections before launching a boat, etc. Financial or Budget Considerations: based on the information to date, the only costs include purchase and installation of directional signs and striping of the parking lot. Staff's understanding is the Lake Association and the MWCD agreed to cover the cost of purchasing and installing the gate system. 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. Support the concept presented by the Lake Association for the Christmas Lake Launch and direct staff to work with the MCWD and Lake Association on the project. 2. Support part of the concept and direct staff to assist the Lake Association and MCWD on the project. 3. Decline support of the project. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is looking for direction from the Council on this project. Next Steps and Timelines: staff will take the necessary steps based on the direction of the Council. Connection to Vision / Mission: A healthy environment and attractive ameneties. /" ( - 7"' i0 The Department of Natural Resources encourages creative ideas to dealing with Aquatic Invasive Species. However, we cannot support the proposed ideas of installing gates at Christmas and Lotus Public Water Accesses. I have listed a few of the reasons below. 1. Christmas and Lotus Lakes received state funding for the public water access development. In that process a cooperative agreement was signed which states the following: • Open at least 16 hours a day between 4 a.m. and 12 midnight. • No fees charged for launching any craft. • Where an access is provided within a park, uniform fees shall be charged all users, regardless of residence. • No special regulations that do not apply equally to the riparian boater. Any sort of gate would therefore render the access closed to the public and the DNR would not allow it. There may also be significant safety hazards involved In a locked gate and emergency situations. The inspection site would have to be open and staffed at least 16 hours every day. The boaters would be charged a launching by having to pay to enter Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. This proposal would certainly qualify as a special regulation that does not apply equally to the riparian boater. 2. You cannot force someone to be inspected. Even the DNR watercraft inspectors do not have the power to force someone to have their boat inspected. Attachment #1 The Minnehaha (leek %xans ]died Distrct is coi ntittecl to a',Eod'�r< iip foie* in Inintecting, nflisroving end n nmenng the surface. ,wters and afrliated ;roond'ownter rssowces a thin the D s'rici, inretud4ig their retadorrsMps to, the ecxooz,tems of wrhic €r t:lmy noes an innoi al past, tqe achieve our mission rinrough norstabon, cant ii projects, educators, coops.rabve edLaaors, and et[ P omg— 'anr:r hosed can snu d science, inat sveUve thiinking, en infanned and nrgaged constiwency, and the Coss" ei`ffectivo use o pulalic. hink QUALITY OF WATER DATE. June 23, 2011 I W ATERSHED DI QUALITY OF LIFE MEMORANDUM TO: Brian fleck, Shorewood City Administrator FROM: Eric Evenson MC WD Administrator. RE: hirprovements to the Christmas Lake Access On April 14, 2011, the MCW D Board authorized staff to submit a DNR Watercraft hispection Grant Application on behalf of the Christmas Lake Association and approved a not to exceed budget of $22,000 for the Christmas Lake Boat Inspection Pilot Program. On April 29, 2011, the MCWD received notice that the DNR awarded $4,650 for Christmas Lake Boat inspections. The lake association is taking the lead on hiring an inspector. The Christmas Lake Boat Inspection Pilot Program funds budgeted by the MCWD are to be used for potential launch improvements such as a gate or chain with keypad access (approximately $10,000) and a portable wash station at a yet to be determined, local inspection site, at acost of $10 to $12,000. The MCWD, in partnership with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the City of Minneapolis have begun to implement a "Save Our Summers" educational campaign to help slow the spread of zebra mussels (attached). We would very much like to add the City of Shorewood's logo to the list of partners. If the city is interested in participating or learning more about this campaign, please contact Telly Mamayek at ttnatna�nmusnel7ahaeroe 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, MN 55391 0 Office: (952) 473 -0590 o Fax: (952) 471 -0682 ® www.minnehahacreel<.org #10B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Water Connection Fee Meeting Date: Monday, June 27, 2011 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director, Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, Larry Brown, Public Works Director Attachments: letter from Mr. Price Policy Consideration: Should the Council adjust the fee to connect to the municipal water system? Background: This is a perennial issue. The Council discussed this issue in 2009/2010 during the rate study and determined the current connection fee to be appropriate. The reason this item is back on the agenda is a resident, Mr. Charles Price, contacted the city about connecting to the water system. When he discovered the cost to connect, he asked if the City would consider reducing the connection fee. Staff checked back on the assessment records and his property, which has water access from Smithtown Road, was not assessed when the water main was installed. The current policy requires residents who desire water to pay the assessment and a connection fee if necessary, equal to $10,000. In the case of Mr. Price, the property was not assessed and therefore, under current policy, a $10,000 connection fee applies. The $10,000 figure was established as this represents the “average” cost to extend water to an area that currently does not have water. In these cases, the homeowners are assessed the cost for the new utility. Some areas of the city received water at no cost as a developer extended the water as part of a development and the cost of the water was applied to the cost of the new home. There are a few different situations regarding connecting to municipal water in Shorewood. 1.New connection with new service: this is where a new water main is extended down the street. Homes on the street are assessed the cost of extending the water main. If the homeowner wants to connect at this time, they pay an additional amount to equal the $10,000 plus the cost of the water meter. 2.New connection to existing service, assessment paid: this is where a current property was already assessed for the water main, but did not connect at the time the main was installed and now the owner wishes to connect to the system. The city deducts the amount paid from the $10,000 and the homeowner pays the difference including the cost of the water meter. 3.New connection to existing service, no assessment paid: in this situation, the property may be situated such that it has access to water, but was not assessed at the time the improvement was installed. Two options are available for this property: A) pay the $10,000 and cost of the water 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 meter and connect to the existing service; or B) wait until water is extended down the side street and pay the assessment and any additional fees to equal the $10,000 plus the cost of the water meter. The question for the council is if this fee structure is appropriate and promotes the desired public policy. For example, what is the purpose of the fee? Does the structure promote the Council’s stated policy? During past discussions, staff’s position was that the connection fee was necessary to cover the cost of the supporting infrastructure. This includes wells, water towers, treatment facilities, and the oversizing of the water main to serve additional properties. However, is this the case in situations where the system has been in place for several years and the cost to install has been paid? If capacity is such that added users can be accommodated without the need to upgrade, does the fee to connect need to reflect the original cost to install? If the Council chooses to move forward with lowering the connection fee, Mr. Price asks that the Council extend this lower fee to him. Financial or Budget Considerations: if the fee is lowered, the city will receive less in fees; however, this may be offset by adding more rate payers to the system. Options: 1)Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment and schedule a public hearing adjusting this rate. As with all ordinance changes, a public hearing is required before action can be taken. 2)Leave the ordinance as is. Recommendation / Action Requested: Next Steps and Timelines: if the council moves forward with adjusting the fees, staff will prepare the ordinance amendment and schedule the public hearing. Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing quality public services and a healthy environment. 2-6 z;L- - CITY OF SHOREWOOD WATERlSANITARY /PLUMBING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331? PERMIT APPLICATION 474 -3236 Q u py / DATE ISSUED: / { - I RECEIPT #: 3 w PROPERTY ADDRESS: ( �� i s d � �V" OWNER: /' 4 1� S �� C P CONTRACTOR OUTSIDE CONNECTIONS PUBLIC WORKS 601 -37170 OUTSIDE WATER SERV $60.00 611 -37270 OUTSIDE SAN SERV 1$150.00 TOTAL METER #: R 9 9 - R - T MIU# l 2 3l 4 f 9 q-OS Replaces Meter # Final Reading Revised 9-11-07 PHONE NUMBER: 7,2 - L/c� A MINIMUM OF 24 HOUR NOTICE FOR ALL INSPECTIONS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY #10C City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Title / Subject: RFP for Residential Survey Meeting Date: Monday, June 27, 2011 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Draft RFP For services Policy Consideration: Does the Council wish to proceed with a comprehensive Residential Survey? Background: The City Council discussed the possibility of conducting a residential survey a couple of years ago and the concept of a survey resurfaced during the strategic planning meetings. Staff provided Council with a representative list of questions on a wide range of issues. Staff collected the questions from other residential surveys conducted by other communities. The purpose of conducting a survey is to gather information on how the community feels about various programs and services to help the City Council establish service level benchmarks and to help identify key strategic priorities. Staff prepared a Request for Proposals to see what options are available from consultants and what the potential cost for conducting a residential survey will be. I should note that the Council passed a resolution at the June 13 meeting to participate in the States measurement program. This program requires the City to develop a method to measure its effectiveness and residential surveys are one of the methods. Furthermore, there is significant interest among many communities to develop a standardized, yet flexible tool to achieve this requirement. It has been suggested that the LMC spearhead such a project. In all likelihood, this type of program will not be ready for the next year or so. Financial or Budget Considerations: Staff estimates the cost of a comprehensive residential survey at $10,000 - $15,000. Staff recommends funds for this activity come from the Contractual Services part of the City Council budget. Options: 1)Approve the RFP as presented 2)Amend the RFP 3)Do not approve moving forward with the survey 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 4)Direct staff to prepare and conduct the survey Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the Council approve, as they may choose to amend, the draft RFP and move forward with a community survey. Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, staff will revise as necessary the RFP and distribute to various consulting firms for response. Staff will review and bring completed proposals to Council for consideration and possible award. Connection to Vision / Mission: All components of the Mission REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS COMMUNITY SURVEY Purpose The City of Shorewood is seeking proposals from qualified firms to conduct a community survey among Shorewood residents. The Shorewood City Council is currently working on developing a strategic plan for the community and they identified the completion of a residential survey as an important component in this process. Furthermore, the strategic plan contains performance measures, or benchmarks, and this survey will provide Council and staff with a service level or satisfaction baseline. Expectations and Responsibilities Consultant is responsible to determine the most effective survey methodology e.g. mail, phone, internet, etc. The consultant will recommend the methodology along with the expected response rate. The results of the survey are to produce a result with a margin of error no greater than +/- 5%. The survey will seek to identify resident’s opinions and feelings regarding City services and programs, identify strengths and areas for improvement, and assist the council in identifying strategic priorities. At a minimum, the survey will seek feedback on the following areas: 1.Road maintenance 2.Public Safety 3.The City’s communication 4.Parks and recreation programs 5.Community Center 6.Trails 7.Environmental issues The consultant will work with staff and the Council to develop draft survey for review and approval by the City Council. Once final approval of the questions is give by Council, the consultant will prepare and conduct the survey. The consultant will provide a timeframe to complete survey questions, collect, interpret the data, and present findings to the Council. Information Required in all Proposals 1.State the name and the address of the individual(s) who will perform the work. 2.Staff resources – include the number of personnel, by qualification employed in the project. 3.State history of the firm, in terms of the length of existence. 4.List specific types of experiences your firm has had in developing and designing similar surveys for municipalities. List the name of the person responsible for completing the survey(s) that is referenced. Include a sample of a recent municipal survey (within two years from the date of this specification) developed by your firm. 5.Information on the firms experience in facilitating focus group or community round table discussions 6.Include any other information that you believe to be pertinent and not specifically asked for in this performance specification. Statement of Fees Provide the total cost for your firm to complete the survey as indicated in this proposal. If fees are different based on the survey method, please indicate the expense for each methodology. The fee is to be all inclusive and will be a “not to exceed” amount. The City is also interested in the possibility of holding focus group or community “round table” type discussions on specific topics based on the results of the initial survey. The city requests a quote for facilitating a maximum of three such sessions. Contact Information Include the name, address, phone number, and e-mail for the individual who will be the main point of contact on the project and who has the authority to enter in to negotiations on the final agreement. Due Date Completed proposal must be returned no later than Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Please send the completed proposal by USPS or e-mail to: Brian Heck City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Or bheck@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM Date: June 23, 2011 To: Mayor Lizee Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: April, 2011 Monthly Budget Report ______________________________________________________________ The 2011 General Fund budget is a challenge to describe at this point. Revenues look higher than last year on at 52% of non-property tax revenues, but that is primarily because we lowered the budget base that we are measuring against. Actual revenues are about $7,000 lower than last year at this point. Overall expenditures are at 37.2% which is higher than previous years at this point. REVENUES  License and permit revenues are up about $10,000 over last year. This may indicate an increase in remodeling activity from the severely depressed levels of the past couple of years, but Mr. Pazandak is not yet ready to proclaim that we will exceed budget for the year.  Intergovernmental revenues are typical for this point with the first half of the MSA funds in from the state.  Charges for services are running just under last year’s level, but are on track to make budget.  Fines and forfeitures are about the same as previous years.  Miscellaneous revenue is primarily interest earnings which continue to be extremely low – especially given the negative economic news and outlook for the near future. EXPENDITURES  Council – looks about on track with previous years.  Administration – slightly high on support and services because of the annual ICMA membership dues of $805 paid in April  General Government – looks about on track with previous years.  Elections - looks about on track with previous years.  Finance - over because annual software maintenance contract expenditures are one-time expenses early in the year.  Professional Services – a bit lower than previous years based on special projects.  Municipal Buildings – high because the LMCIT liability insurance costs are paid early in the year. Materials and supplies cover copier and Laserfiche software maintenance, but some Warner Connect charges were miscoded and need to be reclassified as support and services which will bring materials and supplies back below budget.  Police and Fire always look high early in the year because payments are made in advance of the service in order to cash flow their operations. They are tracking closely with previous years.  Public Works - over because more wages have been coded to this department based on actual time spent – which should even out over the course of the year as street operations begin.  Snow and Ice - over because of all the snow received this winter. There is still a chance that the overall budget will not be exceeded if snow fall this fall and early winter is average or below.  Tree Maintenance – city crews tackled some significant tree maintenance in city rights of way with a rented bucket truck during April. Please contact me or Mr. Heck if you have any questions. Attachment: April Monthly Budget Report Monthly Budget Report May 31, 2011 YTDYTD2011% of 2011ExpectedVariance 2010MayAdoptedAnnual% of 2011(Negative) Year to Date OverviewActual2011BudgetBudgetBudgetor Positive REVENUE Property Taxes - - 4,763,3190.0%0.0% Licenses and Permits 55,412 65,779 98,20067.0%46.6% Intergovernmental 32,323 34,109 69,40149.1%47.2% Charges for Service 29,730 22,310 35,07563.6%55.7% Fines and Forfeitures 19,058 20,401 52,00039.2%35.3% Miscellaneous 38,503 24,501 63,90038.3%29.8% Transfers from other funds - - 40,0000.0%0.0% TOTAL 175,026 167,100 5,121,895 3.3%$31,587.03 167,100 318,57652.5% EXPENDITURES Department Council Personnel 6,997 6,997 16,80041.6%40.6% Materials and Supplies 419 535 1,30041.2%99.9% Support and Services 11,648 17,114 102,43016.7%28.9% Total 19,064 24,646 120,53020.4%$13,034.28 Administration Personnel 57,254 59,013 142,82841.3%44.8% Materials and Supplies - - -0.0%6.6% Support and Services 1,557 2,999 4,76063.0%27.1% Capital Outlay 1,631 - -21.8% Total 60,442 62,012 147,58842.0%$3,330.61 General Government Personnel 80,019 98,020 226,38743.3%42.6% Materials and Supplies 5,989 4,815 18,50026.0%31.7% Support and Services 10,843 9,308 32,35028.8%30.2% Capital Outlay 1,213 - -69.8% Total 98,064 112,143 277,23740.5%($80.27) Elections Personnel 2,800 254 4,7815.3%7.4% Materials and Supplies 1,974 1,665 2,30072.4%100.0% Support and Services 16 - -28.5% Capital Outlay - - -0.0% Total 4,790 1,919 7,08127.1%$733.84 Finance Personnel 66,235 65,368 153,22442.7%38.0% Materials and Supplies 6,745 6,967 6,950100.2%79.2% Support and Services 1,402 3,053 6,57546.4%17.6% Capital Outlay - - - 12.4% Total 74,382 75,388 166,74945.2%($10,533.34) Professional Services 89,769 84,602 199,00042.5%56.4%$27,561.03 Planning and Zoning Personnel 69,508 68,059 170,69439.9%38.6% Materials and Supplies 54 156 65523.8%98.4% Support and Services 4,461 4,183 11,81035.4%45.4% Capital Outlay - - 31.6% Total 74,023 72,398 183,15939.5%($542.07) Municipal Building - City Hall Materials and Supplies 27,845 26,719 16,500161.9%38.7% Support and Services 7,224 92,879 157,75058.9%8.2% Capital Outlay 15,713 1,040 -26.2% Transfers - - 103,9500.0%0.0% Total 50,782 120,638 278,20043.4%($101,313.39) Police Support Services 395,973 414,791 995,75041.7%42.2% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 114,034 115,034 230,06650.0%49.9% Total 510,007 529,825 1,225,81643.2%$4,620.06 Fire Support Services 161,268 168,565 337,13050.0%51.1% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 136,314 135,349 270,69750.0%48.8% Total 297,582 303,914 607,82750.0%$465.88 Inspections Personnel 44,544 45,968 109,09642.1%39.7% Materials and Supplies 22 154 30051.3%2.3% Support and Services 1,761 124 6,7001.9%23.4% Total 46,327 46,246 116,09639.8%($1,414.34) City Engineer Personnel 33,515 40,493 111,10336.4%40.1% Materials and Supplies 33 4 1,2550.3%25.9% Support and Services 3,265 602 13,3204.5%16.9% Capital Outlay 44 - 1,0000.0%35.6% Total 36,857 41,099 126,67832.4%$6,343.25 Public Works Service Personnel 107,608 123,827 184,10767.3%41.1% Materials and Supplies 25,198 33,263 71,20046.7%35.9% Support and Services 18,995 21,346 41,44051.5%41.5% Capital Outlay - - -0.0% Total 151,801 178,436 296,74760.1%($59,932.81) Streets and Roads Personnel 37,139 27,822 113,45924.5%37.4% Materials and Supplies 13,306 14,496 85,00017.1%18.8% Support and Services 425 1,703 34,0005.0%0.7% Capital Outlay - - 700,0000.0%0.0% Total 50,870 44,021 932,4594.7%$14,675.29 Snow and Ice Personnel 26,827 40,424 56,56771.5%53.7% Materials and Supplies 12,594 14,210 45,11731.5%34.6% Total 39,421 54,634 101,68453.7%($8,646.26) Traffic control / Street Lights Materials and Supplies 146 1,931 5,00038.6%53.7% Support and Services 13,123 20,262 52,14938.9%34.4% Total 13,269 22,193 57,14938.8%$20,642.14 Sanitation / Waste Control Personnel 3,980 93 2,2814.1%88.1% Materials and Supplies - - 1000.0%0.0% Support and Services - 3,444 4,40078.3%0.0% Total 3,980 3,537 6,78152.2%($1,526.68) Tree Maintenance Personnel 4,358 8,666 14,02061.8%23.4% Materials and Supplies - 32 1,4252.2%3.9% Support and Services 4,977 909 13,2506.9%17.8% Total 9,335 9,607 28,69533.5%($3,911.69) Parks and Recreation Personnel 62,890 58,556 185,70831.5%42.2% Materials and Supplies 4,906 8,166 19,80041.2%100.0% Support and Services 33,612 36,750 91,90040.0%53.2% Transfers - - 42,0000.0%0.0% Total 101,408 103,472 339,40830.5%$43,562.75 Unallocated 765 52,619 -0.0% Total Expenditures 5,218,884 1,732,938 1,943,34937.2%($52,932) Net Revenue less Expenditures (96,989) (1,557,912) (1,776,249) Note: The balanced budget includes $150,000 of fund balance in the Transfers line item of the Revenue section.