07-11-11 CC Reg AgP C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 11, 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 27, 2011 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 27, 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. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Disposal of Street Sweepings, City Engineer’s memo
Project 11-11
C. Accept Quote and Award Contract for Pavement Marking, City Project 11-10 Engineer’s memo
D. Accept Final Improvements for East Water Tower, City Project 05-04 Director of Public
Works’ memo,
Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – JULY 11, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Electrical Regulations Ordinance and Contract for Services Planning Director’s
memo; Ordinance,
Resolution, Contract
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Christmas Lake AIS Prevention Pilot Project Administrator’s
memo, Resolution
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
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, 11 July, 2011
7:00 p.m.
A 6:00 p.m. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: Staff received two quotes for the Disposal of Street Sweeping spoils. Staff
recommends that the City Council authorize staff to work with Midwest Asphalt to dispose of
street sweep spoils not to exceed $25,600.
Agenda Item #3C: Staff recommends approval of a motion that accepts the quotes and
awards the contract to Twin City Striping in the amount of $13,517.77 for the 2011
Pavement Marking Project.
Agenda Item #3D: Staff recommends approval of the resolution that accepts the final
improvements for the East Water Tower Rehabilitation Project.
Agenda Item #5A: There are no public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6A: There are no reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7A: There are no Park items this evening.
Agenda Item #8A: There are no Planning items this evening
Agenda Item #9A: There are no Engineering/Public Works items this evening.
Agenda Item #10A: Electrical Permits are currently issued by the State, and due to the State
shutdown, permit issuance and inspections are temporarily terminated. However,
Minnesota Statutes authorizes the city to issue permits and conduct inspections, by
ordinance. An Ordinance is provided for council approval, as well as a Resolution
authorizing summary publication of the Ordinance. Arrangements have been made with
the city’s current electrical inspector to provide inspections. A Contract for Electrical
Inspection Services is also provided. It is intended that the city will return to use of State
issued permits and inspections once the State shutdown has been resolved.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of July 11, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #11A: A Resolution is provided which supports the Christmas Lake AIS
prevention pilot program, authorizes the installation of an entrance gate and signage,
authorizes staff to work with the MCWD and DNR to amend the current agreement to
allow installation of a landing control gate, and supports and authorizes the Christmas
Lake Association to conduct inspections of watercraft by DNR certified inspectors.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2011 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Administrator Heck;
Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown;
and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. LICENSE AND PERMIT REVIEW
Mayor Lizée stated the meeting packet contains information provided by Staff about the various non-
building permits and licenses the City issues. There is information about each one’s purpose, the fee for it,
the estimated annual revenue received from it, the statutory authority for some of them and changes for
consideration.
Following is a summary of the highlights of each of the permit and license policies the City has and the
ensuing discussion about them.
Dog Licensing
Administrator Heck explained State Statute allows cities to adopt ordinances to regulate animals. The City
has a dog licensing ordinance. The purpose of the license is to ensure dogs are vaccinated against rabies
and to provide them with identification. The fee for the license is $10 annually and approximately 350 dogs
are issued licenses each year. Several communities have eliminated their dog license ordinances and
replaced them with requirements that dogs have rabies tags, owner information and that dogs have an
identification chip. One of the primary reasons for repealing the ordinance was the revenues received from
the licenses did not cover the cost to administer the program. Another reason is it’s difficult to enforce
compliance. After consideration, the City of Golden Valley decided to keep its dog license ordinance and
increase the license fee because dogs that use the City of Minneapolis Dog Park must have a license.
Heck stated Staff recommends Council consider including types of animals, such as farm animals, in the
City’s animal control ordinance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 2 of 8
Mayor Lizée asked if Council has a desire to modify the ordinance. She also asked if Council would prefer
to have the Planning Commission discuss the possibility of expanding the scope of the animal control
ordinance to include other animals.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought the dog licensing ordinance should be kept as is. She noted the
City of Excelsior is planning to open a dog park and she is not sure if Excelsior will require the dogs that
use that park to be licensed. She asked if cats need to have a license to which Councilmember Zerby
responded no.
Councilmember Zerby explained dogs that use the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Off-Leash Dog Park
must be properly licensed and vaccinated. He asked what it costs the City to administer its dog licensing
program. Administrator Heck responded he did not know and he will find out.
Councilmember Siakel suggested the Planning Commission review all of the non-building permit and
license programs and recommend what, if any, changes should be made. This could be included in the
Commission’s work plan. She stated she has some of the same questions already mentioned. She noted she
thought having a fee for a dog license is reasonable. She stated if processing dog license requests is part of
someone’s job description there isn’t an additional cost to the City because it’s factored into their time. She
suggested farm animals also be addressed in the animal control ordinance.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he concurred that farm animals should also be addressed. He commented
that some mini horses are not allowed and large horses are. Director Nielsen clarified mini horses are
subject to the same regulations as large horses. Woodruff asked if a stable permit should be required for
more than horses. He agreed with Councilmember Siakel that the Planning Commission should conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the City’s dog licensing, kennel licensing, and stable permit policies. Also,
consideration should be given to regulating other types of animals. He commented that based on what he
observed when he was out campaigning during the last City election 350 dogs is about one twentieth of the
number of dogs living in the City.
Kennel Licensing
Administrator Heck explained State Statute gives the Minnesota Board of Animal Health the specific
authority to license kennels. The City requires residents who have more than two dogs to obtain a kennel
license, but this doesn’t meet the statutory requirement of a kennel. Domestic pets do not fall under the
statutory definition of kennel. The City can have some other type of license for residents who have more
than two dogs; it just can’t be called a kennel license.
There was Council consensus to have the Planning Commission to reevaluate the City’s animal control
ordinance. That review should include the City’s dog licensing, kennel licensing and stable permit policies
as well as other domestic animals.
Councilmember Siakel suggested Staff provide the Planning Commission with the information necessary to
make an in depth assessment of what the policies should cover. It should also research what the
enforcement requirements are for the various dog parks in the surrounding communities. She asked why
more residents don’t license their dogs. She stated the requirement for dogs to be licensed should be more
consistently enforced.
Councilmember Woodruff commented it’s his recollection that both the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department (SLMPD) and the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) have indicated it would be beneficial to them
to have regulations consistent between their member cities. He stated he didn’t think that the City takes into
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 3 of 8
account animal waste impacts when it considers issuing a stable permit for a horse and he thought that
should be discussed by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Zerby noted Excelsior requires dogs to be licensed and it has a $25 fee for dogs that have
been spayed or neutered and a $40 fee for those that haven’t been. The City of Tonka Bay’s dog license fee
is $32.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has a long standing policy of not addressing cats.
Councilmember Woodruff recommended cats be included in the discussion.
Councilmember Hotvet stated if the City regulations are very different from the surrounding communities
she suggested the Planning Commission assess if the City’s could be revised to be more consistent.
Garbage Haulers
Administrator Heck stated this will be discussed at a future work session because Council directed Staff to
bring back additional information about various options for organized garbage collection systems. If
Council decides to convert to an organized system from an open system the licensing requirements would
change. If the decision is made to continue with an open system then licensing will have to be discussed.
Tree Trimmers
Administrator Heck explained State Statute requires all tree care and tree trimming companies to register
with the Minnesota Commission of Agriculture. There is a $25 fee for registering. It’s unlawful for any tree
care and tree trimming company to advertise in the State if it has not registered. The City requires tree care
and tree trimming companies to obtain a license from the City as well to ensure they have proper insurance.
The fee for the City’s license is $30. Twenty companies obtained a license in 2010. He stated Council may
want to consider discontinuing this requirement because of the State requirement.
Director Nielsen asked how long the State has had its registration requirement in place. Administrator Heck
responded that went into affect in 2002. Nielsen stated the last time there was a major storm in the City
some tree trimmers took financial deposits from residents and then left before performing the services
purchased. Director Brown stated the license requirement is the City’s way to make these companies go
through the process of ensuring they had the property credentials. Councilmember Zerby asked if
companies are asked to provide proof that they have the proper credentials (e.g., State license, insurance,
bonding). Brown responded yes, and he explained tree care and tree trimming companies have to reapply
for a license annually and at that time they must provide their credentials.
Councilmember Woodruff commented that based on his personal experience some companies will tell you
they are licensed by the State, but when you push harder for proof you find out they are not. He questioned
if the City has the wherewithal to enforce this requirement. Director Brown stated the first thing the Public
Works Department does when it encounters a tree trimming company doing work in the City is ask for
proof that it has obtained a license from the City. Brown then stated the license requirement gives the
Public Works Department an opportunity to resolve some of the field issues that can arise if companies
don’t comply.
Councilmember Siakel stated she agreed with Director Brown and she thought this somewhat touches on
the requirements for solicitors and canvassers. She then stated there is also a public safety component to
tree trimming. She recommended the only exception she can see to enforcing the City licensing requirement
before work begins is when there has been a major storm and there are not enough tree trimmers to handle
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 4 of 8
the work. She stated the residents should be educated about the need to ask companies for proof of being
licensed with the City. Councilmember Hotvet cited that after the recent tornados in North Minneapolis
there was a concerted effort to educate residents about asking for proof that companies had been licensed
by Minneapolis. Hotvet suggested publishing information about licensing requirements in the City’s
newsletter each year.
Councilmember Zerby asked why there is a need for a State and City license for tree care and tree trimming
companies. He stated the residents could be educated about the need to ask for proof that the companies are
registered with the State.
Councilmember Siakel stated if there is an issue with the City requiring tree care and tree trimming
companies to be licensed with the City when they are already licensed by the State that’s one thing. If that
isn’t a problem then she thought there is not a problem with requiring them to be licensed with the City
also.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if the Public Works Department asks a company to produce proof that it
has a State license and if it fails to provide proof then it has to quit working in the City. He then stated that
is better than requiring companies to be licensed with the City.
Administrator Heck explained the State Statute requiring tree care and tree trimming companies to register
with the State does not prohibit local governments from requiring them to be licensed.
Councilmember Zerby stated that from his vantage point if the City is going to take money for something
he wants to make sure it’s providing a service for that. He commented that the City’s license for this is
quite simple. It asks for name, address, phone number, proof of insurance (including the appropriate
worker compensation insurance with the State and the necessary liability insurance), and then the applicant
must sign the form noting that the information provided is accurate. He asked if the City asks for proof that
they have the necessary insurances. Director Brown responded it does. Zerby noted that the Cities of
Deephaven and Wayzata also require companies to obtain a license from them. Councilmember Hotvet
noted that the Minneapolis requires companies to obtain a license from it.
There was continued ensuing discussion about this topic because there were differing points of view about
keeping the license requirement.
There was Council consensus to direct the Planning Commission to assess the pros and cons for the City
requiring tree care and tree trimming companies to obtain a license with the City.
Fireworks
Administrator Heck stated the City requires a person/company to obtain a license in order to sell fireworks
in the City and the fee for that license is $100. Two companies apply for such a license. As part of the
licensing process the City asks the EFD Fire Inspector to conduct an inspection of the area. He suggested
Council consider reimbursing the EFD for its time.
Mayor Lizée explained she has spoken with EFD Chief Gerber about reimbursing the EFD for the cost of
the inspection. She related that Gerber stated the EFD would appreciate receiving the fees provided the
EFD member cities continue to administer the licensing process, noting the EFD doesn’t have the
administrative resources to do that. She stated it would be beneficial to both the EFD and the SLMPD if
the member cities had consistent ordinances that they are supposed to enforce or provide other services for.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 5 of 8
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point he thought the EFD member cities were already
paying to have this type of inspection service provided. He then stated if the EFD Board believes the
member cities should reimburse the EFD for providing this type of service then it should ask the member
cites to consider that.
There was consensus to leave the fireworks policy the way it is and not reimburse the EFD for fireworks
related inspections.
Lawn Fertilizer Applications
Administrator Heck explained State Statute authorizes the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) to
regulate the manufacture and application of fertilizers. The MDA requires all persons who apply fertilizer
for hire obtain a license from it. It’s his interpretation Statute prohibits a local unit of government from
adopting or enforcing any ordinance prohibiting or regulating the registration, labeling, distribution, sale,
handling, use, application or disposal of turf fertilizer that contains phosphorous. The City’s requirement
to license lawn fertilizing applicators for hire is in conflict with State Statute and this licensing ordinance
needs to be repealed. He noted that he has forwarded information about this to the City Attorney for his
review and comment.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City could still license for-hire fertilizer applicators of non-
phosphorous and other products.
There was consensus to wait for the City Attorney’s interpretation of State Statute.
Solicitors and Canvassers
Administrator Heck stated the majority of cities have ordinances regulating solicitors and canvassers. The
City’s ordinance requires individuals to under go a background check which is conducted by the SLMPD.
The City’s fee for that is $50. The City charges more for other background checks it requires. Based on
feedback received from SLMPD Chief Litsey, the City may need to amend its ordinance to allow for the
background checks.
Councilmember Zerby asked if the $50 fee covers the cost of the background check for both the City’s
administration and the SLMPD’s work. Administrator Heck responded he does not know what those costs
are and noted the cost for a therapeutic message license check of credentials is $100 and those checks are
not done by the SLMPD.
Councilmember Woodruff stated based on his experience solicitors and canvassers often don’t know there
is a need to be licensed with the City because they were dropped off in groups to do their work. In response
to a question from Woodruff, Administrator Heck explained that he thought the only exemption there is for
solicitors and canvassers is political soliciting and canvassing. Woodruff asked what the requirements are
for high school sports players, for example. Director Nielsen commented he thought organizations such as
boy scouts and girl scouts are exempt.
Administrator Heck stated the City often doesn’t have sufficient time to process these types of license
applications. He clarified he was not implying the City should quit licensing solicitors and canvassers.
Councilmember Siakel questioned if the City could differentiate the licensing requirements by for-profit
organizations and not-for-profit organizations. She expressed her concern with allowing bus loads of
unauthorized people being dropped off in the City to canvass or solicit the area. She again stated the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 6 of 8
residents should be encouraged to ask solicitors and canvassers to produce proof that they are licensed with
the City.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the EFD’s, SLMPD’s and City’s costs are being covered by the fee that is
charged.
Councilmember Siakel asked how many license applications the City receives for solicitors and canvassers.
Administrator Heck stated it varies, and explained the license fee is per individual. Siakel asked if the
licensees are given proof that they are licensed. Director Brown noted they are.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he has no sympathy for those individuals who ask for a license with
insufficient time for the City to process it and don’t get one by the time they need it.
Councilmember Zerby stated the City’s ordinance states not-for-profit organizations are exempt from
paying a fee. It does not stipulate they don’t need to obtain a license. He questioned what the policy is for
garage sales.
Administrator Heck stated he will research this further and bring more information back to Council.
Do to lack of time the following remaining items were discussed only briefly.
Lawful Gambling
Administrator Heck explained the State licenses all lawful gambling operations and cities provide their
approval. The City adopted an ordinance requiring the licensing of lawful gambling activities to provide
some control over the operations. The City assesses a fee of $50 for temporary licenses and $100 for a
biannual license. Due to a change to State Statute cities are now prohibited from assessing a fee. The City’s
ordinance needs to be amended to remove the fee requirement.
Councilmember Siakel asked if revenues from the sale of pull tabs are in part used for the good of the
community. Administrator Heck stated currently the City does not require a percentage of the revenues be
put toward something that is for the good of the community.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he does not support requiring some portion of the revenues to be directed
to the City because the enforcement of that would be very difficult. He noted the American Legion makes
donations to various community events. Councilmember Siakel stated she is not aware of whether or not
the Legion does that. Woodruff stated he thought the representatives from the Legion could come and talk
to Council about what it does.
Liquor License
Administrator Heck explained State Statute gives cities the authority to license the on-sale and off-sale of
intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor. The fee for the licenses is defined by the State. The license fee is
used, in part, to conduct a background check on the owners of the establishments as well as to supplement
some of the funds the SLMPD gets for conducting compliance checks and education. Staff recommends
leaving the liquor license policy and fee as is.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 7 of 8
Tobacco License
Administrator Heck explained Council needs to decide if it wants the City to continue to license sellers of
tobacco products or to have that done by Hennepin County. There are three establishments in the City that
are licensed to sell tobacco products and the fee for a license is $250. The SLMPD has done compliance
checks on the establishments selling tobacco products and there have been instances where they have been
in violation of selling products to minors. The fine for selling to minors ranges from $75 to $250. He
indicated he thought the fine limits are regulated by State Statute. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought
the fine was too little; the fine should be a $1000.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought the licensing responsibility should remain with the City.
Message Therapist
Administrator Heck explained there is one massage therapy business in the City and he thought Ridgeview
Clinic also has a therapist. The license fee is $50 for each individual practitioner and the fee for a
background check is $100. The background check is a staff review of the paperwork submitted including a
check of the educational requirements. There are outstanding questions of whether the fee should apply to
the establishment or each individual therapist and whether or not the licensing fees should be prorated. The
prorating question applies to all of the licenses. He recommended the Planning Commission discuss this
item.
Councilmember Siakel asked why the City does a background check on the individual practitioner, noting
most employers do a background check when they are hired. She thought the City should be more
concerned with the business. Councilmember Zerby commented the City pretends to do a background
check.
Administrator Heck stated a lot of cities license just the establishment. He then stated there are independent
contractors who work for chiropractors and they need a license to work in the City. Director Nielsen stated
the Planning Commission drafted the massage therapist license ordinance a few years ago. There was
concern that there could be potential mischief going on in massage therapy operations. Nielsen explained
staff does check out a practitioner’s credentials when they apply for a license. He commented that massage
therapy schools have thanked the City for checking the credentials as part of the licensing process. He
stated he was not sure if $50 is the appropriate fee.
stth
Councilmember Woodruff suggested that if a person applies for a license between January 1 and June 30
stst
the fee should be $50 for a one-year license. If they apply between July 1 and December 31 the fee
should be $50 and it should be valid through the end of the next calendar year. Councilmember Zerby
suggested the term of the license be a rolling twelve months; it would be valid for twelve months from the
time it was issued. Councilmember Woodruff stated he could support that as did Councilmember Siakel.
There was Council consensus to send this back to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation.
Adult Entertainment Establishment
Administrator Heck stated Staff recommends leaving this ordinance as it is.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 8 of 8
Special Event, Parking, Recreational Fire, and Open Burning Permits
Administrator Heck explained there is no charge for special event, parking, recreational fire, and open
burning permits. The special event permit is to make the City, the EFD, and the SLMPD aware that a
homeowner is going to have a large event at their home. There needs to be some assurance that emergency
vehicles will be able to traverse the roadways. Parking permits are only issued for residents along
Christmas Lake Road, Christmas Lane and Merry Lane. The residents petitioned for that and Staff doesn’t
believe there is any need to change that. The City doesn’t process the recreational fire permit requests or
the open burning requests; it only hands out the permit applications.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she has received emails from residents expressing concern about recreational
fires and open burning with regard to the frequency of the fires, how long the fires burn and what’s being
burned. She then stated there has been a lot published about the health issues associated with breathing
smoke from the fires. She suggested this be discussed in more depth in the near future.
Police and Fire False Alarms
Administrator Heck explained the City assess a fee of $100 for the third false alarm for police response and
a $200 fee for the second false alarm for fire response in a twelve-month period. He asked if the EFD
should get the majority of the fire response fee being it incurs most of the cost.
Rental Housing
Administrator Heck explained Staff is currently working on an amendment to the rental housing ordinance
to incorporate a requirement for well water testing.
Director Nielsen suggested the $60 fee for a three-year license be increased to $75 – $90 to cover
administrative costs. Councilmember Zerby asked what other surrounding cities charge for a rental housing
license. Nielsen stated he will get that information for Council.
3. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of June 27, 2011, at 7:08
P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:12 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, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 13, 2011
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of June 13,
2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Executive Session Minutes, June 13, 2011
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of June
13, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 13, 2011
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June
13, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Zerby moved, Hotvet 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 27, 2011
Page 2 of 15
B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-034, “A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding
Contract for the Murray Hill Road Storm Sewer Improvement, City Project No. 10-
11.”
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-035, “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.”
D. RESOLUTION NO. 11-036, “A Resolution Approving an Amendment to the
Planning Unit Development Agreement for Shorewood Ponds P.U.D.”
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. CenterPoint Energy Community Grant Presentation by Mark Spanton
Mark Spanton, a senior sales consultant with CenterPoint Energy, presented the City of Shorewood with a
check in the amount of $740 as a grant from the CenterPoint Energy’s Community Partnership Grant
Program to help purchase a defibrillator.
Mayor Lizée thanked Mr. Spanton and CenterPoint Energy on behalf of the City.
B. Ken Hendrickson, Board Representative, Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission
Mayor Lizée stated Ken Hendrickson, the City’s Representative on the Lake Minnetonka
Communications Commission (LMCC), is present to give an update on LMCC activities.
Mr. Hendrickson stated the LMCC Operations Manager Jim Lundberg is working on implementing
technology that will provide the capability for agenda parsing for LMCC member cities’ meetings.
Mr. Hendrickson then stated that during its June 13, 2011, meeting Council discussed the potential
tm
LMCC’s fiber to the premise (FTTP) initiative (tonkaconnect). He noted he has spoken with both
Councilmembers Woodruff and Zerby about the discussion. He explained Council passed a motion
stating the City does not support the LMCC spending any more money on its tonkaconnect project. Per
the attorney for the LMCC the work done to date on the tonkaconnect project and the work to study the
possible financing options for the project is within the LMCC’s mission as are alternative studies. Work
beyond the financing study may or may not be part of the mission. He noted that at this point no more
work on FTTP has been approved. He stated he was not sure if a possible financing study will be
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 3 of 15
approved, but he thought a full commission vote is required to approve that and he thought the vote will
be taken during the next full LMCC Commission meeting which will be held on August 16, 2011.
Mr. Hendrickson explained the City of Shorewood is the only one of the seventeen LMCC member cities
that to date has expressed a formal opinion on the tonkaconnect project. He has circulated copies of draft
th
minutes of the Council’s June 13 discussion about the project and the motion that was passed to the
LMCC Executive Committee and he informed the Committee that he would be voting in a manner
consistent with the motion. He noted that part of the LMCC’s mission is to look at alternatives to the
LMCC’s existing system. Doing so is particularly pertinent at this time because the LMCC’s franchise
agreement with Mediacom is up in a few years. He stated LMCC Executive Director Koenecke has asked
him to relate that the results from the FTTP market survey indicate residents in the LMCC community do
want competition for Mediacom and that they do not object to the government providing such a service.
Mr. Hendrickson then explained the LMCC’s 2011 revenue budget last year was approximately $630,000.
For 2012 revenues will probably increase to $645,000 – $650,000. The 2011 expense budget was
approximately $630,000 and the 2012 expense budget is anticipated to be $660,000 with part of the
increase being salary increases which will go up about three percent on average. In 2011 approximately
$10,000 was spent on the redesign of the LMCC’s website and approximately $7,000 was spent for the
audit conducted of the franchise fees the LMCC had collected. The audit proved to be worthwhile
because as a result it revealed that Mediacom had underpaid the LMCC $128,260. The LMCC received a
check for that amount in 2011 from Mediacom. Agenda parsing is a major item in 2012 and another
franchise fee audit will be conducted. The carpet in the LMCC building is in need of replacement.
Approximately $20,000 will be spent on legal fees for the franchise fee renewal. Studio lighting needs to
be upgraded. With regard to the reserve fund, there was a balance of approximately $400,000 at the
beginning of 2011 and it’s anticipated to be approximately $400,000 at the beginning of 2012. There is a
contingency in the reserve fund to cover unanticipated expenses. The $128,260 received from Mediacom
should cover the shortfall for special expenses.
Mayor Lizée thanked Mr. Hendrickson for the update.
7. PARKS
Park Commissioner Edmondson reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 14, 2011,
Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Councilmember Woodruff stated one of the premises for renovating the shelter in Manor Park was if that
happened Minnetonka Communication Education (MCE) would hold some programs at the shelter. He
asked if MCE is doing that this year. Commissioner Edmonson stated he believes that is happening.
A. Terrence Haines, Eagle Scout Project and Funding Request
Mayor Lizée stated Terrence Haines, an Eagle Scout candidate, is present this evening. She explained that
Mr. Haines has proposed a project to improve the property near the Southshore Community Center
(SSCC). Council discussed the proposed project during its May 9, 2011, meeting and May 23, 2011,
meeting and it asked Mr. Haines to come back this evening. She noted that Mr. Haines had spoken to the
American Legion, the Greenwood City Council, and the South Lake – Excelsior Chamber of Commerce
about funding for the project. She asked Mr. Haines to provide Council with an update.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 4 of 15
Mr. Haines explained the City of Deephaven has agreed to donate $750 toward the project. He asked Staff
if he can use Roundup to help kill buckthorn in the project area; how he should dispose of the buckthorn
that is removed; how to get rid of the poison ivy in the area; and, how to get rid of the dead big oak tree.
Director Brown stated the City will contract with someone to remove the oak tree. It will take a boom
truck and special equipment to do that because of the topography. The poison ivy will be treated by a
licensed contractor who does noxious weed spraying for the City. If the buckthorn that is removed is
brought up to an area that is accessible and stacked the City will haul it away.
th
Mayor Lizée noted Mr. Haines went before the Park Commission during its June 14 meeting to discuss
his project and potential funding for it. The project fits in with the Park Capital Improvement Program
and the Commission is supportive of the project because it will make the area more attractive.
Councilmember Siakel stated she had reached out to Mr. Haines and his mother and that she is very
supportive of this project. She thanked the Park Commission for recommending financial support for the
project. She asked that a project plan for this project be developed and she suggested breaking it down
into phases. She stated the first phase would be the removal of the oak tree and buckthorn. The next phase
would be building the steps. She wanted the City’s responsibilities to be clearly laid out along with the
timeline for completing them. She stated it’s her understanding that Mr. Haines and his team will remove
the buckthorn and haul it up the hill. She asked what other things need to be done in phase one of the
project. Mr. Haines stated there needs to be a wood chipper provided. Siakel also asked that a project plan
for this phase be provided to Council during its next meeting.
Mr. Haines reviewed a relatively detailed plan for when tasks would be done.
Councilmember Hotvet suggested a work agreement be created between the City and Mr. Haines for this
project which clearly lays out expectations for both parties. She stated if the City is going to be asked to
fund similar projects in the future she suggested the City establish some type of grant program in the
future.
Councilmember Siakel asked when removal of the oak tree and buckthorn can be completed by and when
the preparation for the path can be completed by. She then asked if Council can authorize payment of the
wood chipper this evening. Director Brown stated contractors are very interested in working with the City
to remove dead trees so he doesn’t think there will be any problem with meeting Mr. Haines’ schedule.
Brown then stated Mr. Haines’ project team will be removing the buckthorn and that is a very labor
intensive task, noting hauling it away is a very simple thing to do.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the staff memorandum for this item recommends the City donate $1,500
toward the project. He asked what that amount is based on. Administrator Heck stated it’s based on the
Park Commission’s recommendation. He then stated it’s his recollection that Council agreed to match
funding of other donations made. Mr. Haines stated he has been pledged donations from the American
Legion, the Chamber, the City of Deephaven, the City of Greenwood, and H&B Elevators, Inc.
Councilmember Zerby asked what the total amount of those pledges is. Heck stated Staff will gather that
information and it could be included in the work agreement. The work agreement will specify what the
City will provide in resources as well as what Mr. Haines’ project team will provide.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like this project to move forward without there being any
more hurdles for Mr. Haines to jump through. He did want to make sure things were coordinated with
City staff. He noted that based on Mr. Haines’ schedule it appears he needs funding to move forward
before the next Council meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 5 of 15
Councilmember Siakel reiterated she thought the project should be broken into phases with the first step
being removing the oak tree and buckthorn and preparing the pathway. She stated she thought Mr. Haines
had enough money to do that.
th
Councilmember Zerby asked Mr. Haines how much money he needs before Council’s July 11 meeting.
Mr. Haines stated he does not know what the wood will cost. The benches will be made out of oak and
oak is expensive. Mr. Haines’ mother stated he has enough money to do the stone steps but it’s in the
scout’s account and he has no access to that until he gets a check from the scouts’ treasurer. He does not
have enough money to do the wood steps or to hire the person to chip the wood. It would be nice for Mr.
Haines to get the money sooner versus later so he can get his project done and get his report complete
before the school year starts.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing an initial contribution of $500 toward Terrence
Haines’ Eagle Scout Project with the remaining contribution of $1,000 being contingent upon
completion of a work agreement between the City and Mr. Haines. Motion passed 5/0.
8. PLANNING
No report was given because there had not been a Planning Commission meeting since the last council
meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for July 19, 2011.
A. Thomas Hayes – Conditional Use Permit
Location: 21135 Christmas Lane
Director Nielsen explained that Thomas and Sheila Hayes are building a new home at 21135 Christmas
Lane. As part of that they have an attached garage. When the attached garage square feet of area is
combined with the existing barn area the total area accessory space on the site is over 1,200 square feet.
Therefore, the Hayes’ need a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for that. The existing barn is
nonconforming; it’s taller than what is allowed for a detached accessory structure. The Hayes applied for
the C.U.P. under the historic preservation section of the City Code to keep the barn in its current
condition.
Nielsen then explained the subject property is located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland
zoning district. The property is nearly two acres in size; it contains 82,623 square feet of area. The home
will be 2,356 square feet of area on the main level. The new garage is 804 square feet of area. The
existing barn has 480 square feet of area on each of two levels. The total accessory space square feet of
area is 1764. The total percentage of hardcover on the property will be 11.9 percent; well below the 25
percent upper limit.
Nielsen reviewed how the Hayes’ request complies with the four criteria that must be met for accessory
space C.U.P.s. The total area of accessory space does not exceed the floor area above grade of the new
house; it’s well under that. The accessory space does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for
the R-1A/S zoning district (4,000 square feet). With regard to historic preservation, the Hayes submitted
aerial photographs dating back to 1937 showing the barn on the property. The Hayes had an expert weigh
in on the historic and cultural value of the barn. The Hayes plan to replace some windows on the barn
with ones that are more representative of era of when the barn was built. The barn is not out of character
with the style of the new home.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 6 of 15
Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended in favor of the C.U.P. He noted that he will
probably use the material the Hayes submitted as a model for future applications under the historic
preservation section.
Thomas Hayes stated he and his wife will be good stewards of the barn and the rest of their property.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the staff report for this request states the barn had not been inspected by
the City Building Official at the time the report was written. Director Nielsen noted the barn will be
inspected.
Mayor Lizée expressed her appreciation to the Hayes for providing all of the information that they did.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-037, “A Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space for Thomas and Sheila Hayes, 21135
Christmas Lane.” Motion passed 5/0.
B. Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission, at Staff’s suggestion, has recommended Council adopt
the resolution supporting the City’s participation in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program. The
Program would be a good tool to use for addressing sustainability. The Commission has reviewed the 28
best practices included in the Program and determined the City has already done or is in the process of
doing many of them.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she appreciated that the GreenStep Cities Program Coordinator
responsibilities were defined.
Councilmember Zerby stated this is a great step in the right direction and that it’s nice to have a template
that is so well thought out. He then stated that it’s appropriate for Director Nielsen to be the Coordinator.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-038, “A Resolution of Support
for the City of Shorewood’s Participation in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program.” Motion
passed 5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Authorized Expenditure of Funds for Public Works Equipment – Loader
Director Brown stated the City owns a 1995 Wheel Loader/Tool Carrier. He explained the City’s loader, a
critical piece of equipment for the Public Works Department, stopped working few weeks ago. The most
recent cost estimate to make basic repairs is $25,437.69. He stated Staff believes the loader has met its
life expectancy at 16 years of age so it chose not to proceed with the basic repairs. He explained the City
is a member of the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) with the State of Minnesota. This allows the
City to take advantage of the State’s competitive bidding process. Large volume pricing gives the City a
discount. A unit cost for a new loader, after factoring in a trade value of $15,000, is $143,950.95
including sales tax. The 5-year Capital Improvement Program has $191,000 programmed for the
replacement of the loader in 2014.
Brown noted the City of Excelsior anticipates a loader to have a life expectancy of 15 years; the City of
Minnetrista anticipates a loader to have a life expectancy of 10 years; and the City of Mound anticipates a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 7 of 15
loader to have a life expectancy of 12 – 14 years. The life expectancy for the City of Chanhassen varies.
He also noted that Staff tried to push out the life expectancy of the loader to 20 years.
Brown stated Staff is asking Council to approve the purchase of a One Wheel Loader as specified.
Councilmember Zerby stated he appreciates that Director Brown estimated the life expectancy to be 20
years. And he appreciates even more that the Public Works Department has gotten as much value out of
the current loader as it has.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the purchase on a One Wheel Loader in 2011 at a
cost not to exceed $143,950.95.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the documentation on this in the Staff report lists the issues with the
current loader. He asked what actually failed on the loader that makes it unusable. Director Brown
responded what initially broke was the hydraulic breaking system. Brown explained that led to the vendor
tearing down the machine and finding many issues. The load bearing components of the machine were
worn out. Woodruff stated it appears the machine reached the end of its useful life.
Motion passed 5/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Christmas Lake Boat Launch
Mayor Lizée stated the policy question before Council this evening is whether or not the City should
support creating a controlled access at the Christmas Lake public boat launch to prevent the spread of
aquatic invasive species (AIS), in particular zebra mussels, from coming into Christmas Lake. The spread
of AIS has been discussed for years. She noted Joe Shneider, President of the Christmas Lake
Homeowners Association (HOA) and a Chanhassen resident, is present this evening to give a presentation
of the AIS project. About 10 percent of Christmas Lake frontage is located in Chanhassen. She also noted
that Eric Evenson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Administrator, is also present and he is
a partner in this proposed effort.
Mr. Shneider explained the City owns the land the Christmas Lake boat launch is on and the City operates
the launch site. It’s been doing that consistent with a 1986 agreement that was entered into by the City,
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Christmas Lake HOA, and the then owner of
the property Robert Fayfield.
Mr. Shneider recognized the leadership support of Mayor Lizée and Mr. Evenson.
Mr. Shneider stated there are other members of the Lake Action Alliance which was recently formed. It
represents homeowners and clear water organizations from Lake Minnewashta and Lotus Lake as well as
Christmas Lake. He noted that he is the spokesperson for the Alliance. He stated the Alliance is trying to
bring visibility to the issue and to come up with a new model for preventing the spread of AIS. The
Christmas Lake HOA Board has been acting aggressively on this issue. That Board wants to leave
Christmas Lake in quality condition.
Mr. Shneider explained there are many organizations involved in the pilot AIS prevention project. The
organizations have slightly different objectives. But, one of them is the same for all; it’s stopping the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 8 of 15
spread of AIS. Not all of the organizations are on board to the same degree. The City’s support will be
critical for the project.
Mr. Shneider reviewed the objectives for the pilot project which included: Prevent or at worst simply
delay future infestations of AIS in Christmas Lake, Lake Minnewashta and Lotus Lake, with particular
focus on zebra mussels. To avoid high impacts to recreation and cost impacts experienced with Eurasian
Watermilfoil and other AIS. To test a number of approaches to help find a best practice solution for
stopping the spread of AIS so that when a new breed of AIS comes along there is a methodology in place
for stopping the spread. And, to help all invested groups understand the practicality of the AIS prevention
approaches used. The goal is to have the pilot project completed this summer and to have it in place for
about six weeks.
Mr. Shneider explained the project includes having a central inspection facility at Lake Minnewashta
Regional Park. There will be unattended but gated access at Christmas Lake and Lotus Lake. He noted
that the locations are within a few miles of Lake Minnetonka which the DNR has declared as infested
with zebra mussels.
Mr. Shneider stated that until there is a guarantee that each boater follows the laws; education and
inspections are the only ways to prevent the spread of AIS into uninfected waters . Doing inspections at
each lake access is costly; 1,700 hours of available launch hours during summer months at $15/hour costs
$25,500 at each of the three launch sites. There is insufficient funding available to do inspections at each
lake access. Residents, the MCWD and the DNR are willing to fund some of the cost but city, county and
state funds are extremely limited. Centralizing inspections and having gated access to the lakes is the only
thing that makes any sense. If the funding is pooled from the various funding sources there should be
enough money to staff a common inspection site and do it right, and to put in the two gates and do it right.
Mr. Shneider reviewed the key elements of the project. There will be a centralized inspection location at
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park which will be staffed by DNR trained inspectors. At Lotus Lake there
are over 60 DNR trained volunteer inspectors. Communication for the community is critical. The MCWD
staff has been helping with that. He noted the pilot project will need some tweaking along the way.
Mr. Shneider then reviewed how the process will work for day-use boaters. Boaters using the launch
ramps must have their boats inspected each day for access to the pilot lakes. The inspection will be
completed at the central inspection location by DNR trained inspectors following DNR procedures. Boats
passing inspection will post an inspection sheet on the dashboard of tow vehicle for the duration of a lake
visit as proof of inspection. Christmas Lake and Lotus Lake boaters passing inspection will receive a code
to launch their inspected boats appropriately. The code can be used multiple times in a day. Lake
Minnewashta boaters will proceed to launch within the park. There will be card key access for emergency
medical personnel, law enforcement, fire department personnel, sanitation and maintenance workers and
so forth.
Mr. Shneider explained the process will basically work the same for lakeshore homeowners as it will for
day-use visitors that access the launch ramp to put their boats into the water. Part of the project includes
exploring options that would cover most special situations unique to “home lake” boaters. Special
situations could include boats taken off-site for maintenance, boats removed for maintenance at the
landing, boats put in before the start up of the inspection process and so forth. There will likely be lake
“stewards” who would be “anointed” for access overrides for special circumstances for home lake boats.
He displayed a graphic showing the proposed traffic flow and physical access controls at the Christmas
Lake boat launch. He noted there is a need for directional signs and stripping on the pavement.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 9 of 15
Mr. Shneider reviewed the potential funding and funding sources for the Christmas Lake access control. It
will cost up to $20,000 (this is a non-negotiated initial quote). Funding will come from the MCWD and
be supplemented by the Christmas Lake HOA. The cost for purchase and installing of traffic control
signage, parking lot stripping and the installation of electricity for the control is anticipated to cost $250 –
$1,000 and the request is for the City to provide this funding. Staffing inspection costs at the Lake
th
Minnewashta Regional Park central inspection location are anticipated to be up to $10,500 from July 25
th
to September 6. Funding will come from the MCWD, the Christmas Lake HOA, the Lake Minnewashta
Preservation Association, the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization, and DNR inspection grants. Lotus
Lake volunteers will provide additional inspection help for high volume time slots. Communications will
be handled through the MCWD. The control access for Lotus Lake is anticipated to cost up to $16,000
with the funding hopefully coming from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD). Site improvements at that site will hopefully be funded by the City of Chanhassen.
Mr. Shneider asked the City to express its support for the pilot project, authorize the installation of the
access control gate at the Christmas Lake boat launch, provide access to electricity for the gate, and
provide directional signage and parking lot striping.
Mayor Lizée thanked all of those in the audience for coming this evening. She stated a week ago there
was a meeting with staff from the City, the City of Chanhassen, the MCWD, the RPBCWD, the DNR,
various other organizations and residents to discuss the pilot project. She applauded the effort that has
been expended by the citizens to date on this project. She stated one of the questions raised during that
meeting was if there is the legal authority to install a control access gate at the Christmas Lake boat
launch. The question was not answered. She asked Attorney Keane to comment on that, noting that Keane
has spoken with Lewis Smith from the MCWD.
Attorney Keane stated he would like to know what comments DNR representatives had to offer during the
meeting last week about management and logistics. Mayor Lizée stated she didn’t recall anything definite
being stated. Administrator Heck stated it’s his recollection there wasn’t any one present from the DNR
who was working with the cities on the landings. Heck then stated the City of Chanhassen received an
email from the DNR stating it preferred not to have the public accesses gated.
Mr. Shneider stated the DNR does have lakes with controls on them. Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
has controls on it. He then stated the consistent answer he and others have received back from the DNR is
the owner and operator of the property has the ability to do what it needs to do. He noted that the DNR in
principal doesn’t like anything that gets in the way of free and unfettered access to lakes. He stated the
question is whether or not the DNR wants to support stopping the spread of AIS through more than just
education.
Attorney Keane stated ultimately the DNR is going to be the decider of first and last resort. The DNR has
the authority to delegate inspections to local units of government. The City and the MCWD are local units
of government; the lake associations are not. The City has an agreement with the DNR. He recommended
that people start with Metro Region Waters and describe the initiative and the various associations, and
that the local units of governments that are willing to assist and participate in funding and executing the
plan. But, there needs to be an amended agreement which could be limited to a pilot program. The
premise of the DNR is that it promotes access to public waters.
Attorney Keane then stated that during his conversation with Mr. Smith, a water law expert with the
MCWD, Mr. Smith related there is a growing recognition by the DNR that the control of AIS is a
challenge for the DNR and local units of government, and that organizations will have to think about
doing things regarding access to lakes in ways they would not have considered in the past. The focus is
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 10 of 15
now about transferring AIS between bodies of water. The DNR does understand that informational
programs alone have not been successful in stopping the spread of AIS. He also related that Mr. Lewis
indicated the DNR may be a receptive audience and suggested a conversation with the DNR be initiated
immediately. Keane stated the City needs to be involved in those discussions from the beginning.
Mr. Shneider stated discussions with the DNR have already begun. He commented that if the state
st
government shuts down on July 1 there will not be an opportunity for a pilot program this summer. He
noted that Mr. Evenson has had a number of conversations with the DNR, and that there is an AIS
th
stakeholder meeting scheduled with the DNR on June 30. He stated based on what’s happened to date he
doesn’t anticipate any speedy resolution with the DNR.
Attorney Keane stated the City does not have the authority to act unilaterally. The authority rests with the
DNR. There is an existing agreement in place between the City and the DNR. The delegation of further
authority from to the City to implement access control and inspection would have to come from the DNR.
Mr. Shneider stated the 1986 agreement talks about the operation of the Christmas Lake boat launch
being the City’s with the most important parts being how many parking spots there are for vehicles and
trailers and the hours of operation. Keane stated his reading of 103G is program inspections may be
delegated by the DNR to local units of government and that’s what’s being discussed.
Mr. Shneider stated it sounds as if Attorney Keane has moved from installing a control access gate to a
program of inspections. The program of inspections from a DNR funding perspective is being run through
the MCWD using DNR trained inspectors.
Mayor Lizée asked if it’s the proposed control access gate that is the issue for the DNR because it
believes it would impede access to Christmas Lake. She stated she thought the inspection part of the pilot
program was not an issue.
Attorney Keane stated an inspection by definition is an impairment of that access to state waters. The
DNR has written into state law that inspection programs may be delegated by agreement to local units of
government. He interprets that to mean the City doesn’t do that unilaterally. Mr. Shneider stated the City
is not going to be driving the inspections.
Attorney Keane asked Mr. Shneider if the City of Chanhassen has weighed in on the subject with regard
to Lotus Lake. Mr. Shneider explained the Mayor of Chanhassen is not excited about installing an access
control gate at Lotus Lake; he would like to see another approach used. Chanhassen is not driving the
central inspection portion of the pilot project at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. The AIS stakeholder
group is working with the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association, a group of homeowners, and that
Association has grants from the DNR and the DNR will be doing the inspections at Lake Minnewashta.
He stated there is no delegation from his perspective.
Councilmember Zerby stated the new AIS state law gives a conservation officer or a licensed peace
officer the right to prevent a boat from entering state waters if there is a refusal for inspection or if there
watercraft or trailer have AIS on them. Also, service providers can apply for permission to have similar
authority.
Attorney Keane invited Mr. Evenson to join this conversation because of his experience with infested
waters.
Councilmember Siakel applauded the efforts of the lakefront property owners in being action oriented.
She commented that she has lived next to Lake Minnetonka for close to 30 years. She expressed
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 11 of 15
disappointment that more hasn’t been done to mitigate Eurasian Watermilfoil and to stop the infestation
of zebra mussels. She expressed concern about other species of AIS that could also infest the Lake. She
stated she thought people need to totally rethink the way lakes and natural resources are used. She also
stated the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board has had conversations about how the
boat launches on the Lake are used. The LMCD supported the new AIS legislation. She indicated she
thought the AIS stakeholders group could become a little more active with the LMCD. She recommended
there be a coordinated voice that engages the state senators and state representatives to convey the
concerns and requests of the residents. With regard to the boat launch at Christmas Lake, the City
provided resources to put in the parking lot and the boat launch; it has jurisdiction over that. She related
the DNR has told her that the money to do that came from the state and federal government. Because of
that it may not be possible to control access because of where the money came from. She stated she
supports a pilot project yet she wants to be sure there is the legal recourse to do what’s proposed.
Mr. Evenson also applauded the efforts of the Christmas Lake HOA, the Lake Minnewashta Preservation
Association, the Lotus Lake HOA and in particular Mr. Shneider’ efforts. He stated that too often
government bodies tend not to take advantage of the skill levels of people outside of government. He
commented that he had attended a Christmas Lake HOA meeting and during that meeting he felt like he
was an intern at a Fortune 500 company. Being able to take advantage of the HOA’s willingness to move
the pilot project forward is a great opportunity for the community.
Mr. Evenson cited an issue the City took on some time ago; the project was about controlling the sale of
phosphorous fertilizer. He stated it’s his believe that the Christmas Lake HOA is looking for similar
leadership from the City regard stopping the spread of AIS. He commented laws are made by men and
men can change laws. Contracts are written by men and men can change contracts. He stated if some
action is not taken on this proposed pilot project soon the opportunity for doing it this summer will be
lost. He then stated he wanted to have the opportunity and he wanted his nephews and nieces to have the
opportunity to walk on the sand beaches on local lakes barefoot. He also stated he applauded the LMCD
for bringing the issue of AIS to the forefront. He went on to state that he failed as an administrator in his
job and as a public servant because he did not get the AIS issue before the MCWD Board until a few
years ago.
Mr. Evenson stated this evening it’s his understanding that the lake associations are looking for
acknowledgement of support from the City. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now
about stopping the spread of AIS. He explained that early in the year when conversations first came up
with the DNR about controlled access the DNR’s position was absolutely no. The DNR’s position has
softened. The DNR may entertain doing that if people wanting to access the lake won’t be significantly
impeded. He noted Christmas Lake is the highest quality lake in the MCWD’s jurisdiction, and
potentially in the entire metropolitan area. He stated if something isn’t done to protect that lake we’ve
failed.
Mayor Lizée stated this evening Council has the opportunity to voice its support for this pilot project. If
Council can agree to support the idea of a control access gate at the Christmas Lake boat launch then the
DNR needs to be contacted tomorrow to ask how to make that happen. The willing parties have stepped
up to the plate. Inspectors have been trained by the DNR.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she grew up next to Lake Minnetonka. She then stated she sees this effort
as a David and Goliath uprising. The government failed to listen before when people expressed concern
about the possible infestation of Lake Minnetonka and other lakes. Government agencies need to be
shocked into changing their way of thinking; Minnesota nice is not working in this instance. She thanked
Mr. Shneider for his presentation and she thanked all parties involved for their efforts to date.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 12 of 15
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought there would be other groups wanting to express a vote of
opposition for the pilot project. For example, the fishing lobbyists are very powerful voice in this state.
She asked if possible obstacles should be discussed, if they haven’t already.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the LMCD has repeatedly discussed controlling the spread of AIS with
other agencies. The LMCD discussed controlling access a number of times over the last few years. The
response from various levels in the DNR was always that couldn’t be allowed on public waters in the
State. He expressed he thought the pilot project is a great idea. But, Council may not have the authority to
decide to have controlled access at the Christmas Lake boat launch. He expressed concern that the DNR
may overrule a Council decision to that. He stated the DNR is changing its position, but that took a couple
of years. He clarified he is not advocating waiting a couple of years to do this pilot project. He stated from
his vantage point he does not think the approach should be to decide to do the project and then tell the
DNR what’s going to happen.
Councilmember Zerby stated he does think this effort needs to start at the grass roots. The City and this
Council needs to take a leadership position. He expressed his support for the project. He stated he thought
the control access gate solution proposed could be simplified some. There could potentially be a single
gate for both the entrance and exit points. He then stated he thought the idea of having one inspection
location for the three lakes is a great idea.
Councilmember Siakel asked if Council is being asked to simply express its support for the pilot project.
Mayor Lizée stated Council needs to express its support for the project to move this along.
Mayor Lizée stated during the meeting held last week the concerns about angry fisherman and people
who bought bait were raised. She then stated if people wait for every question to be answered future
generations will be still be talking about this. She suggested this is the time for Council to take action. She
stated those involved in this effort to date have shown a lot of leadership and have gotten different groups
to collaborate. She suggested this evening Council show its support for the pilot project and the
installation of the control access gate at the Christmas Lake boat launch, and agree to provide the funding
for access to electricity, directional signs and parking lot striping.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City has the authority to install the access control gate.
Mayor Lizée recommended the City/Council make the first move. If support is agreed to this evening then
the DNR can be contacted tomorrow. Lizée asked for a motion of support for the pilot project, the
installation of the gates and authorizing City support as needed.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, expressing support for the proposed pilot project to prevent the
infestation of AIS in ChristmasLake, Lotus Lake and Lake Minnewashta; the installation of a
control access gate at the Christmas Lake boat launch, and providing City support as needed for
controlling access to Christmas Lake.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the motion doesn’t include authorizing funding for portions of the
project. Mayor Lizée stated Council discussed providing the electrical service, the directional signs and
striping the parking lot.
Without objection from the seconder the maker amended it to include authorizing the expenditure
of funds up to $1,000 for providing electrical service, purchasing and installing directional signs,
and striping the parking lot. Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 13 of 15
Mayor Lizée recessed the meeting at 9:10 P.M.
Mayor Lizée reconvened the meeting at 9:17 P.M.
B. Water Connection Fee
Administrator Heck stated Council has discussed the City’s water connection fee several times during his
tenure with the City. He noted the fee is not an assessment for the extension of water main underneath a
roadway. It’s for a property owner who wants to connect to municipal water when there is already a stub
installed near their property. The property may not have previously been assessed for the installation of
the water main. A property owner has asked the City to lower its connection fee. That property owner was
not assessed for the water main extension when it was done because the property fronted the side street;
the property across the street was. The individual, Mr. Price, now wants to connect to municipal water. He
has paid the $10,000 fee. Mr. Price asked that his fee be reduced.
Heck reviewed three situations for connecting to municipal water in the City. They are: 1) new
connection with new service; 2) new connection to existing service where an assessment has been paid;
and, 3) new connection to existing service where no assessment has been paid. He noted there isn’t
consensus among staff about what the fee should be.
Councilmember Siakel asked why this is not being discussed during a work session like she had
previously requested. She stated she thought this is too lengthy of a discussion to have during a regular
Council meeting. She noted a staff report dated February 4, 2010, on the history of the water connection
fee was placed on the dais before Councilmember’s this evening and she has not had an opportunity to
read it. She noted she is not prepared to act one way or another on this item this evening and she
recommended it be discussed during a future work session.
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, placing the topic of the City’s water connection fee on a future
work session agenda sometime during the next two months.
Councilmember Woodruff stated this will have an impact on the Enterprise Water Fund so it has a
budgetary impact. It should be discussed before the enterprise budgets for 2012 are discussed.
Councilmember Zerby requested Council be provided with more historical information.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she has a list of questions she would like answers to.
Mayor Lizée asked the Councilmembers to forward their questions to Administrator Heck.
Councilmember Siakel stated during a previous Council discussion on this item the topic of connection to
other cities’ water systems was brought up. If that’s the case she would like to know what the cost is to
hook up to those systems. Administrator Heck stated he has been discussing with staff from Tonka Bay
how the City could potentially do more water operations with Tonka Bay.
Motion passed 5/0.
C. Community Survey Request for Proposal
Administrator Heck stated previous councils discussed the possibility of conducting a comprehensive
residential survey. This Council discussed the same idea during the strategic planning sessions held
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 14 of 15
earlier in the year. Staff has provided Council with a representative list of survey questions it compiled
from surveys other municipalities had done. He noted the meeting packet includes a copy of a request for
proposal (RFP) for purchasing the services to conduct such a survey for the City. There has been a lot of
discussion by many cities in the City Managers Group talking about the ten items identified if the Office
of the State Auditor’s performance measures. Staff is seeking Council’s permission to issue the RFP.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing staff to issue a request for proposal for conducting a
comprehensive residential survey for the City.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the RFP states the results of the survey are to produce a result with a
margin of error no greater than plus or minus 5 percent. He suggested the base number be included and
that the base number be either 90 percent or 95 percent. He also suggested the responders supply a list of
what they expect the Shorewood staff to do.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she supports the idea of doing a survey. She requested Staff provide more
information about the RFP process that will be used. She suggested Staff contract other cities that have
had a successful experience with conducting surveys. She asked Staff to ask for references from firms
who submit RFP responses. She also asked if the City can become more involved with the League of
Minnesota Cities’ (LMC) process for defining questions to measure performance.
Administrator Heck stated he RFP in the meeting packet is modeled around those used by a few other
cities. He commented that there are a couple of primary consultants that cities and schools use. He noted
he will contact other cities for information.
Councilmember Hotvet recommended the RFP be clarified to specify that more than one survey
methodology can be used. She suggested the RFP specify a goal for the number of residents it will survey
and the minimum number of responses it must be obtain. She reiterated respondents should be asked to
provide references.
Motion passed 5/0.
11. OLD BUSINESS
None.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck stated the Ospreys are back in their nest on the radio tower and have hatched babies.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has adopted its 2012 budget and the City’s share of funding
is going down slightly for 2012. Xcel Energy conducted a street light audit in the City and it determined it
owes the City $640 for over billing the City for a couple of street lights. The South Lake Minnetonka
Police Department Coordinating Committee held a budget work session earlier in the day. There is a
th
meeting scheduled for June 30 with representatives from the City, Mound and Minnetrista to talk about a
funding formula for the aquatic invasive treatment costs for Phelps Bay. The Lake Minnetonka
Association has provided him with information about contributions to date (city and resident) and the
length of Lake Minnetonka Phelps Bay shoreline in each of the three cities. He noted the Shorewood
residents with Phelps Bay lakefront property have contributed more than anyone. He stated at this time he
is not willing to commit more City funding for that treatment.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2011
Page 15 of 15
Director Brown stated the renovation of Lift Stations 15 and 17 is basically complete. He then stated that
th
for its July 11 meeting Council will be provided with the results of the inspection of the Southeast Area
Water Tower for warranty work. Vine Hill Road has been milled and preparations are being made to
overlay it.
1. Monthly Financial Report
Director DeJong stated a copy of the May 2012 Monthly Budget Report is included in the meeting packet.
He noted the City has received about 52 percent of its budgeted revenue through the first five months of
the year; that’s primarily because the budget base was lowered. The city received its first property tax
payment. Expenditures are about 37.2 percent; that’s higher than for the same period last year but still on
track.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Woodruff thanked Director Brown and the Public Works Department for their efforts and
their work with the contractor on the rehabilitation of the Lift Station. Lift Station 15 is absolutely
beautiful.
Woodruff highlighted the recent League of Minnesota Cities’ (LMC) annual conference which he
attended the previous week. Officers were elected. The LMC dues will remain the same for 2012. There
was an all day session about how to ask police and fire chiefs the right questions. Everyone who attended
thought it was excellent. It was somewhat like a review of best practices for public safety. A 2011 law
summary was made available and he provided Administrator Heck with a copy of it. There was a session
that primarily centered on tax increment financing. There was a session on economic development during
which developers explained they are working to meet the market not make it, that office development
may never recover, and that they don’t like tax increment financing.
Councilmember Zerby encouraged people to come and enjoy the Fourth of July activities in the City of
Excelsior. The South Lake – Excelsior Chamber of Commerce is coordinating the event. Mayor Lizée
stated there is still a need for volunteers that day.
13. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 27, 2011,
at 9:44 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 July 11, 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 51876 through
51934 totaling $490,036.18.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
7/07/2011 12:06 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 6/28/2011 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 7/05/2011 000000 11,867.93
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 7/05/2011 000000 2,160.91
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 7/05/2011 000000 1,092.39
00086 AFSCME COUNCIL 5 R 7/05/2011 051876 305.92
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 7/05/2011 051877 1,561.00
16625 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS R 7/05/2011 051878 32.00
00052 PERA R 7/05/2011 051879 7,155.24
1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 7/05/2011 051881 781.26
29342 SAGA HILL EVENTS R 7/11/2011 051882 90.00
29342 SAGA HILL EVENTS R 7/11/2011 051883 60.00
29342 SAGA HILL EVENTS R 7/11/2011 051884 60.00
00700 ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP R 7/11/2011 051885 3,106.16
29306 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 R 7/11/2011 051886 13,840.20
16275 AMERICAN MESSAGING R 7/11/2011 051887 6.38
02860 BARNES DISTRIBUTION R 7/11/2011 051888 154.48
29395 BOORSMA MASONRY, INC. R 7/11/2011 051889 7,830.00
17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 7/11/2011 051890 248.13
07600 CITY OF EXCELSIOR R 7/11/2011 051891 7,879.70
18100 CITY OF MOUND R 7/11/2011 051892 6,109.50
05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 7/11/2011 051893 71.87
29271 DREW KRIESEL R 7/11/2011 051894 1,963.00
02000 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. R 7/11/2011 051895 282.47
7/07/2011 12:06 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 6/28/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
07653 EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT R 7/11/2011 051896 145,847.55
08370 FREEMAN, CHRISTINE A. R 7/11/2011 051897 3,795.00
08712 G & K SERVICES R 7/11/2011 051898 1,063.46
08760 GAME TIME R 7/11/2011 051899 14,093.12
29397 HAALA INDUSTRIES, INC. R 7/11/2011 051900 2,014.59
29151 HENN CTY -OFFICE OF CTY ASSESS R 7/11/2011 051901 46,258.95
11650 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED R 7/11/2011 051902 1,204.50
12575 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC R 7/11/2011 051903 139.48
22300 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. R 7/11/2011 051904 1,277.74
29259 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP R 7/11/2011 051905 1,850.00
15176 MENARDS R 7/11/2011 051906 27.69
15501 METRO COUNCIL ENV.(SAC) R 7/11/2011 051907 2,207.70
1 METRO GARAGE DOOR CO R 7/11/2011 051908 308.95
16280 MINGER CONSTRUCTION, INC. R 7/11/2011 051909 19,970.80
29280 MINNESOTA ZOOMOBILE R 7/11/2011 051910 300.00
17260 MUNICIPAL CLERKS & FIN OFFICER R 7/11/2011 051911 70.00
19750 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO R 7/11/2011 051912 42.90
15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 7/11/2011 051913 104.48
29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 7/11/2011 051914 777.02
15000 PAETEC R 7/11/2011 051915 527.31
20950 POTTS, KENNETH N. R 7/11/2011 051916 2,546.66
26100 QWEST R 7/11/2011 051917 324.17
7/07/2011 12:06 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 6/28/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
22347 RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. R 7/11/2011 051918 336.00
22981 SIGN SOURCE, INC. R 7/11/2011 051919 14,359.50
29339 SKEIE, PAT R 7/11/2011 051920 300.00
23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 7/11/2011 051921 57,880.31
29335 SPORTS UNLIMITED R 7/11/2011 051922 664.00
23772 THE GARDEN PATCH R 7/11/2011 051923 128.55
25000 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES R 7/11/2011 051924 1,287.25
29398 TRUGREEN #5640 R 7/11/2011 051925 225.29
25452 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC R 7/11/2011 051926 165.00
70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 7/11/2011 051927 216.87
22901 VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC R 7/11/2011 051929 214.55
83900 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN R 7/11/2011 051930 512.24
27580 WESTONKA SEWER & WATER R 7/11/2011 051931 6,183.35
19800 XCEL ENERGY R 7/11/2011 051932 10,832.65
29290 INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY R 7/11/2011 051934 263.40
01000 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC E 7/11/2011 999999 68.10
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 7/11/2011 999999 9,409.62
06572 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA D 7/01/2011 999999 681.23
07900 HAWKINS, INC. E 7/11/2011 999999 55.00
09400 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 7/11/2011 999999 507.50
10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 7/11/2011 999999 74.00
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. E 7/11/2011 999999 375.70
7/07/2011 12:06 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 5
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 6/28/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
18500 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. E 7/11/2011 999999 16,319.14
19445 NGUYEN, MICHELLE E 7/11/2011 999999 89.76
20268 PANCHYSHYN, JEAN E 7/11/2011 999999 120.00
23725 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC E 7/11/2011 999999 3,604.47
27590 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E 7/11/2011 999999 17.10
29232 HECK, BRIAN E 7/11/2011 999999 93.25
* * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED
REGULAR CHECKS: 56 389,858.34 0.00 389,858.34
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 4 15,802.46 0.00 15,802.46
EFT: 12 30,733.64 0.00 30,733.64
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: 72 436,394.44 0.00 436,394.44
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 72 436,394.44 0.00 436,394.44
REPORT TOTALS: 75 436,394.44 0.00 436,394.44
07-07-2011 11:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JULY 11, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP 7/11/11 CASH/INV RECONCILIATION General Fund Finance 3,106.16_
TOTAL: 3,106.16
ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC 7/11/11 3RD QTR SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 68.10_
TOTAL: 68.10
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 7/11/11 SVC 05/15-06/15 General Fund Municipal Buildings 74.00_
TOTAL: 74.00
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 305.92_
TOTAL: 305.92
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 7/11/11 RECYCLING Recycling Utility Recycling 13,840.20_
TOTAL: 13,840.20
AMERICAN MESSAGING 7/11/11 612-534-3975 & 612-818-591 General Fund Public Works 3.20
7/11/11 612-534-3975 & 612-818-591 Water Utility Water 1.59
7/11/11 612-534-3975 & 612-818-591 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1.59_
TOTAL: 6.38
BARNES DISTRIBUTION 7/11/11 HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 154.48_
TOTAL: 154.48
BOORSMA MASONRY, INC. 7/11/11 2ND HALF PYMT ON PARK SIGN Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 6,980.00
7/11/11 CAPSTONES ON TOP Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 850.00_
TOTAL: 7,830.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 7/11/11 5755 CTRY CLUB RD General Fund Municipal Buildings 25.85
7/11/11 24200 SMITHTOWN RD General Fund Public Works 87.07
7/11/11 5745 CTRY CLB RD & 2520 HW General Fund Parks & Recreation 32.42
7/11/11 20630 MANOR RD-WARMING HOU General Fund Parks & Recreation 15.55
7/11/11 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 41.81
7/11/11 20405 KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD Water Utility Water 22.71
7/11/11 28125 BOULDER BRIDGE DR Water Utility Water 22.72_
TOTAL: 248.13
CITY OF EXCELSIOR 7/11/11 QUARTER SANITARY SEWER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 7,879.70_
TOTAL: 7,879.70
CITY OF MOUND 7/11/11 QUARTERLY FIRE SVC & PROTE General Fund Fire Protection 6,109.50_
TOTAL: 6,109.50
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 7/11/11 PARK COORDINATOR SERVICES General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,025.00
7/11/11 QUARTERLY COMMISSION SVCS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 3,536.62
7/11/11 QUARTERLY SSCC SERVICES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 3,750.00
7/11/11 SSCC ASSISTANT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 98.00_
TOTAL: 9,409.62
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 7/11/11 DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 71.87_
TOTAL: 71.87
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 7/01/11 MONTHLY DENTIST PREMIUM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 681.23_
TOTAL: 681.23
DREW KRIESEL 7/11/11 CONTRACT SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 529.00
7/11/11 GENERAL SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 84.00
07-07-2011 11:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JULY 11, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
7/11/11 SUPPLIES RENTAL Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 290.00
7/11/11 CONTRACT SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 530.00
7/11/11 SUPPLIES RENTAL Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 530.00_
TOTAL: 1,963.00
EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. 7/11/11 STOP SIGNS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 282.47_
TOTAL: 282.47
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 7/05/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,018.66
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,162.93
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 746.72
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 272.51
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 63.73
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 429.30
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 100.39
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 265.06
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 61.98
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 273.59
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 63.98
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 211.32
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 49.42
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 168.49
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 39.41
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 350.61
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 81.99
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 268.12
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 62.70
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 4.85
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 1.14
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 37.79
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 8.85
7/05/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 245.57
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 57.43
7/05/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 44.45
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 10.41
7/05/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 182.48
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 42.68
7/05/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 243.12
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 56.85
7/05/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 20.75
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 4.86
7/05/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 174.89
7/05/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 40.90_
TOTAL: 11,867.93
EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT 7/11/11 OPERATIONS General Fund Fire Protection 78,173.18
7/11/11 BUILDINGS General Fund Fire Protection 67,674.37_
TOTAL: 145,847.55
FREEMAN, CHRISTINE A. 7/11/11 CC MTG JAN-JUN General Fund General Government 3,795.00_
TOTAL: 3,795.00
G & K SERVICES 7/11/11 CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 126.68
7/11/11 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 887.20
7/11/11 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 49.58_
TOTAL: 1,063.46
07-07-2011 11:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JULY 11, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
GAME TIME 7/11/11 FREEMAN PARK-CIP Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 14,093.12_
TOTAL: 14,093.12
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 7/11/11 JUN SVC Water Utility Water 253.75
7/11/11 JUN SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 253.75_
TOTAL: 507.50
HAALA INDUSTRIES, INC. 7/11/11 ENERGY DISSIPATOR Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,014.59_
TOTAL: 2,014.59
HAWKINS, INC. 7/11/11 CHLORINE Water Utility Water 55.00_
TOTAL: 55.00
HECK, BRIAN 7/11/11 CELL General Fund Administration 79.99
7/11/11 MILEAGE General Fund Administration 13.26_
TOTAL: 93.25
HENN CTY -OFFICE OF CTY ASSESSOR 7/11/11 2011-2ND HALF SESSESSMENT General Fund Professional Svcs 46,258.95_
TOTAL: 46,258.95
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,435.96
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 125.04_
TOTAL: 1,561.00
INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY 7/11/11 SSCC-ANNUA MONITORING Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 263.40_
TOTAL: 263.40
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 7/11/11 RON JOHNSON LITIGATION General Fund Professional Svcs 1,204.50_
TOTAL: 1,204.50
LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC 7/11/11 GLOVES Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 139.48_
TOTAL: 139.48
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 7/11/11 OILS General Fund Public Works 691.04
7/11/11 OIL General Fund Public Works 64.84
7/11/11 OILS General Fund Public Works 521.86_
TOTAL: 1,277.74
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 7/11/11 APR-GEN MATTERS-RETAINER General Fund Professional Svcs 1,850.00_
TOTAL: 1,850.00
MENARDS 7/11/11 PART General Fund Parks & Recreation 27.69_
TOTAL: 27.69
METRO COUNCIL ENV.(SAC) 7/11/11 JUN SAC REPORT Sanitary Sewer Uti NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,207.70_
TOTAL: 2,207.70
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 7/11/11 JUL NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 375.70_
TOTAL: 375.70
MINGER CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7/11/11 PV#2-LS#15 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 10,636.92
7/11/11 PV#3-LS#17 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 9,333.88_
TOTAL: 19,970.80
MINNESOTA ZOOMOBILE 7/11/11 EVENT 07/22/11 @ FREEMAN P General Fund Parks & Recreation 300.00_
TOTAL: 300.00
07-07-2011 11:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JULY 11, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
MISC. VENDOR METRO GARAGE DOOR CO 7/11/11 METRO GARAGE DOOR CO:INV20 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 308.95_
TOTAL: 308.95
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 7/05/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,160.91_
TOTAL: 2,160.91
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 7/05/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32.00_
TOTAL: 32.00
MUNICIPAL CLERKS & FIN OFFICERS ASSN O 7/11/11 2011-2012- JEAN PANCHYSHYN General Fund General Government 35.00
7/11/11 2011-2012 - TWILA GROUT General Fund General Government 35.00_
TOTAL: 70.00
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 7/11/11 JUN MILEAGE General Fund Finance 89.76_
TOTAL: 89.76
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO 7/11/11 SPRAY TANK General Fund Streets & Roadways 42.90_
TOTAL: 42.90
OFFICE DEPOT 7/11/11 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 22.50
7/11/11 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 52.86
7/11/11 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 29.12_
TOTAL: 104.48
ON SITE SANITATION INC 7/11/11 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
7/11/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
7/11/11 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13
7/11/11 MANOR PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
7/11/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
7/11/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
7/11/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13
7/11/11 BIRCH BLUFF ROAD General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96_
TOTAL: 777.02
PAETEC 7/11/11 952-474-6543 & 952-474-655 General Fund Municipal Buildings 135.86
7/11/11 952-474-7603 - 24200 SMTWN General Fund Public Works 46.90
7/11/11 952-401-1616 & 1620 & 1630 General Fund Parks & Recreation 145.60
7/11/11 952-401-0461 & 952-470-960 Water Utility Water 98.70
7/11/11 952-470-9197 & 952-474-175 Water Utility Water 100.25_
TOTAL: 527.31
PANCHYSHYN, JEAN 7/11/11 APR - JUN WELLNESS REIM General Fund General Government 120.00_
TOTAL: 120.00
PERA 7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,312.61
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 328.72
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 503.10
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 320.67
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 351.97
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 275.37
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 197.66
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 385.89
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 322.50
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 5.89
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 44.62
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 311.39
07-07-2011 11:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JULY 11, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 51.98
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 222.05
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 291.93
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 24.29
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 204.60_
TOTAL: 7,155.24
POTTS, KENNETH N. 7/11/11 MONTHLY PROSECUTION SVC General Fund Professional Svcs 2,291.66
7/11/11 JOSHUA MAKS FORFEITURE General Fund Police Protection 255.00_
TOTAL: 2,546.66
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 7/05/11 LIFE INSURANCE General Fund Unallocated Expenses 781.26_
TOTAL: 781.26
QWEST 7/11/11 952-470-6340 General Fund Municipal Buildings 120.73
7/11/11 952-470-2294 General Fund Public Works 56.98
7/11/11 952-470-9605 Water Utility Water 73.23
7/11/11 952-470-9606 Water Utility Water 73.23_
TOTAL: 324.17
RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. 7/11/11 BRUSHES DISPOSAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 336.00_
TOTAL: 336.00
SAGA HILL EVENTS 7/11/11 GENERAL MILL EVENT-06/24 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 60.00
7/11/11 GENERAL MILL EVENT-06/24 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 60.00
7/11/11 GENERAL MILL SVC- 06/24/11 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 90.00_
TOTAL: 210.00
SIGN SOURCE, INC. 7/11/11 SIGN PARK MONUMENT Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 14,359.50_
TOTAL: 14,359.50
SKEIE, PAT 7/11/11 04/25-06/27 - COUNCIL VIDE General Fund General Government 300.00_
TOTAL: 300.00
SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 7/11/11 QUARTERLY LEASE PAYMENT General Fund Police Protection 57,517.00
7/11/11 HENN CTY PROCESSING FEE General Fund Police Protection 363.31_
TOTAL: 57,880.31
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 7/11/11 GAS 05/25-06/21 General Fund Public Works 3,604.47_
TOTAL: 3,604.47
SPORTS UNLIMITED 7/11/11 JUN 27-JUL 1 -- SKATEBOARD General Fund Parks & Recreation 664.00_
TOTAL: 664.00
THE GARDEN PATCH 7/11/11 BAILS STRAW General Fund Parks & Recreation 42.86
7/11/11 BAILS STRAW General Fund Parks & Recreation 85.69_
TOTAL: 128.55
TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 7/11/11 JUL NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 1,089.69
7/11/11 DEER FEEDING BAN-POSTCARDS General Fund Planning 197.56_
TOTAL: 1,287.25
TRUGREEN #5640 7/11/11 HERBICDE APP General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 225.29_
TOTAL: 225.29
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 7/11/11 COLIFORM BACTERIAS Water Utility Water 65.00
07-07-2011 11:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JULY 11, 2011 PAGE: 6
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
7/11/11 COLIFORM BACTERIAS Water Utility Water 100.00_
TOTAL: 165.00
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/11/11 612-219-7048 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-219-8781 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-219-9107 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-219-9222 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-219-9760 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-219-9829 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.85
7/11/11 612-240-0609 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-240-1106 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-240-1168 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-240-2820 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-240-3229 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-240-3404 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.85
7/11/11 612-240-4501 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.29
7/11/11 612-240-4524 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 15.67
7/11/11 612-247-7142 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.31_
TOTAL: 216.87
VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC 7/11/11 TREE REMOVAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 214.55_
TOTAL: 214.55
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 7/11/11 24200 SMITHTOWN RD WASTE S General Fund Public Works 359.49
7/11/11 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD WASTE Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 152.75_
TOTAL: 512.24
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
7/05/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 1,092.39
WESTONKA SEWER & WATER 7/11/11 DRINKING FOUNTAIN @ MANOR Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 6,183.35_
TOTAL: 6,183.35
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 7/11/11 FARM General Fund Public Works 17.10_
TOTAL: 17.10
WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. 7/11/11 BLACKTOP General Fund Streets & Roadways 16,319.14_
TOTAL: 16,319.14
XCEL ENERGY 7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 General Fund Municipal Buildings 416.42
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 General Fund Police Protection 3.64
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 General Fund Public Works 370.96
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 25.39
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 3,249.65
7/11/11 5700 CTY RD 19 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 33.76
7/11/11 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 162.97
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 General Fund Parks & Recreation 382.16
7/11/11 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 820.50
7/11/11 24253 SMITHTOWN ROAD Water Utility Water 1,374.61
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 Water Utility Water 399.02
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 Water Utility Water 905.40
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 Water Utility Water 2,068.08
7/11/11 SVC 04/28-06/09 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 620.09_
TOTAL: 10,832.65
07-07-2011 11:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-JULY 11, 2011 PAGE: 7
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 7/05/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Administration 4,534.06
General Fund General Government 6,939.39
General Fund Finance 4,423.10
General Fund Planning 4,854.86
General Fund Protective Inspections 3,798.11
General Fund City Engineer 2,726.27
General Fund Public Works 5,962.50
General Fund Streets & Roadways 4,448.32
General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 81.21
General Fund Tree Maintenance 615.45
General Fund Parks & Recreation 4,294.97
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 716.97
Water Utility Water 3,062.68
Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 4,026.81
Recycling Utility Recycling 334.90
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,822.14_
TOTAL: 53,641.74
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 371,037.80
402 Park Capital Improvements 42,465.97
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 12,018.42
601 Water Utility 9,123.18
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 35,908.69
621 Recycling Utility 14,225.00
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 5,257.12
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 490,036.18
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 7
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
2011 Authorize Expenditure of Funds for disposal of Street Sweep
Title / Subject:
spoils
Meeting Date: 7/11/11
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments:
Policy Consideration:
Shorewood Staff swept the City streets in 2011 which collected approximately 800
Background:
tons of waste material. Quotes were received for the 2011 Street Sweeping Spoils Disposal
Project which were opened and tabulated on June 29, 2011.
The specifications were sent to seven firms, inviting them to quote the project. We received a
quote from Midwest Asphalt and a quote from Metro Gravel. Midwest Asphalt provided the
lowest quote in the amount of $25,600. Midwest Asphalt has successfully worked with the City
on projects for the past four years.
This project will be funded by the Streets and Roadway Fund
Financial or Budget Considerations:
which budgeted $30,000 and the stormwater management fund which budgeted $50,000 for
contractual services which includes the disposal of street sweeping spoils.
Options:
1.Direct staff to work with Midwest Asphalt for this project for a not to exceed $25,600.
2.Direct staff to utilize Metro Gravel.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends working with Midwest Asphalt for the 2011
Street Sweeping Spoils Disposal not to exceed $25,600.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sweeping the streets removes phosphorous from the stormwater
system before it reaches the Lakes providing a healthy environment.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Accepting Low Quote & Awarding Contract for Pavement Marking
Title / Subject:
Meeting Date: 7/11/11
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: map
Policy Consideration:
Quotes were opened for the 2011 Pavement Marking Project on June 29, 2011. A
Background:
request to quote was sent to 5 paint striping firms. Three responded.
In 2011 we are striping 65,013 linear feet of street, nine intersections and miscellaneous
crosswalks. This is more striping than in 2010 due to the sealcoat project and Greenwood
request. The striping is needed due to the existing paint wearing off or other road maintenance
projects removing/covering the stripes. The Greenwood request costs $300.00 and includes
stop bars and stripe narrowing of Suburban Drive – St. Albans Bay Road intersection.
The low quoter is Twin City Striping in the amount of $13,517.77. Sir Lines a Lot quoted
$13,788.10 and AAA Striping quoted $16,778.48.
This project will be funded by the Streets & Roadways
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Operating Budget which has $30,000 budgeted for contractual services in 2011.
Options:
1.Direct staff to work with Twin City Striping.
2.Direct staff to utilize a different quoter.
3.Do nothing. Leaves the road stripes in poor condition.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the contract for the 2011 Pavement Markings
be awarded to Twin City Striping in the amount of $13,517.77.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission: Maintaining the road stripe provides the residents with a 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
#3D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accept Final Improvements East Water Tower, City Project 05-04
Meeting Date: July 11, 2011
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution
Policy Consideration:
None.
Background:
nd
On September 22, 2008, the Shorewood City Council awarded the contract to sandblast,
perform structural improvements, and paint the east water tower, located at 5500 Old Market
Road, to the firm of Classic Protective Coatings.
The subject contract included a two year warranty inspection of all of the coatings which
included both exterior and interior areas. Inspections performed documented that there were
a few very minor coating areas that required touch up. These were completed by the
contractor, immediately after the inspection.
Councilmembers who “lived through this project” may recall questions surrounding whether
the paint coating system applied had properly cured, due to the unusually cold temperatures
that were experienced during this project. These types of “coating systems” are very
complicated and consist of three and five layers (depending upon use and location) of various
chemical make-ups. Despite the fact that these are put into use when they have reached a
specific cure point, they continue to cure through all the various layers over time. Therefore,
insuring that all of the layers have reached a proper cure point is critical to insuring that the
coating system will provide the anticipated service life specified.
Due to the questions surrounding the cure, it was determined that the coatings had reached a
point where they could be put into service, however, paint samples would be retrieved as part
of the warranty inspection and forwarded to an independent testing facility, to determine if this
coating met the specifications and had cured properly in the underlying layers.
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
It was known at that time that that type of analysis would take an extra amount of time.
Hence, while the warranty inspection was completed one month prior to warranty expiration
date, staff and those involved have been anxiously awaiting the results of the testing for the
coatings.
Staff is pleased to report that the lab results indicate that that coating has thoroughly cured.
Therefore acceptance of the final improvements may proceed.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
This project has no impact to the current budget, as payment was completed when the project was
completed.
A financial summary of the project is as follows:
Original Contract Amount: $378,000.00
Change Order 1 – Add temporary heat for cure due to temperatures: $ 4,951.13
Total: $382,951.13
Options:
1. Approve the attached Resolution that accepts the final improvements.
2.Take no action on the Resolution and provide alternate direction to Staff.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
1.Approve the attached Resolution that accepts the final improvements.
Next Steps and Timelines:
No further action is required, if approved.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
To provide safe and adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of the community.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO 11-039
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EAST WATER TOWER REHABILITATION
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 05-04
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood has entered into a contract with Classic
Protective Coatings. for City Project No. 05-04, for the East Water Tower Rehabilitation
Project; and,
WHEREAS
, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project and
final payment based on work performed to date; and,
WHEREAS
, the Director of Public Works has made a final inspection of the
project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The City hereby does accept the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes
the return of the warranty bond.
th
ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 11 day of
July, 2011.
____________________________________
CHRISTINE LIZÉE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________________
BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Electrical Regulations Ordinance and Contract for Services
Meeting Date: 11 July 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk; Joe Pazandak, Building Official
Attachments: 1) Draft Ordinance; 2) Draft Resolution; and 3) Draft Contract
Background: Electrical permits are currently issued by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry,
and inspected by a State contracted electrical inspector. The shutdown of the State government will
temporarily terminate electrical permit issuance and inspections. Minnesota Statutes permit political
subdivisions to issue permits and perform inspection when authorized by ordinance. The proposed
ordinance permits issuance and inspections of electrical permits and provides for permit fees. The attached
resolution authorizes staff to publish a summary of the ordinance in the official newspaper.
Arrangements have been made with our current contract inspector to continue with City electrical
inspections. An Agreement for Electrical Inspector Services is attached hereto and is being reviewed by the
City Attorney. This agreement is the one used by the inspector for the other cities with whom he contracts.
Permits will be issued and inspection results recorded through our existing permit system. Staff intent is to
return to use of State issued permits and inspections once the shutdown has been resolved.
Financial or Budget Considerations: There will be a small expense for publishing the summary
ordinance and codifying the ordinance in 2012. Staff time processing the electrical permits will be minimal.
Our arrangement with the electrical inspector (he is the same person we use through the State) is he takes
75% of the permit fee, we keep 25%. While we do not view this as an important source of revenue, it
should easily cover our costs for administration. On our end we will simply receive and record the
applications and forward to the inspector. He schedules his own inspections.
Options: 1) Approval of the Draft Ordinance and Resolution as provided; or 2)Do not approve the
temporary ordinance and let all projects involving electrical work (most of them) stall out until the State of
Minnesota comes to its senses.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the attached Ordinance Amending Title 1000 of the
Shorewood City Code Relating to Electrical Regulations; and Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Summary
Publication of said Ordinance.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon approval, the Ordinance Amendment will be published in the legal
section of the local paper and be effective upon publication.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing quality public services. We have already discussed this with a
couple of electrical contractors. They are extremely pleased that we are considering this, which will allow
them to continue working.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. 477
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1000
OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CONCERNING
ELECTRICAL REGULATIONS
Section 1.
Title 1000 of the Shorewood City Code is amended by adding Chapter 1006 to
provide as follows:
“CHAPTER 1006
ELECTRICAL REGULATIONS
Section
1006.01 Purpose; Application of this Section
1006.02 Electrical Inspector, Qualifications and Appointment
1006.03 Standards for Electrical Equipment Installation
1006.04 Connections to Installations
1006.05 Permits and Inspectors
1006.01 PURPOSE; APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION.
Subd. 1. The purpose of this Section is to implement the provisions of the Minnesota State
Building Code and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1315 which adopts the National
Electrical Code.
Subd. 2. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all installations of electrical
conductors, fittings, devices, fixtures hereinafter referred to as "electrical
equipment", within or on public and private buildings and premises, with the
following general exceptions. The provisions of this Section do not apply to the
installations in mines, ships, railway cars, aircraft, automotive equipment or the
installations or equipment employed by a railway, electric or communication
utility in the exercise of its functions as a utility, except as otherwise provided in
this Section.
Subd. 3. As used in this Section, "reasonably safe to persons and property" as applied to
electrical installations and electrical equipment means safe to use in the service
for which the installation or equipment is intended without unnecessary hazard to
life, limb or property.
Subd. 4. For purposes of interpretation of the provisions of this Section, the most recently
published edition of the National Electrical Code shall be prima facie evidence of
the definitions and scope of words and terms used in this Section.
1006.02 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT.
Subd. 1. Creation; Qualifications:There is hereby created the office of Electrical
Inspector. The person chosen to fill the office of Electrical Inspector shall be of
good moral character, shall be possessed of such executive ability as is requisite
for the performance of the Inspector’s duties and shall have a thorough knowledge
of the standard materials and methods used in the installation of electrical
equipment; shall be well versed in approved methods of construction for safety to
persons and property; the statutes of the State relating to electrical work and any
orders, rules and regulations issued by authority thereof; and the National
Electrical Code as approved by the American Standards Association; shall have
two (2) years' experience as an electrical inspector or five (5) years' experience in
the installation of electrical equipment, or a graduate mechanical or electrical
engineer with two (2) years of practical electrical experience.
a. Licensed Inspector. The electrical inspector shall be a licensed master or
journeymen electrician as defined under Minnesota Statutes.
b. Duties of the Electrical Inspector. It shall be the duty of the Inspector to
enforce the provisions of this Section. The Inspector shall, upon
application, grant permits for the installation or alteration of electrical
equipment, and shall make inspections of electrical installations, all as
provided in this Section. The Inspector shall keep complete records of all
permits issued, inspections and reinsertions made and other official work
performed in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
c. No Financial Interest. It shall be unlawful for the Inspector to engage in
the sale, installation or maintenance of electrical equipment, directly or
indirectly, and the Inspector shall have no financial interest in any concern
engaged in any such business.
d. Authority of Electrical Inspector. The Inspector shall have the right
during reasonable hours to enter any building or premises in the discharge
of the Inspector’s official duties, or for the purpose of making any
inspection, reinsertion or test of electrical equipment contained therein or
its installation. When any electrical equipment is found by the Inspector
to be dangerous to persons or property because it is defective or
defectively installed, the person responsible for the electrical equipment
shall be notified in writing and shall make any changes or repairs required
in the judgment of the Inspector to place such equipment in safe condition.
If such work is not completed within fifteen (15) days or any longer period
that may be specified by the Inspector in said notice, the Inspector shall
have the authority to disconnect or order discontinuance of electrical
service to said electrical equipment. In cases of emergency where
necessary for safety to persons and property, or where electrical
equipment may interfere with the work of the Fire Department, the
Inspector shall have the authority to disconnect or cause disconnection
immediately of any electrical equipment.
1006.03. STANDARDS FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
Subd. 1. All installations of electrical equipment shall be reasonably safe to persons and
property and in conformity with the provisions of this Section and the applicable
statutes of the State and all orders, rules and regulations issued by the authority
thereof. All electrical equipment shall be listed and labeled by a testing agency.
Subd. 2. Conformity of installations of electrical equipment with applicable regulations set
forth in the current National Electrical Code as adopted by the Minnesota Rules
shall be prima facie evidence that such installations are reasonably safe to persons
and property. Noncompliance with the provisions of this Section or the National
Electrical Code as adopted by the Minnesota Rules shall be prima facie evidence
that the installation is not reasonably safe to persons and property.
Subd. 3. The Electrical Inspector may, with approval of the Building Official, authorize
installations of special wiring methods other than herein provided for.
Subd. 4. Buildings or structures moved from without to within and within the limits of the
City shall conform to all of the requirements of this Code for new buildings or
structures.
Subd. 5. Existing buildings or structures hereafter changed in use shall conform in all
respects to the requirements of this Code for the new use.
1006.04. CONNECTIONS TO INSTALLATIONS
Subd. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to make connections from a supply of
electricity to any electrical equipment for the installation of which a permit is
required or which has been disconnected or ordered to be disconnected by the
Electrical Inspector.
Subd. 2. The public or private utility providing services shall disconnect the same upon a
written order from the Electrical Inspector, if the Inspector considers any
electrical installation unsafe to life and property or installed contrary to this Code.
1006.05 Permits and Inspectors
Subd. 1. Permit Required. An electrical permit is required for each installation, alteration,
addition or repair of electrical work for light, heat and power within the limits of
the City. Permits for the installation of electrical work in new structures shall only
be issued to electrical contractors duly licensed by the State. Permits for the
installation, alteration, addition or repair of electrical work in existing structures
shall only be issued to electrical contractors duly licensed by the State or to
resident owners of property where the work is to be done.
Subd. 2. Public Service Corporation Exception. No permit shall be required for electrical
installations of equipment owned, leased, operated or maintained by a public
service corporation which is used by said corporation in the performance of its
function as a utility, except that such electrical installation shall conform to the
minimum standards of the National Electrical Safety Code.
.
Subd.3. OwnershipOwnership of any transmission or distribution lines or appurtenances
thereto, including, but not limited to, transformers, shall not be transferred by a
public service corporation to any person, except another franchised public service
corporation dealing in electric energy for distribution and sale, without a permit
first having been issued therefore by the City. Such permit shall be issued only
after the facilities to be transferred have been inspected and approved as provided
in this Section and upon payment of an inspection fee as set forth in this Section
of the Section.
Subd. 4. Application and Plans. Application for such permit, describing the electrical
work to be done, shall be made in writing, to the City by the person so registered
to do such work. The application shall be accompanied by such plans,
specifications and schedules as may be necessary to determine whether the
electrical installation as described will be in conformity with all the legal
requirements. The fees for electrical inspection as set forth in this Section shall
accompany such application. If applicant has complied with all of the provisions
of this Section, a permit for such electrical installation shall be issued.
Subd. 5. Concealment. All electrical installations which involve the concealment of wiring
or equipment shall have a "rough-in" inspection prior to concealment, wherein the
Inspector shall be duly notified in advance, excluding Saturday, Sunday and
holidays.
Subd. 6. Inspection Fees.
a. Permits Required. Before commencing any installation of any work
regulated by this Section, a permit therefore shall be secured from the
Building Department and the fee for such permit paid. The fess schedule
set forth in Minnesota Statutes § 326B.37 is adopted by reference and
incorporated herein. No such permit shall be issued to do any of the work
or make any installation regulated by this Section except to persons
licensed to do such work under the terms of this Section. Holders of a
contractor's license shall not obtain permits for electrical work unless the
work is supervised by them and is performed by workers employed by
them or their firm.
b. Fees Double. When: Should any person begin work of any kind, such as
set forth in this Section, or for which a permit from the Electrical Inspector
is required by ordinance, without having secured the necessary permit
therefore from the Inspector of Buildings either previous to or during the
day of the commencement of any such work, or on the next succeeding
day where such work is commenced on a Saturday or on a Sunday or a
holiday, that person shall, when subsequently securing such permit, be
required to pay double the fees provided for such permit.
c. Additional Fees and/or Shortages. Additional fees and/or fee shortages
must be received by the City within fourteen (14) days of written notice.
If additional fees and/or fee shortages are not received within fourteen
(14) days of notice, permits for electrical installations will not be accepted
by the City until such time as the additional fees and/or fee shortages are
received.
Subd.7. Electrical Inspections.
a.At regular intervals, the Electrical Inspector shall visit all premises where
work may be done under annual permits and shall inspect all electrical
equipment installed under such a permit since the day of the last previous
inspection, and shall issue a certificate of approval for such work as is
found to be in conformity with the provisions of this Section, after the fee
required has been paid.
b.When any electrical equipment is to be hidden from view by the
permanent placement of parts of the building, the person installing the
equipment shall notify the Electrical Inspector and such equipment shall
not be concealed until it has been inspected and approved by the Electrical
Inspector or until twenty four (24) hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays
and holidays, shall have elapsed from the time of such scheduled
inspection; provided, that on large installations where the concealment of
equipment proceeds continuously, the person installing the electrical
equipment shall give the Electrical Inspector due notice and inspections
shall be made periodically during the progress of the work.
c.If upon inspection, the installation is not found to be fully in conformity
with the provisions of this Section, the Electrical Inspector shall at once
forward to the person making the installation a written notice stating the
defects which have been found to exist.”
Section 2
. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official
Newspaper of the City of Shorewood.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 11th day of
July, 2011.
CHRISTINE LIZÉE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 477 BY TITLE ANDSUMMARY
WHEREAS,
on 11 July 2011, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted
Ordinance No. 477 entitled “An Ordinance Amending Title 1000 of the Shorewood City Code
Concerning Electrical Regulations”;
WHEREAS,
the City staff has prepared a summary of Ordinance No. 477 as follows:
1.Chapter 1006 Electrical Regulations has been added to Title 1000 of the Shorewood
City Code.
2. Chapter 1006 permits the issuance and inspections of electrical permits and provides
for permit fees, in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code and Minnesota
Rules Chapter 1315 which adopts the National Electrical code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD:
1. The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. 477
clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance.
2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. 477 by title and summary,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4.
3.A full copy of the Ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the city
website.
ADOPTED
by the Shorewood City Council on this 11th day of July 2011.
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
made this _______ day of ___________________, 2011, by and between the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD,____________________
a Minnesota municipal corporation ("CITY") and
____________________,
a Minnesota corporation("CONTRACTOR").
IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES
AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Contractor's Duties.
1. The Contractor, who is not a CITY employee, will perform the following duties:
Geographical Area.
1.1 Upon request of the CITY, CONTRACTOR will provide electrical inspection
service in the City of Shorewood.
Communications/Scheduling.
1.2 CONTRACTOR will provide a mechanism for installers of electrical
wiring to schedule inspections and to receive answers to electrical code questions specific to installations
within the CITY. The CONTRACTOR will provide service to the extent necessary to meet reasonable
expectation of installers of wiring within the CITY.
Records.
1.3 CONTRACTOR will maintain a written record regarding all Requests for Electrical
Inspection documents assigned to the CONTRACTOR by the CITY, including the following minimum
information:
1) Date Request for Inspection was received from CITY;
2) Request for Inspection serial number;
3) Installer/Contractor;
4) Occupant's name;
5) City;
6) County;
7) Job description;
8) Rough-in and periodic inspection date(s);
9) Final inspection date;
10) Inspection fee;
11) Date Orders for Payment written, including serial number;
12) Date Inspection Reports written; and
13) Date Request for Inspection was returned to CITY for payment.
Inspection Service.
1.4 CONTRACTOR will provide inspection service in the CITY that result in timely
inspections.
1.4.1 Within the term of this contract, CONTRACTOR will perform and complete electrical
inspections of all completed work covered by Requests for Electrical Inspection submitted by installers
and assigned by the CITY.
1.4.1.1 CONTRACTOR will perform electrical inspections as requested and scheduled by installers of
electrical wiring.
1
1.4.1.2 Inspection of completed or "ready now" installations shall be performed within 60 days from
the date of notification by the installer.
1.4.2 CONTRACTOR will notify the installer of electrical wiring neither less the 30 days nor more
than 60 days prior to the expiration of a Request for Electrical Inspection in accordance with the
Minnesota Rules 3801.3780.
Procedure.
1.5 CONTRACTOR will perform inspections upon request of the installer after a Request for
Electrical Inspection has been filed with the CITY, when the electrical contractor or installer provides
evidence that a Request for Electrical Inspection has been submitted to the CITY, or when the installer of the
wiring completes a Request for Electrical Inspection form and presents it and the associated inspection fee to
CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR must forward any fees collected from installers of electrical wiring to the
CITY within one business day of receipt. In performing inspections, CONTRACTOR will comply with all
applicable requirements in the Minnesota Electrical Act (Minn. Stat. § 326B.31 to 326B.399 and the
requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapter 3801.
Thoroughness.
1.6 CONTRACTOR will determine whether all electrical wiring installed under a
Request for Electrical Inspection is in compliance with the applicable standards identified in Minn. Stat.
Chapter 326B and the requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapter 3801.
Inspection Fee Audit.
1.7 CONTRACTOR will audit each submitted fee as the inspection is performed
to ensure that the fee submitted by the installer is in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 326B.37, Fee Schedule.
Where it is identified that the submitted fee is less than required, the CONTRACTOR will issue an Order for
Payment to the submitter of the fee. CONTRACTOR will forward copies of the Order for Payment forms to
the installer, electrical area representative, and CITY in a timely manner.
Where it is identified that the submitted fee is more than required, CONTRACTOR will complete a special
instruction form directing the CITY to issue a refund to the submitter of the fee.
Evidence of Inspection.
1.8 CONTRACTOR will make notation on the Request for Electrical Inspection
identifying the date the inspections were performed and will provide a report to the CITY upon termination
of the contract by either party or at the end of the contract term identifying inspections performed on specific
Requests for Electrical Inspection. CONTRACTOR will place inspection stickers at the job site as evidence
of completed or partially completed inspections. The inspection sticker will be completed with the Request
for Electrical Inspection number or job address, date of inspection, type of inspection (rough-in, service,
bonding, air conditioner, furnace, lower level, machine, final, etc.), number and type of circuits and signed
by the electrical inspector. The inspector shall also identify the contract number of the CONTRACTOR on
the inspection sticker. For the purpose of providing uniform and consistent evidence to owners, installers,
other crafts, and other inspection authorities, inspection stickers will be placed as follows:
1.8.1 Dwellings:
1.8.1.1 Rough-in and in-progress inspections. At least one inspection sticker will be placed in the
switch box nearest the main entry to a dwelling unit or portion of a dwelling unit where the wiring is
installed.
1.8.1.2 Service inspections. Inspection stickers will be placed in the interior of service equipment for
separate service inspections.
2
1.8.1.3 Final inspections. Inspection stickers for final inspections will be placed on the service
equipment and each panel board. In finished areas the inspection sticker will be placed behind a panel
door or inside the panel board to protect the sticker from physical damage or from being obliterated.
1.8.2 Other than dwellings:
1.8.2.1 Rough-in and in-progress inspections. Inspection stickers will be placed in a switchbox nearest
the area that each separate inspection is made and in or on the service equipment or panel board that
serves that area.
1.8.2.2 Service inspections. Inspection stickers will be placed on the exterior of indoor/protected
equipment and on the interior of outdoor/nonprotected equipment.
1.8.2.3 Final inspections. Inspection stickers will be placed on the service equipment and/or panel
board that supplies the area inspected.
1.8.3 One-time or single-circuit/device inspections. Inspection stickers will be placed at the first over
current device or disconnecting means from which the circuit is extended.
Documentation and Notification Requirements for Installations not in Code Compliance.
1.9
1.9.1 Inspection reports. CONTRACTOR will identify installations recognized as not in compliance
with the National Electrical Code or Minnesota Rules on an Inspection Report form along with a brief
description of the violation and the reference section number. Where permitted by Minn. Stat. § 326B.36,
CONTRACTOR will allow reasonable opportunity from the date of the inspection for correction of
violations. CONTRACTOR will provide the Inspection Report to the installer of the electrical wiring,
attach a copy to the Request for Electrical Inspection and forward a copy to the district electrical area
representative, in accordance with the notation on the respective copies.
1.9.2 Correction Orders. CONTRACTOR will forward a complete report to the CITY when an
installer fails or refuses to make corrections identified on an inspection report.
The CITY will proceed to have the installation brought into compliance in accordance with the
procedures identified in Minn. Stat. § 326B.36 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 3801.
1.9.3 Hazardous Installations. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 326B.36 and Minnesota Rules
CONTRACTOR will, upon recognition of an installation that seriously and proximately endangers human
life and property, immediately notify the CITY and the serving utility.
1.9.4 Approved Equipment. CONTRACTOR will provide a written report to the CITY identifying the
location, equipment, and approval information where equipment that is listed and labeled or otherwise
approved is subsequently identified by CONTRACTOR as being in non-compliance with applicable
standards.
1.9.5 Equipment Approval. CONTRACTOR will report in writing to the installer, owner, and CITY
all equipment that is not listed and labeled by a testing laboratory and that does not come within one of
the exceptions in Minnesota Rule Chapter 3801.
1.9.6 Forms. CONTRACTOR will use only those forms provided or specifically approved by the
CITY, including computer generated forms, when communicating deficiencies with installers, owners,
and electrical area representatives.
3
CONTRACTOR Equipment and Materials.
1.10
1.10.1 Equipment. CONTRACTOR is responsible for providing all equipment and tools necessary to
perform a thorough inspection. CONTRACTOR is responsible for providing and arranging necessary
transportation to complete inspections. CITY will provide an identification badge. In the interest of public
safety, CONTRACTOR must display the identification badge to installers, owners, lessees, and others
when performing duties covered by this contract. CONTRACTOR must ensure the badge is clearly
visible to all persons from a reasonable distance.
1.10.2 Materials. Request for Electrical Inspection forms, Order for Payment forms, Inspection Report
forms, Expiration forms, and inspection stickers, are provided by the CITY in an approved format in
accordance with Minn. Stat. § 326B.36 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 3801. CONTRACTOR is
responsible for providing other materials necessary to provide complete inspection service and perform
CONTRACTOR's duties under this Contract.
1.10.3 Return of Equipment and Materials. Upon nonrenewal or termination of this contract, the
CONTRACTOR must immediately return to the CITY all equipment, forms, and materials provided by
the CITY, including any Request for Electrical Inspection certificates assigned to the CONTRACTOR.
Enforcement of License and Inspection Requirements.
1.11 For all electrical work that CONTRACTOR
is aware of and that is performed within CONTRACTOR's CITY, CONTRACTOR will determine whether
the work is performed in compliance with the provisions of the licensing and inspection requirements of the
Minnesota Electrical Act and Minnesota Rules Chapter 3801. When CONTRACTOR identifies a violation
of the Minnesota Electrical Act or Minnesota Rules Chapter 3801, CONTRACTOR will promptly provide a
written report to the CITY on a form provided by the CITY. Investigative fees related to violation of statutes
and rules regarding electrical inspection are not valid unless CONTRACTOR has submitted a violation
report to the CITY.
Time.
2. The CONTRACTOR must comply with all the time requirements described in this contract. In the
performance of this contract, time is of the essence.
Consideration and Payment.
3.
Consideration.
3.1 The CITY will pay for all services performed by the CONTRACTOR under this
contract as follows:
3.1.1 Compensation. The CONTRACTOR will be paid a percentage of the electrical inspection fees
for each separate completed electrical installation. Electrical inspection fees are calculated in accordance
with Minn. Stat. § 326B.37. The CONTRACTOR will be paid seventy-five percent (75%) of the
electrical inspection fees.
3.1.2 Travel Expenses. The CITY will not reimburse any travel or subsistence expenses as a result of
this contract.
Payment.
3.2.
3.2.1 Definitions.
3.2.1.1 Validated fee. For the purposes of clause 3.2 of this contract, the term "validated fee" means
the inspection fee submitted by the installer of electrical wiring that is evidenced by the validation
4
information recorded by the CITY on a Request for Electrical Inspection or Order for Payment
certificate.
3.2.1.2. Remaining balance. For the purposes of clause 3.2 of this contract, the term "remaining
balance" on a Request for Electrical Inspection certificate shall mean the original validated fee less any
amount(s) invoiced by the CONTRACTOR and any prior inspector(s) before the CITY applies the
compensation percentage identified in clause 3.1.1 or the compensation percentage paid to the prior
inspector(s). In all cases, the remaining balance shall not be less than the minimum inspection fee
identified in the fee schedule the validated fee was based on.
3.2.2 Invoices. The CITY will promptly pay the CONTRACTOR after the CONTRACTOR presents
an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the CITY's Authorized Representative accepts
the invoiced services. Invoices submitted by CONTRACTOR shall be based on the validated fee of the
Request for Electrical Inspection certificate less any previously invoiced amount. The CITY will apply
the compensation percentage identified in clause 3.1.1 and pay CONTRACTOR the resulting amount.
Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule:
CONTRACTOR may submit up to two invoices per month as determined by the CONTRACTOR.
Invoices must have corresponding completed Request for Electrical Inspection and Order for Payment
certificates attached. The CITY will make payments within 35 days of receipt of invoice.
CONTRACTOR may submit invoices for in-progress work on projects with an inspection fee of over
$500 and where the project is more than 6 months in duration and requires more than 5 inspection trips.
In-progress invoices shall not exceed the percentage of inspection work completed and shall not result in
a remaining balance of less than the minimum inspection fee identified in Minn. Stat. § 326B.37.
3.2.3 Payment Upon Amendment, Expiration or Termination of the Contract. Prorated payments for
inspection service on installations where all required inspections have not been completed will be made
according to the following schedule. No payments will be made where on-site inspections have not been
performed.
3.2.3.3 Request for Electrical Inspection certificates with inspection fees based on Minn. Stat. §
326B.37.
One- and two-family dwellings: One-half of the individual dwelling unit fee identified in Minn. Stat. §
326B.37, or one-half of the remaining balance left after considering invoices from other inspectors
under previous contract(s) but before considering any invoice from the CONTRACTOR. In no case
shall the remaining balance after considering the CONTRACTOR's invoice be less than $35.
Other installations: A prorated amount of the validated fee, including any Orders for Payment, based
on the percentage of actual electrical work completed and inspected and the total number of inspection
trips required. Unless the CONTRACTOR provides documentation substantiating a lesser amount, the
remaining balance must not be less than 25% of the total inspection fee. In no case shall the remaining
balance be less than $35.
3.2.3.4 Final Invoice
Within 5 days of amendment, expiration or termination of this contract, CONTRACTOR must provide
the CITY with two final invoices for payment of services performed.
5
The first final invoice must list all Requests for Electrical Inspection and Order for Payment
certificates in the possession of the CONTRACTOR under which CONTRACTOR has performed
inspections including the amount of the requested payment.
The second final invoice must list all Requests for Electrical Inspection and Order for Payment
certificates not in possession of the CONTRACTOR regardless of whether the certificates have been
filed with the CITY or the installer has paid the Order for Payment. This invoice must identify the
Request for Electrical Inspection and Order for Payment certificates by serial number, job address and
occupant name, name and license number of contractor, or name, address, and telephone number of the
installer of the electrical wiring and the amount of the requested payment.
Conditions of Payment.
4. All services provided by the CONTRACTOR under this contract must be
performed to the CITY's satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the CITY's Authorized
Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and
regulations. The CONTRACTOR will not receive payment for work found by the CITY to be unsatisfactory or
performed in violation of federal, state, or local law.
Audit of Services Provided By CONTRACTOR.
4.1 The CITY reserves the right to conduct on-site
audits of inspection services provided by the CONTRACTOR to verify that inspection service has been
provided in accordance with the terms of this contract and to the satisfaction of the CITY. The inspection
records of the CONTRACTOR are subject to audit by the CITY to ensure completeness and accuracy. The
CONTRACTOR shall cooperate with these audits and shall provide requested documentation regarding
specific inspections.
Authorized Representative.
5. The CONTRACTOR's Authorized Representative is ___________________
_________________________________________. If the CONTRACTOR's Authorized Representative changes
at any time during this contract, the CONTRACTOR must immediately notify the CITY.
Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete.
6.
Assignment.
6.1 The CONTRACTOR may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this
contract without the prior consent of the CITY and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and
approved by the same parties who executed and approved this contract, or their successors in office.
Amendments.
6.2 Any amendment to this contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has
been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their
successors in office.
Waiver.
6.3 If the CITY fails to enforce any provision of this contract, that failure does not waive the
provision or its right to enforce it.
Contract Complete.
6.4 This contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the CITY and
the CONTRACTOR. No other understanding regarding this contract, whether written or oral, may be used to
bind either party.
Liability.
7. The CONTRACTOR must indemnify, save, and hold the CITY, its agents, and employees
harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney's fees incurred by the CITY, arising from the
performance of this contract by the CONTRACTOR or the CONTRACTOR's agents or employees. This clause
will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the CONTRACTOR may have for the CITY's failure to fulfill its
obligations under this contract.
6
Audits.
8. Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, Subd. 5, the CONTRACTOR's books, records, documents, and
accounting procedures and practices relevant to this contract are subject to examination by the CITY and/or the
State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this contract.
Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property.
9.
Government Data Practices.
9.1 The CONTRACTOR and CITY must comply with the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, (or, if the CITY contracting party is part of the judicial
branch, with the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota
Supreme Court as the same may be amended from time to time) as it applies to all data provided by the
CITY under this contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained,
or disseminated by the CONTRACTOR under this contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply
to the release of the data governed by the Minnesota Government Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, by either
the CONTRACTOR or the CITY.
If the CONTRACTOR receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the CONTRACTOR
must immediately notify the CITY. The CITY will give the CONTRACTOR instructions concerning the
release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released.
Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue.
10. Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions,
governs this contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate
state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Carver County, Minnesota.
Data Disclosure.
11. Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3 and other applicable law, the Contractor consents to
disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax
identification number, already provided to the CITY, to federal and state agencies and state personnel involved in
the payment of CITY obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and
state laws which could result in action requiring the Contractor to file state tax returns, pay delinquent state tax
liabilities, if any, or pay other CITY liabilities.
Payment to Subcontractors.
12. (If applicable) As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, the prime contractor
must pay all subcontractors, less any retain, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment
from the CITY for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one
and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid
on time to the subcontractor(s).
Personnel performing electrical inspections.
13. All electrical inspections under this contract will be
personally performed by CONTRACTOR, __________________, a licensed Class A Master electrician, license
number __________.
Minn. Stat. § 181.59.
14. The vendor will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires:
Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, CITY, town, township, school,
school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain
provisions by which the contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the
performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor,
shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the
United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the
employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate
against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this
section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of
7
work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a
misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, CITY, town,
school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to
become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or
conditions of this contract.
Insurance.
15. CONTRACTOR shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect CONTRACTOR from
claims under the Worker's Compensation Acts, automobile liability, and from claims for bodily injury, death, or
property damage which may arise from the performance of services under this Agreement. Such insurance shall be
written for amounts not less than:
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Excess/Umbrella Liability $2,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate
The CITY shall be named as an additional insured on the general liability and umbrella policies.
The CONTRACTOR shall secure and maintain a professional liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure
payment of damages for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the CITY, in the
insured's capacity as CONTRACTOR, if such legal liability is caused by a negligent act, error or omission of the
insured or any person or organization for which the insured is legally liable. The policy shall provide minimum limits
of $1,000,000 with a deductible maximum of $100,000.
Before commencing work the CONTRACTOR shall provide the CITY a certificate of insurance evidencing the
required insurance coverage in a form acceptable to CITY.
Independent Contractor.
16. The CITY hereby retains the CONTRACTOR as an independent contractor upon the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR is not an employee of the CITY and is free to
contract with other entities as provided herein. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for selecting the means and
methods of performing the work. CONTRACTOR shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment, and incidentals
necessary for CONTRACTOR's performance under this Agreement. CITY and CONTRACTOR agree that
CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that CONTRACTOR or any of CONTRACTOR's
agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be exclusively
responsible under this Agreement for CONTRACTOR's own FICA payments, workers compensation payments,
unemployment compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such payments,
amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation.
Entire Agreement.
17. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral
agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous
agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments,
deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly
signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein.
Controlling Law/Venue.
18. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Minnesota. In the event of litigation, the exclusive venue shall be in the District Court of the State of
Minnesota for Carver County
8
Copyright.
19.CONTRACTOR shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or
patent by reason of the use or adoption of any designs, drawings or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold
harmless the CITY from loss or damage resulting there from.
Patented Devices, Materials and Processes.
20. If the contract requires, or the CONTRACTOR desires, the
use of any design, devise, material or process covered by letters, patent or copyright, trademark or trade name, the
CONTRACTOR shall provide for such use by suitable legal agreement with the patentee or owner and a copy of
said agreement shall be filed with the CITY. If no such agreement is made or filed as noted, the CONTRACTOR
shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any
such patented designed, device, material or process, or any trademark or trade name or copyright in connection
with the services agreed to be performed under the contract, and shall indemnify and defend the CITY for any
costs, liability, expenses and attorney's fees that result from any such infringement.
Termination of the Agreement.
21.The CITY may terminate this Agreement or any part thereof at any time,
upon written notice to the CONTRACTOR, effective upon delivery including delivery by facsimile or email. In
such event, CONTRACTOR will be entitled to compensation for work performed up to the date of termination
based upon the payment terms of this Agreement.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CONTRACTOR:
BY: ______________________________ _________________________________
Mayor
Dated: ______________________, 2011. BY: ______________________________
Its
AND: ____________________________
City Administrator
Dated: ______________________, 2011. Dated: ______________________, 2011.
9
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Christmas Lake AIS Prevention Pilot Project
Meeting Date: Monday, July 11, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Tim Keane, City Attorney
Attachments: Resolution 11-041
Policy Consideration: Should the Council support a managed access at the Christmas Lake public boat
launch to prevent the spread of AIS?
Background: The Council heard a presentation from the Christmas Lake Association (CLA) at their June
27, 2011 meeting where the CLA requested support and authorization to install an electronic gate and
other measures at the landing to prevent boats from entering the lake without first undergoing an
inspection for AIS, specifically zebra mussels, which are in Lake Minnetonka.
The Council passed a motion supporting the pilot program including the installation of a gate to restrict
access to the lake. Following the meeting, the City Attorney raised concerns regarding the City’s
authority to allow such a device at the landing without first gaining approval from the DNR and
obtaining an amendment to the current agreement.
With that in mind, staff worked with the City Attorney to draft the attached Resolution where the City
provides its support for the pilot program, authorizes the installation of an entrance gate and signage,
authorizes staff to work with the MCWD and DNR to amend the current agreement to allow installation
of a landing control gate, and supports and authorizes the CLA to conduct inspections of watercraft by
DNR certified inspectors.
Financial or Budget Considerations: the city would be responsible to purchase and install the signage,
entry gate, and pavement striping. Once an amended agreement is approved, the MCWD and CLA would
provide funding to install the landing control gate.
Options:
1.Approve the Resolution as drafted;
2.Deny the Resolution as drafted;
3.Approve an amended Resolution;
4.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommends the Council approve the attached
resolution.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Next Steps and Timelines: if approved by Council, staff will begin the process to purchase and install
the entry gate and make the necessary arrangements for the locking an unlocking of the entry gate, and
make contact with the DNR as soon as the State Budget is approved and staff return to work so an
amendment to the agreement can be worked out.
Connection to Vision / Mission: A healthy environment and attractive ameneties.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-041
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PILOT PROJECT
AT CHRISTMAS LAKE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
WHEREAS
, Zebra Mussels were found in Lake Minnetonka in 2010; and
WHEREAS
, the Christmas Lake Association (CLA) developed a plan for a pilot project
to minimize the spread of Zebra Mussels and other AIS; and
WHEREAS
, it is in the best interest of the City, Lakeshore Owners, and general public,
to prevent the spread of Zebra Mussels and other AIS; and
WHEREAS
, the CLA met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD),
Minnesota Waters, Lotus Lake Association, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, and others to
go over their plan; and
WHEREAS
, the CLA, LLA, and MLA received funds from the DNR to provide on-site
watercraft inspections; and
WHEREAS
, to make best use of the funds, the Lake Associations proposed the Pilot
Project; and
WHEREAS
, the pilot project consists of centralized watercraft inspection and
unattended, electronic gates at the landings to Christmas and Lotus Lakes; and
WHEREAS
, the CLA and MCWD have committed to cover the cost for the purchase
and installation of an electronic gate for the Christmas Lake landing; and
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood operates the Christmas Lake Landing on behalf of
the DNR through an Agreement; and
WHEREAS
, the Agreement with the DNR requires the boat landing to remain open
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. each day during the boating season; and
WHEREAS
, the CLA has requested the City of Shorewood’s support for the pilot
project including the installation of the gate; and
WHEREAS
, the MCWD monitoring of Lake Minnetonka discovered wider and more
rapid spread of zebra mussels than previously known as referenced in the Minneapolis
StarTribune of July 6, 2011; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood that:
1.The Council supports the CLA in their efforts to prevent and minimize the spread of
zebra mussels and other AIS to Christmas Lake.
2.The City Council authorizes staff to purchase and install a control gate at the entrance of
the parking area that will prevent access between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. and
to purchase and install directional signage and pavement striping to assist in directing the
proper flow of traffic at the boat launch.
3.The City Council directs and authorizes staff to work with the MCWD and the DNR on
an amendment to the current Agreement to allow for the installation of a controlled
access at the boat landing.
4.The City Council authorizes the CLA to implement an onsite inspection program at the
landing during all open hours and to take all reasonable measures, including turning boats
away, to prevent the spread of AIS, specifically zebra mussels.
5.The Council authorizes the installation of such a device upon successful amendment to
the Agreement and upon development of the central inspection site as described in the
CLA pilot project.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 11th
day of July, 2011.
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk