Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-22-11 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
C. B. A. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 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, August 8, 2011 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 8, 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. Authorizing Submittal of the Three Rivers Park District Regional Trail Deputy Clerk’s System 2011--2012 Winter Use Permit memo 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Excelsior Fire District 2012 CIP and Operating Budget EFD CIP & Budget B. Jeff Casale report on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board activities 7. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Badger Park Warming House Rehabilitation CRR memo 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. Deer Feeding Ban Draft Ordinance Planning Director’s memo, Ordinance CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – AUGUST 22, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Attachments 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Waterford Pond Planting Plan Engineer’s memo B. Otta Seal for Enchanted Point Road Engineer’s memo 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Rental Housing Code Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Private Well Administrator’s Drinking Water Testing memo, Ordinance B. Ordinance Regarding Background Checks for Employment and Licenses Deputy Clerk’s memo, Ordinance C. Southshore Community Center Administrator’s memo D. Request for Proposals – Community Survey Administrator’s memo E. Policy on Recognition of Service for Commissioners Deputy Clerk’s memo, Resolution F. Park Commission Appointment Deputy Clerk’s memo, Resolution G. Adopt the Preliminary 2012 General Fund Operating Budget and Tax Levy Finance Director’s memo, Resolution H. Selection of the Truth In Taxation Hearing Date Finance Director’s memo, Resolution I. Approve the Purchase of Property on Smithtown Road Finance Director’s memo, Resolution J. Supporting Moving Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) management from Resolution LMCD to MCWD 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Monthly Budget Report Finance Director’s memo B. Mayor and City Council 13. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900 Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 22 August, 2011 7:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. – Park Commission Interviews 6:30 p.m. – Council Work Session – 2012 Budget Wrap-up Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Three Rivers Park District allows the City to use the Southwest LRT trail in winter months subject to a Winter Trail Activities Permit. Staff has prepared the permit application; the activities listed on the 2010-2011 permit are unchanged from last winter. Agenda Item #5A: There are no public hearings this evening. Agenda Item #6A: Excelsior Fire Chief Scott Gerber will present the 2012 EFD Budget. Agenda Item #6B: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District representative Jeff Casale will report on recent MCWD Board activities. Agenda Item #7A: The Park Commission is forwarding its recommendation on improvements to the Badger Park warming house shelter. Agenda Item #8A: Having received the results of the deer feeding ban survey and reviewed the comments from respondents, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance banning deer feeding in Shorewood. A draft ordinance is included in your packet for your consideration. Agenda Item #9A: Consideration of accepting a proposal from Metro Blooms to vegetate the area adjacent to Waterford Pond for improved aesthetics, improve water quality and create a buffer area. Agenda Item #9B: Consideration of accepting proposals from Midwest Asphalt and Allied Blacktop to otta seal Enchanted Point Road. Agenda Item #10A: Consideration of amendments to the Rental Housing Code to require owners of rental property connected to a private well to test the water supply. Agenda Item #10B: Ordinance authorizing the SLMPD to conduct background checks on behalf of the City for City-issued licenses and employment purposes Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of August 22, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #10C: Consideration of a commitment to the ongoing operation and management of the Southshore Community Center. Agenda Item #10D: Consideration of a proposal to conduct the community survey. Agenda Item #10E: Staff is proposing a new policy on the recognition of service for Commissioners for Council’s consideration. Agenda Item #10F: Earlier this evening, Council interviewed candidates for consideration of appointment to the Park Commission to fill the seat vacated this past June by Josh Trent. The term of the appointment goes through February, 2013. Ms. Susan Gordon and Mr. Bill Haines were scheduled for interviews. Should council determine to appoint one the candidates, it can do so by resolution. Agenda Item #10G: Consideration of a resolution to adopt the preliminary 2012 general fund operating budget and tax levy. Agenda Item #10H: Consideration of a resolution to set the 2012 Truth-in-Taxation public hearing date. Agenda Item #10I: This item pertains to the purchase of property on Smithtown Road, and if staff receives information for this item by Friday, it will be delivered to Council on Friday. Agenda Item #10J: This item pertains to the consideration of moving the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) management from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). This item will be delivered to Council on Friday. Agenda Item #11: There are no items for Old Business this evening. Agenda Item #12A.1. : The monthly budget report is provided for council information. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2011 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: Councilmember Hotvet; Administrator Heck B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. 2012 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Director DeJong stated the meeting packet contains a spreadsheet showing how staff time is allocated for the 2012 General Fund budget. He explained the allocations are based on the average of the actual recorded time for 2008 – 2010 and the actual for the first half of 2011. In the revised 2012 General Fund budget included in the meeting packet General Government and Elections budgets have been merged into the Administration budget. Also, the budgets for Sanitation/Weeds/Waste Removal, Streets and Roads, Traffic Control, and Tree Maintenance have been merged into the Public Works Services budget. Under priority- driven budgeting these two groups are each under one function. He and Administrator Heck discussed possibly splitting Parks and Recreation into two budgets with one being for parks maintenance and the other for parks recreation. Councilmember Zerby stated it appears to him that some of the staff allocations don’t add up correctly. He cited the communications coordinator position as an example. Director DeJong explained that position is budgeted at 0.6 but the individual worked closed to 0.67 in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Zerby noted that the employees in part-time positions appear to be working more hours than they are budgeted to work. DeJong agreed they exceeded the 2010 allocated amount. Councilmember Siakel asked if the work load has increased enough to warrant that. Councilmember Woodruff didn’t think the overage is significant enough to worry about. DeJong stated he thought management was going to try and keep the hours worked at the hours allocated. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the allocation sheet was “super”. For example, the allocation shows how much staff time is being spent on recycling. Director DeJong noted staff time is being spent on Southshore Community Center (SSCC) related activities but that staff time is not being charged to the SSCC budget. It’s charged back to General Government at year end. Councilmember Woodruff explained when the City entered into an arrangement to manage the SSCC for three years Council decided not to charge the SSCC budget for staff time at that time. Woodruff stated at some point staff time should be charged back. Woodruff commented that in 2010 approximately $17,000 in staff time was spent on SSCC related activities. Councilmember Siakel asked why three people CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 2 of 4 are spending time on SSCC related activities when there is a Director for the SSCC. DeJong explained the communications coordinator works on SSCC newsletter items and the web designer works on SSCC web items. Woodruff stated staff provides backup phone support. Zerby noted that the Southshore Senior Partners also provide phone support. nd Mayor Lizée recommended Council discuss the City’s role in managing the SSCC during its August 22 work session. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the SSCC budget is going to be merged into the Parks and Recreation budget in the future the staff time being spent on SSCC related activities should also be put in that budget. Director DeJong stated he has asked staff to continuing to code where they spend their time. The goal is to make the budget reflect reality. That is the only way to provide Council and staff with accurate decision making information. Councilmember Woodruff stated it appears to him that the reallocation of labor had almost no impact on the enterprise budgets. He then stated if General Fund departments are combined as stated above there will be people responsible for functional areas sharing a budget. That could present a management problem. He noted he doesn’t have a problem with it as long as management doesn’t. Director DeJong responded Administrator Heck will be responsible for Administration and Director Brown will continue to be responsible for Public Works Services. Councilmember Woodruff stated the most recent 2012 General Fund budget reflects a $227,000 deficit and that needs to be fixed this evening. Mayor Lizée stated that doesn’t have to be solved this evening. Councilmember Zerby asked why there is nothing budgeted for cellular antenna revenue in 2012. Director Brown explained the City earns approximately $18,000 in revenue for each tower; a total of $36,000. Director DeJong stated a previous Council chose to put that revenue in the Water Fund. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Water Fund is over funded and that revenue could instead be put in the General Fund and that would reduce the deficit some. Director DeJong stated municipalities budget such revenues in various places. Mayor Lizée asked what is included in Miscellaneous Revenue. Director DeJong stated he would have to research that. Councilmember Zerby noted that General Fund expenditures have increased over $54,000 when compared to the adopted 2011 General Fund budget and that is close to 25 percent of the 2012 budget deficit. Director DeJong explained the Council budget includes approximately $34,000 for wage and benefit adjustments. There is 2 percent for salaries and $25 per month per employee for benefit increases. In response to a question from Councilmember Zerby, Director DeJong explained there are 3.85 full-time employees budgeted for in the Administration budget. The total personnal services budget in Administration for 2012 is $360,000. Director DeJong explained that for 2012, 70 percent of his salary and benefits are in the General Fund budget and the rest, 30 percent, is allocated to the enterprise budgets. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Ice and Snow Removal / Materials and Supplies budget for 2012 is approximately $45,000 (the same as the 2011 budget). The 2011 year-to-date actual amount spent is approximately $14,000. Director Brown explained minor snow falls can create ice conditions and that CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 3 of 4 results in a greater use of salt and ice than heavier snow falls do. The 2012 budget is based on tonnage used over the years and the increase in costs for transporting it. Woodruff then stated the transfer into the Local Street Reconstruction Fund for 2012 is $21,000 higher than the 2011 transfer amount. He recommended that additional amount could be funded out of General Fund reserves or even the Community Infrastructure Fund. Woodruff went on to state for a number of years there has been a transfer of $40,000 from what used to be called the Liquor Fund into the General Fund. Funds in the Liquor Fund were transferred into the Community Infrastructure Fund at the end of 2010 for accounting reasons. The City has been transferring funds out of the then Liquor Fund for at least eight years. From his vantage point one of the premises of the sale of the liquor operations was once they were sold the City could make enough money on the interest earned on the proceeds of the sale to continue to transfer $40,000 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund. The interest earned for the last few years has not amounted to $40,000, but that doesn’t mean the City shouldn’t continue to transfer funds from what had been the Liquor Fund to the General Fund. In some ways, that transfer has been paying for the $42,000 transfer to the capital Park Capital Improvement Fund. He recommended a $40,000 transfer from the Community Infrastructure Fund to the General Fund in 2012 or using $40,000 in General Fund reserves instead. Mayor Lizée asked what interest has been earned on the funds from the City’s liquor operations (approximately $825,000). She stated this Council needs to decide how those funds should be used. She noted the City has been transferring $40,000 to help balance the General Fund budget for quite some time. She stated she thought those funds could be put into a community and environmental fund. There are projects down the road that must be paid for that deal with things such as water quality, stormwater management, and water issues. Issuing grants for neighborhood environmental projects that would be approved by the Park Commission and the City Council would be a good investment. Those projects could possibly be done in partnership with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. She expressed she is not in favor of continuing to take $40,000 from the funds from the liquor operations because she does not think that is a prudent thing to do. Councilmember Woodruff suggested using $40,000 in excess General Fund reserves instead. He commented that there is $400,000 more in the General Fund balance than is required by the City’s General Fund Balance Policy which is 55 – 60 percent of the next year’s budgeted expenditures. He again suggested using $21,000 of the excess to fund the $21,000 increase in the transfer to the Local Street Reconstruction Fund. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the use of $21,000 for roads would be okay. Woodruff stated that the City receives property tax revenues twice a year and for the first half of the year the City has to fund operations out of its reserves. Councilmember Siakel stated during the last Council meeting the auditor explained that based on information from 120 cities of similar population their 2010 average General Fund balance, as a percentage of expenditures, was 63 percent. She stated she could support bringing the balance down to 63 percent of the 2011 budgeted expenditures. Councilmember Woodruff commented 63 percent is an artificial number. Woodruff stated the Office of the State Auditor’s recommendation and the City’s auditor’s recommendation on the reserve level are both below the City’s policy. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City keeps taking money from its residents every year and it doesn’t spend all of it. At best the City is earning 0.02 percent on those monies. From his vantage point that is a travesty. He then stated the City couldn’t spend General Fund reserves in 2010. Director DeJong clarified the City spent approximately $29,000 in reserves in 2010. Woodruff stated the plan was to spend $155,000. Therefore, the City put another $125,000 in the “sock”. DeJong clarified the City didn’t put anything additional in the “sock”; it just didn’t take as much out as anticipated. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Director DeJong explained that in essence the City’s history for the last couple of years says the City has the ability to have a balanced budget with the planned use of $125,000 in General Fund balance. Expenditures have been budgeted higher than actual and revenues have been budgeted lower than actual. The gap becomes a surplus. If the directive was to take those discrepancies out of department budgets it would be challenge to budget because the department budgets are close to actual expenditures and revenues. Because there is consistently a surplus in the General Fund budget the use of General Fund balance can be used to fund the General Fund balance without actually taking any of it out. That goes a long way toward solving the $227,000 deficit problem. Councilmember Woodruff asked Director DeJong if he was saying that about 60 percent of the $227,000 is already in the budget because there is always a surplus. Woodruff said you can’t put that into the budget; the budget has to show where the money is going to come from. The budget would have to show it will come from reserves but reserves will probably not have to be used. Councilmember Zerby stated he supported using $21,000 in reserves to fund the increase in the transfer to the Local Street Improvement Fund and putting the approximate $36,000 in cellular antenna revenues into the General Fund. Councilmember Woodruff stated he could support taking $21,000 from the Community Infrastructure Fund for road improvements, putting cellular antenna revenues into the General Fund, and taking the rest out of General Fund reserves to balance the budget. He could explain that to residents. He commented he hasn’t heard anyone say they want to reduce expenditures. Councilmember Zerby stated he is not sure there is much fat in the 2012 budget. Councilmember Woodruff agreed with that statement. Councilmember Zerby then stated it may be possible to reduce the Parks budget or staff but he doesn’t think anyone wants to do that. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the public safety organizations, the City’s Public Works Department and the other South Lake cities look into the feasibility of a group buying agreement for buying fuel. Director Brown explained that has been done and so far the savings that could be gained by buying through Hennepin County would not cover the cost of creating the infrastructure that would be needed. Brown noted that the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Chief Litsey is researching alternative fuels. 3. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of August 8, 2011, at 6:57 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizée, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2011 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: Councilmember Hotvet; Administrator Heck B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 25, 2011 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of July 25, 2011, as amended in Item 2, Page 3, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, change “$30,000 was recently spent on the SSCC” to “30,000 was recently spent on the SSCC for a sign”. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 25, 2011 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 25, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. C. City Council Executive Session Minutes, July 25, 2011 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of July 25, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. D. City Council/Planning Commission Work Session Minutes, August 1, 2011 Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council/Planning Commission Work Session Minutes of August 1, 2011, as amended in Item 2, Page 3, Paragraph 3, change “Horton” to “Wartman”. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. 2011 Deer Management Program (This item was moved to Item 8.C under Planning) C. Appeal Notice to Remove – Tom Anderson Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING None. 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 7. PARKS No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last Council meeting. 8. PLANNING No report was given. A. Donna Balgard Conditional Use Permit for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards Director Nielsen explained Donna Balgard owns the property located at 26100 Smithtown Road. The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family residential and it is just shy of one acre in size. The property is bounded on its north, east and west sides by wetland. Ms. Balgard intends to replace her existing home with a new one. As part of doing that her contractor proposes raising the grade over about one-third of the property one to two feet to mitigate drainage issues that have plagued the existing house. The contractor estimates the proposed grading plan will require approximately 2150 – 2600 cubic yards of fill be brought on to the site. The City’s Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. None of the fill will go into the wetland area. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the applicant’s grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Nielsen then explained the C.U.P. process for fill/grading projects serves several purposes: heightened scrutiny on drainage issues; control over traffic patterns for trucks hauling in fill; and, advising local residents of what can amount to a dramatic change in terrain. Nielsen went on to explain that 2100 cubic yards of soil requires 210 deliveries by ten-yard dump trucks. The City Engineer recommends the truck traffic be limited to Smithtown Road either west to and from State Highway 7 or east to and from County Road 19. Streets such as Cathcart Drive, Eureka Road and CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Strawberry Lane should not be used by the trucks. The hours of delivery of the fill are 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. on Saturday (normal construction hours) must be strictly adhered to. No deliveries are allowed on Sundays. The draft resolution granting the C.U.P. stipulates there shall be no stacking or parking of delivery trucks on Smithtown Road. Should that occur a “stop work order” will be issued until the delivery schedule is worked out. The Engineer has also made a number of recommendations with regard to the site grading and the Planning Commission suggested they be included in the resolution. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-043, “A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Place Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards for Donna Balgard for the property located at 26100 Smithtown Road with the understanding that the City Engineer’s recommendations for fill and grading have to be met.” Motion passed 4/0. B. Otting House Moving Permit Director Nielsen explained the house and garage on the property located at 26100 Smithtown Road were originally going to be demolished. The owner of the property located at 26270 Smithtown Road arranged to buy the detached garage and move it on to her property. When a house moving company came out to give on bid for relocating the garage he arranged with Donna Balgard (the owner of the 26100 Smithtown Road property) to move the existing house on the property out of the City. The City has a housing moving ordinance and it was designed primarily to address moving buildings into the City. The ordinance does address the route and time of move, obstructions, licensing and bonding of the mover and so forth. The route for the house will be to go west on Smithtown Road to Highway 7. The City’s Building Official inspected the garage and found it to be sound. The proposed location for the garage complies with the City’s setback requirements. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District reviewed the request and determined there will not be any impact on the wetland adjoining the east side of the 26270 Smithtown Road property. Nielsen noted Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approving the moving permit for both the house and garage. Mayor Lizée thanked the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, Nancy Wilson (the owner of the 26270 Smithtown Road property) and Ms. Balgard for their efforts to keep the house and garage from going into a landfill. She asked if the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department has been made aware of when the buildings will be moved. Director Nielsen explained the moving company has the responsibility for doing that. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, granting a house and garage moving permit to Otting House Movers. Motion passed 5/0. Brett Palesch, with the Colfax Companies, noted that Ms. Balgard is giving the house away. C. 2011 Deer Management Program This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Siakel’s request. Councilmember Siakel stated during the month of February the City contracted to have an aerial survey done in order to gain some understanding of the density of deer in the City. She asked: what the estimated number of deer is based on the survey done this past February; what the sustainable number for the City is; and what the harvesting quota is for the 2011 removal program. She also asked if feeding deer is a CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 4 of 8 problem or is the problem the low harvesting results from the fall removal program. She went on to ask if the City has ever considered having the harvesting efforts continue until the harvesting quota has been reached. Director Nielsen explained the City’s Wildlife Management Plan for White-Tailed Deer states the City’s goal is to manage the deer population to 15 per square mile of land in the City. That equates to 75 – 90 deer for the entire City. He noted the aerial survey reflects a snap shot in time. He explained the City’s deer population is estimated to have ranged from 70 to 125. The count on the 2011 serial survey reflected 146. Because of the amount of snow this past winter the deer were easier to count. He stated the number of weekends harvesting will be done for 2011 has been increased to five from four. Some of the harvesting sites provide for better harvesting opportunities. In the past residents have requested deer be harvested from their property. This year the City is also approaching property owners and asking if they would allow harvesting to be done on their property. He noted that it would be incredible if 50 deer were harvested during the 2011 removal efforts (harvesting 50 deer would potentially bring the deer population in the City close to the desired goal). The most that have harvested to date has been 26. Councilmember Siakel asked why there will only be five harvest weekends. Director Nielsen explained the harvesting efforts can’t be started until deer hunting season opens. Also, the harvesters do not want to hunt the same site two weekends in a row. Nielsen stated for the 2011 harvesting season some new sites have been added and sites where few deer have been harvested in the past have been eliminated. Councilmember Woodruff commented that in 2010 a deer management plan was approved and that plan identified deer population goals. He asked Director Nielsen if he had any idea how many Metro Bowhunters Resources Base (MBRB) bowhunters will participate in the 2011 harvesting effort. He also asked if there are any limits to the number of deer each bowhunter can harvest. Nielsen stated in the past there have been 20 – 25 bowhunters that have participated in the effort and there is no limit on the number a bowhunter can harvest. During MBRB’s orientation session held in October MBRB representatives will remind the hunters that the goal of the effort is deer removal. The bowhunters will also be encouraged to harvest deer without antlers. Councilmember Siakel asked why a harvesting goal can’t be set. She stated even if the City adopts an ordinance to ban the feeding of deer the deer are still going to eat residents’ plants and shrubbery. She then stated she thought the best way to mitigate the damage deer do to plantings on residential property is to control the number of them in the City. Director Nielsen noted feeding deer is not good for them and it concentrates them in areas they would not normally concentrate in. Nielsen explained having better harvesting sites should increase the removal count this year. He stated there is some consideration being given to harvesting on Friday evenings of the removal weekends this year. He then stated if at the end of the 2011 removal effort the City is half way to its deer density goal of 15 per square mile he would be pleased. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the suggested deer removal dates of October 7 – 9, October 21 – 23, November 4 – 6, November 18 – 20, and December 2 – 4. Motion passed 5/0. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract for Storm Sewer Televising Engineer Landini explained the City requested quotes from five firms for televising the storm sewer near the Silver Lake outlet. Two firms responded. The low quote is from Midwest Trenchless Technologies in the amount of $3,561.22. The other quote is from Infratech in the amount of $3,745.10. This proposed CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 5 of 8 2011 project entails televising 2,639 linear feet of storm sewer and inspecting 29 maintenance holes. The purpose of the project is to ensure the storm sewer is not a significant source of sediment entering into Silver Lake. These efforts are in preparation for the Silver Lake outlet improvement project. He noted the project will be funded out of the Storm Sewer Fund. It has not been budgeted for. There is a sufficient balance in the Fund. In response to a comment by Councilmember Zerby, Engineer Landini explained that if any problems are found in the storm sewer structure they will have to be repaired and such repairs have not been budgeted for. Zerby asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has given any consideration to financing any of the Silver Lake outlet improvement project and the storm sewer project. Landini explained he is scheduled to attend a MCWD meeting mid August to discuss some grant municipal cost sharing projects. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, to accept the quote from and award the contract to Midwest Trenchless Technologies for storm sewer televising for an amount not to exceed $3,561.22. Motion passed 5/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2012 Budget Mayor Lizée stated during its July 20, 2011, meeting the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee accepted, on a 4/0 vote, the SLMPD 2012 Operating Budget Proposal as presented and it directed that it be forwarded to the member City Councils with a recommendation for approval prior to September 1, 2011. A copy of the budget proposal is included in the meeting packet. She noted the Excelsior and Greenwood City Councils have unanimously approved the budget and the Tonka Bay City Council will take action on it tomorrow evening. She also noted SLMPD Chief Litsey and SLMPD Lieutenant Pierson were present this evening. SLMPD Chief Litsey thanked those Councilmembers who were able to attend Night to Unite nd neighborhood meetings on August 2 for doing so. He also thanked those Councilmembers and staff rd members who were able to attend the recent Emergency Preparedness Seminar held on August 3 for doing so. He then thanked Director Brown for his presentation during the Seminar on warning sirens in the SLMPD community. Chief Litsey gave a short presentation about the proposed 2012 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department’s (SLMPD) budget. He noted this has been his thirteenth year of preparing and presenting a budget as the chief executive officer for the SLMPD. The highlights of his presentation are as follows. The primary objective has always been to develop a realistic, yet lean and efficient budget proposal that adequately provides for the mission of the SLMPD with an eye toward the future. The sluggish economy has made this task particularly challenging in recent years. Preparing an annual operating budget for a joint powers organization requires the process start sooner and it involves layers of review prior to it being considered for approval by the SLMPD member City Councils. The budget process has been very transparent. For this budget process a new web-based feature has been implemented on the SLMPD’s website www.southlakepd.com that allows individuals to track and budget process and download information. Given the autonomy of the SLMPD as a joint powers organization its Chief of Police has a greatly expanded role. Many of the Chief’s duties are akin to that of a city manager with additional CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 6 of 8 responsibilities. The Chief is charged with shepherding through a budget process that has the support of the Coordinating Committee and is ultimately approved by the member City Councils. A considerable amount of reference material has been generated to date including two comprehensive PowerPoint presentations and a budget memorandum specifically addressing questions about overtime expenses. Those documents are included in the packet for this meeting and they can be downloaded from the SLMPD website. th Preliminary 2012 budget considerations were discussed during the Coordinating Committee’s May 11 meeting. The considerations were incorporated into an initial budget proposal developed by staff. The th initial proposal was presented to the Committee during its June 27 budget work session. Based on the direction received during that work session and based on input from the negotiation team representing the Committee during contract talks with the union the budget presented during that work session has been refined. The revised budget proposal is a workable budget for 2012 absent any anomalies and/or unforeseen conditions. The revised budget sustains current operations while addressing some future needs. Personnel costs for 2012 should be less of an expense factor. But, the labor agreement for union employees expires at the end of 2011 and negotiations for a new contract for 2012 have not been started. For 2012 health insurance rates are expected to decrease; that hasn’t happened for years. Other expense considerations include additional costs associated with a move to a new record management system (RMS), additional capital needed to support an adequate vehicle fleet rotation schedule and higher fuel costs. The current RMS is antiquated and there is no vendor support for it. The SLMPD is considering partnering with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Department on its licensing on a new RMS and that would reduce the cost for the SLMPD. The 2012 budget for fuel was increased when compared to the 2011 budget. The budgeted transfer into the designated Vehicle Fund was increased. There needs to be an incremental increase in future budgets in order to support a realistic fleet replacement schedule. In 2010 funds in the DWI Forfeiture Fund were used to help purchase a vehicle and this Fund is not designed to support ongoing operations. Declining revenues continue to be an issue, most notably state aid payments associated with police pensions and disability benefits. State aid payments have gone down drastically. Lower revenue projections from that aid have been incorporated into the budget. A 2006 arbitration ruling reset each member City’s percentage contribution toward the operating budget for 2007 – 2011. The percentages are to be adjusted every five years starting in 2012 based on population, tax capacity and police statistical data. The Coordinating Committee assigned the member City Administrators/Manager the task of working on the reallocation formula for 2012 – 2016. The Committee th was presented preliminary figures during its June 27 work session. The Committee accepted the 2012 – 2016 reallocation formula during its July 20, 2011, meeting. The budget worksheets reflect the reallocation formula. Looking forward, it’s important to keep in the forefront the Strategic Planning Group’s (SPG) 2008 findings which are published in its 2008 Strategic Action Plan. A copy of the Plan is posted on the SLMPD website. The Plan serves as a reminder of the unfinished business needing to be addressed once the economic conditions improve. Central to the SPG’s recommendation is for the SLMPD to increase its current compliment of police officers. Continuing to do more with less can only go on so long before core operations and safety become comprised. This critical staffing concern needs to be funded sooner rather than later. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 7 of 8 The SLMPD has made attempts to secure a COPS grant for adding police officers but competition has been immense for the limited amount of money available through the federally funded program. The SLMPD is one of a vast majority of applicants that did not receive funding. Demand far exceeded available funding. st Chief Litsey noted that he attended an Excelsior City Council meeting on August 1 during which that Council approved the budget based on the reallocation formula on a 4/0 vote. He attended the Greenwood th City Council meeting on August 4 during which that Council approved the budget on a 5/0 vote. Chief Litsey reiterated Mayor Lizée’s earlier statement that during the July 20, 2011, Coordinating Committee meeting the Committee accepted, on a 4/0 vote, the SLMPD 2012 Operating Budget Proposal as presented and it directed that it be forwarded to the member city Councils with a recommendation for approval prior to September 1, 2011. Councilmember Woodruff thanked Chief Litsey and the Coordinating Committee for their efforts in developing the proposed budget. He noted he thought the 2012 budget makes sense. He expressed his appreciation of the revenue challenge for the SLMPD. He noted Shorewood’s share of the 2012 $2,035,700 member city contribution for operations will be $987,085. The 2012 member city contribution reflects a 2.6 percent increase over the 2011 contribution. He suggested the SLMPD and the member cities consider a joint buying arrangement for the purchase of fuel. He noted that Director Brown has informed Council that there has been some research into that. Litsey stated if a storage site for fuel could be found it would be prudent to look into doing that. Litsey then stated there may be benefit in considering some type of natural gas alternative for fuel. Councilmember Zerby thanked Chief Litsey and the Coordinating Committee for their efforts in developing the proposed budget and he stated he supports it. He also thanked Litsey and Excelsior Fire District Chief Gerber for putting on the Emergency Preparedness Seminar and he found it to be very informative. He expressed his appreciation for increasing the amount of public service mutual aid being received and provided, and he thought it would help in keeping budgets in line. Councilmember Siakel thanked Chief Litsey and the Coordinating Committee for their efforts in developing the budget. She noted that she thought the budget is a responsible budget and it should be supported by Council. Mayor Lizée suggested that for future SLMPD budgets some consideration be given to incorporating funding for emergency management training and seminars. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department’s 2012 Operating Budget as presented. Motion passed 4/0. Chief Litsey thanked Council for its support. 11. OLD BUSINESS None. 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Director Brown stated the Murray Hill Road and Chaska Road intersection has been closed as part of the Murray Hill Road storm sewer improvement project. Hopefully Chaska Road will be ready for traffic in the next day or two. The 2011 mill and overlay project will hopefully start this week and that effort should take one to two weeks. The 2011 sealcoating efforts should occur this coming Wednesday and Thursday. 1. Southshore Community Center Groupon Mayor Lizée stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum from the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) Director Kristi Anderson about a marketing effort that was coordinated with Groupon for the SSCC. There were more than 7,000 hits on the SSCC offer and more than 1,000 Groupon coupons were sold for SSCC activities and services. Councilmember Zerby stated only 15 percent of the purchases were made from the City’s zip code area. B. Mayor and City Council nd Mayor Lizée stated the 2011 Night to Unite on August 2 was successful. The Emergency Preparedness rd Seminar held on August 3 was put together well. There were over 3,000 riders who participated in the th Tour de Tonka bicycle ride held on August 6. She thanked Director Brown and his Public Works crew for their help with getting the roads in good condition for the riders. She stated she has a coffee with the th mayor session scheduled for August 13. She noted there is a Lake Minnetonka Communications th Commission full commission meeting scheduled for August 16. She recommended that meeting be posted just in case a quorum of Councilmembers will attend. 13. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of August 8, 2011, at 7:55 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 August 22, 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 52018 through 52065 totaling $261,662.78. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 8/18/2011 12:08 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 8/09/2011 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 8/16/2011 000000 12,088.17 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 8/16/2011 000000 2,168.67 20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 8/16/2011 000000 1,092.39 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 8/16/2011 052019 1,561.00 00052 PERA R 8/16/2011 052020 7,156.43 01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 8/22/2011 052022 266.72 29403 B. GRIZZLY'S PIZZA R 8/22/2011 052023 164.48 17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 8/22/2011 052024 166.74 29298 CONNIE BLANCHARD OF BLANCHARDS R 8/22/2011 052025 283.50 05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 8/22/2011 052026 57.46 1 DACOTAN PAPER CO R 8/22/2011 052027 47.91 1 DANBERRY BUILDING CORP R 8/22/2011 052028 600.00 29271 DREW KRIESEL R 8/22/2011 052029 745.00 07383 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN R 8/22/2011 052030 854.76 07270 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC R 8/22/2011 052031 1,062.34 08712 G & K SERVICES R 8/22/2011 052032 1,058.56 27195 GRAINGER, INC R 8/22/2011 052033 124.95 10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 8/22/2011 052034 64.00 11087 ICS - HEALY-RUFF R 8/22/2011 052035 227.25 11055 INFRATECH R 8/22/2011 052036 630.00 11650 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED R 8/22/2011 052037 812.75 13300 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES R 8/22/2011 052038 150.00 8/18/2011 12:08 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 8/09/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 13315 LECY BROS HOMES CONSTRUCTION R 8/22/2011 052039 4,074.00 21340 LOCAL LINK R 8/22/2011 052040 69.95 00079 MEDICA R 8/22/2011 052041 15,055.16 15300 METRO SALES, INC. R 8/22/2011 052042 686.00 1 MIDWEST PLAYGROUND CONTRACTOR R 8/22/2011 052043 2,850.00 00085 MINNESOTA LIFE R 8/22/2011 052044 433.91 1 MOHAWK RESOURCES, LTD R 8/22/2011 052045 63,378.83 1 MR. BRENT HISLOP R 8/22/2011 052046 1,000.00 14050 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY R 8/22/2011 052047 207.15 15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 8/22/2011 052048 244.18 29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 8/22/2011 052049 22.98 20230 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. R 8/22/2011 052050 315.00 20283 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. R 8/22/2011 052051 36.80 1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 8/22/2011 052052 781.26 26100 QWEST R 8/22/2011 052053 551.66 22347 RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. R 8/22/2011 052054 132.00 22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 8/22/2011 052055 212.75 22600 SLUC (SENSIBLE LAND USE COALIT R 8/22/2011 052057 48.00 1 STEPHEN & PAM GABOR R 8/22/2011 052058 2,250.00 23726 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLAN R 8/22/2011 052059 112.60 25452 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC R 8/22/2011 052060 100.00 25540 UNITED LABORATORIES R 8/22/2011 052061 473.27 8/18/2011 12:08 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 8/09/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 25550 UPS R 8/22/2011 052062 31.78 29269 WARNER CONNECT R 8/22/2011 052063 2,800.00 29404 WHITE, KATHE R 8/22/2011 052064 100.00 15050 MEDIACOM R 8/22/2011 052065 50.95 00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN E 8/22/2011 999999 408.00 05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 8/22/2011 999999 2,567.00 10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 8/22/2011 999999 74.00 15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER E 8/22/2011 999999 59,486.26 15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. E 8/22/2011 999999 500.00 19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 8/22/2011 999999 80.00 24450 TOLL GAS & WELDING E 8/22/2011 999999 126.35 27590 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E 8/22/2011 999999 185.51 28451 WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. E 8/22/2011 999999 13,450.50 29324 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, I E 8/22/2011 999999 2,273.25 * * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED REGULAR CHECKS: 45 112,052.08 0.00 112,052.08 HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DRAFTS: 3 15,349.23 0.00 15,349.23 EFT: 10 79,150.87 0.00 79,150.87 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: 58 206,552.18 0.00 206,552.18 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 58 206,552.18 0.00 206,552.18 REPORT TOTALS: 60 206,552.18 0.00 206,552.18 08-18-2011 12:06 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-AUGUST 22, 2011 PAGE: 1 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 8/22/11 07/15-08/15 SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 74.00_ TOTAL: 74.00 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 8/22/11 CHARLIES DAVIS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 8/22/11 GREG FASCHING General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 8/22/11 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 8/22/11 BRADLEY MASON General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 8/22/11 CHRISTOPHER POUNDER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 8/22/11 DANIEL RANDALL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 8/22/11 BRUCE STARK General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 8/22/11 TERRY TOWER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00_ TOTAL: 408.00 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 8/22/11 PARK COMM REG MTG 08/09 General Fund Parks & Recreation 253.00 8/22/11 SAFETY CAMP EXP REIM@CUB General Fund Parks & Recreation 13.72_ TOTAL: 266.72 B. GRIZZLY'S PIZZA 8/22/11 SAFETY CAMP 2011-PIZZA General Fund Parks & Recreation 164.48_ TOTAL: 164.48 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 8/22/11 5755 CTRY CLUB RD General Fund Municipal Buildings 21.60 8/22/11 24200 SMITHTOWN RD General Fund Public Works 80.51 8/22/11 5745 CTRY CLB RD & 2520 HW General Fund Parks & Recreation 29.90 8/22/11 20405 KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD Water Utility Water 20.69 8/22/11 28125 BOULDER BRIDGE DR Water Utility Water 14.04_ TOTAL: 166.74 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 8/22/11 PARK COORDINATOR SERVICES General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,385.00 8/22/11 SSCC ASSISTANT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 182.00_ TOTAL: 2,567.00 CONNIE BLANCHARD OF BLANCHARDS CATERIN 8/22/11 KIDS DESSERTS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 67.50 8/22/11 COOK CLASS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 216.00_ TOTAL: 283.50 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 8/22/11 DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 57.46_ TOTAL: 57.46 DREW KRIESEL 8/22/11 CONTRACT SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 745.00_ TOTAL: 745.00 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 8/16/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,043.52 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,224.61 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 768.03 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80.60 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18.87 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 286.13 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 66.91 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 352.14 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 82.36 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 289.04 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 67.59 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 281.43 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 65.81 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 207.97 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 48.65 08-18-2011 12:06 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-AUGUST 22, 2011 PAGE: 2 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 153.36 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 35.87 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 345.66 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 80.80 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 355.76 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 83.22 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 37.12 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 8.67 8/16/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 345.95 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 80.91 8/16/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 68.49 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 16.02 8/16/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 132.46 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 30.99 8/16/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 229.43 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 53.66 8/16/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 6.26 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 1.46 8/16/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 112.18 8/16/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 26.24_ TOTAL: 12,088.17 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE 8/22/11 REPL WORN MOTOR@SE WELL Water Utility Water 854.76_ TOTAL: 854.76 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC 8/22/11 MANHOLE ADJ RINGS General Fund Streets & Roadways 1,062.34_ TOTAL: 1,062.34 G & K SERVICES 8/22/11 CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 126.68 8/22/11 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 882.30 8/22/11 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 49.58_ TOTAL: 1,058.56 GRAINGER, INC 8/22/11 REFUND General Fund Public Works 21.78- 8/22/11 BALLAST General Fund Public Works 77.24 8/22/11 LAMP Water Utility Water 69.49_ TOTAL: 124.95 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 8/22/11 JULY SMITHTOWN WAY ST SW R Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,273.25_ TOTAL: 2,273.25 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 8/22/11 800MHZ RADIO General Fund Public Works 64.00_ TOTAL: 64.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,435.96 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 125.04_ TOTAL: 1,561.00 ICS - HEALY-RUFF 8/22/11 LIGHTNING STRIKE @ SE WELL Water Utility Water 227.25_ TOTAL: 227.25 INFRATECH 8/22/11 GROUT JOINT Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 630.00_ TOTAL: 630.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 8/22/11 RON JOHNSON LITIGATION General Fund Professional Svcs 812.75_ TOTAL: 812.75 08-18-2011 12:06 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-AUGUST 22, 2011 PAGE: 3 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 8/22/11 SIAKEL DEBBIE General Fund Planning 30.00 8/22/11 HOTVET LAURA General Fund Planning 30.00 8/22/11 HUTCHINS DAVID General Fund Planning 30.00 8/22/11 DAVIS SUE General Fund Planning 30.00 8/22/11 NIELSEN BRAD General Fund Planning 30.00_ TOTAL: 150.00 LECY BROS HOMES CONSTRUCTION 8/22/11 ESCROW REFUND-APPLE RIDGE Escrow Deposit Age NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,074.00_ TOTAL: 4,074.00 LOCAL LINK 8/22/11 SEPT - WEBLINK SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 69.95_ TOTAL: 69.95 MEDIACOM 8/22/11 8/16-9/15 SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 50.95_ TOTAL: 50.95 MEDICA 8/22/11 MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 15,055.16_ TOTAL: 15,055.16 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 8/22/11 WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 59,486.26_ TOTAL: 59,486.26 METRO SALES, INC. 8/22/11 COPIER MACH MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 686.00_ TOTAL: 686.00 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 8/22/11 SEPT NEWSLETTER POSTAGE General Fund General Government 500.00_ TOTAL: 500.00 MINNESOTA LIFE 8/22/11 LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 433.91_ TOTAL: 433.91 MISC. VENDOR DACOTAN PAPER CO 8/22/11 RAKES W/ REPL TINES General Fund Parks & Recreation 47.91 DANBERRY BUILDING CORP 8/22/11 28015 WOODSIDE RD-APPL W/D General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 450.00 DANBERRY BUILDING CORP 8/22/11 28015 WOODSIDE RD-APPL W/D Escrow Deposit Age NON-DEPARTMENTAL 150.00 MIDWEST PLAYGROUND CON 8/22/11 INSTALL SWING AT CATHCART Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 2,850.00 MOHAWK RESOURCES, LTD 8/22/11 MOHAWK RESOURCES, LTD:INV3 Equipment Replacem Equipment Replacement 63,378.83 MR. BRENT HISLOP 8/22/11 WILDWOOD PREL PLAT ESCROW Escrow Deposit Age NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,000.00 STEPHEN & PAM GABOR 8/22/11 ESCROW RFD-5140 SHADY ISLD Escrow Deposit Age NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,250.00_ TOTAL: 70,126.74 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 8/16/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,168.67_ TOTAL: 2,168.67 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 8/22/11 BLADES SHAFT General Fund Public Works 160.30 8/22/11 SHIMS & SPACERS General Fund Public Works 46.85_ TOTAL: 207.15 NIELSEN, BRADLEY 8/22/11 WELLNESS General Fund Planning 80.00_ TOTAL: 80.00 OFFICE DEPOT 8/22/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 213.57 8/22/11 DRIVE USB General Fund General Government 19.23 8/22/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 11.38_ TOTAL: 244.18 ON SITE SANITATION INC 8/22/11 SVC 07/23-08/05 General Fund Parks & Recreation 22.98 08-18-2011 12:06 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-AUGUST 22, 2011 PAGE: 4 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ _______________ TOTAL: 22.98 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. 8/22/11 2011 STREET SWEEP Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 315.00_ TOTAL: 315.00 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 8/22/11 CLEANER ADHESIVE General Fund Public Works 36.80_ TOTAL: 36.80 PERA 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,313.16 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 344.76 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 412.78 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 348.71 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 361.81 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 270.79 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 179.92 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 424.57 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 425.15 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 43.74 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 373.93 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 80.09 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 163.78 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 273.72 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 7.32 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 132.20_ TOTAL: 7,156.43 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 8/22/11 LIFE INSURANCE General Fund Unallocated Expenses 781.26_ TOTAL: 781.26 QWEST 8/22/11 AUG SVC Water Utility Water 315.23 8/22/11 AUG SVC Water Utility Water 236.43_ TOTAL: 551.66 RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. 8/22/11 BRUSH DISPOSAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 132.00_ TOTAL: 132.00 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 8/22/11 BLACK STEEL PIPE General Fund Public Works 13.86 8/22/11 COUPLING General Fund Public Works 3.29 8/22/11 TRAILER PART General Fund Public Works 19.19 8/22/11 CYPRESS MULCH General Fund Sanitation/Weeds/Waste 29.86 8/22/11 PARKS General Fund Parks & Recreation 34.71 8/22/11 HARDWARE General Fund Parks & Recreation 8.68 8/22/11 BULK HARDWARE General Fund Parks & Recreation 4.11 8/22/11 COUPLING Water Utility Water 21.35 8/22/11 AERATOR ADAPTER Water Utility Water 29.89 8/22/11 PARTS Water Utility Water 47.81_ TOTAL: 212.75 SLUC (SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION) 8/22/11 REG-MICHAEL GARELICK-9/28/ General Fund Planning 48.00_ TOTAL: 48.00 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 8/22/11 JUL-MEADOWVIEW NELSINE ASB Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 112.60_ TOTAL: 112.60 TOLL GAS & WELDING 8/22/11 WELDING OXYGEN & ACETYLENE General Fund Public Works 126.35_ TOTAL: 126.35 08-18-2011 12:06 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-AUGUST 22, 2011 PAGE: 5 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 8/22/11 COLIFORM BACTERIAS Water Utility Water 100.00_ TOTAL: 100.00 UNITED LABORATORIES 8/22/11 PARK-PARTS General Fund Parks & Recreation 473.27_ TOTAL: 473.27 UPS 8/22/11 WATER TESTER PACKAGES Water Utility Water 31.78_ TOTAL: 31.78 WARNER CONNECT 8/22/11 MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 2,800.00_ TOTAL: 2,800.00 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94 8/16/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_ TOTAL: 1,092.39 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 8/22/11 TRAILER TIRES General Fund Public Works 185.51_ TOTAL: 185.51 WHITE, KATHE 8/22/11 BUGS & CRITTERS II-PROG 8/ General Fund Parks & Recreation 100.00_ TOTAL: 100.00 WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 8/22/11 COVINGTON RD FIBER OPTICS- General Fund City Engineer 2,784.00 8/22/11 VINEHIL RD FIBER OPTIC-ROW General Fund City Engineer 192.00 8/22/11 SIGN ASSET MGMT WORK PLAN General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 3,678.00 8/22/11 MEADOWVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD-RD Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 192.00 8/22/11 JUN-L.S.#15 & 17 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1,440.00 8/22/11 6180 MURRAY HILL DRAINAGE Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4,447.50 8/22/11 5770 COVINGTON LOT SPLIT Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 525.00 8/22/11 SMITHTOWN WAY-ROAD CIP Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 192.00_ TOTAL: 13,450.50 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 8/15/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300.00 General Fund Administration 4,755.28 General Fund General Government 5,693.51 General Fund Finance 4,809.88 General Fund Planning 4,990.51 General Fund Protective Inspections 3,734.98 General Fund City Engineer 2,481.67 General Fund Public Works 5,856.63 General Fund Streets & Roadways 5,864.05 General Fund Tree Maintenance 603.23 General Fund Parks & Recreation 5,957.60 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 1,104.73 Water Utility Water 2,258.86 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 3,775.45 Recycling Utility Recycling 100.96 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,823.26_ TOTAL: 55,110.60 08-18-2011 12:06 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-AUGUST 22, 2011 PAGE: 6 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ =============== FUND TOTALS ================ 101 General Fund 104,669.03 402 Park Capital Improvements 2,850.00 403 Equipment Replacement 63,378.83 404 Street Capital Improvemen 304.60 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 2,580.36 601 Water Utility 4,554.81 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 65,888.52 621 Recycling Utility 116.00 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 9,846.63 880 Escrow Deposit Agency 7,474.00 -------------------------------------------- GRAND TOTAL: 261,662.78 -------------------------------------------- TOTAL PAGES: 6 #7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 MINUTES 1.CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Quinlan convened the Park Commission meeting at 7:00 pm. A.Roll Call Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Robb, Edmondson, Kjolhaug, and late arrival Hartmann; Public Works Director Brown; Park Coordinator Anderson; Guests Building Inspector Pazandak, Finance Director DeJong, and Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Swaggert; City Council Liaison Zerby B.Review Agenda Robb moved, Edmondson seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2011 Page 7, last line before the motion, was revised to read ‘Robb stated that he did not buy that …” Edmonson moved, Kjolhaug seconded, approving the Minutes of June 14, 2011, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REVIEW THE DRAFT TRAIL REPORT FROM TRAIL COMMITTEE Planning Director Nielsen summarized the Trail Plan Amendment Report at great length for the Commission consideration. In so doing, he indicated that the Park Commission’s role in the process was critical because the Commission would be asked to ‘carry the ball’ in the implementation phase of the various trail segments. After reviewing the document Nielsen asked for the Commission’s comments and questions noting that the dollar estimates assigned to the various sections were very preliminary. In addition, PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 2 OF 8 he asked for their recommendation to move the Amendment forward to the Planning Commission for review. Chair Quinlan stated that, as a committee, they stayed away from suggesting the types, trails, and costs for any particular trail section, admitting that each would be considered on a case by case basis. Although a 6’ bituminous was used as the standard solely for estimation purposes, Nielsen indicated that it will act as the baseline from which all trails will be judged. He acknowledged that MSA of MN State Aid funds oftentimes require certain conditions be met. Nielsen pointed out that it will be critical that everyone works together with regard to costs and right of way (ROW) issues. Robb questioned why the trail ‘circle maps’ leading from Victoria don’t appear to be as high a priority as other options, but is yet proposed to be one of the first to be complete. Nielsen stated that, admittedly, due to higher neighborhood demand and easier ROW access, not to mention it falling within the mile zone to school, it will be a good corridor to get under their belts. Robb asked where the funding would be coming from for the trails. Nielsen stated that funding was yet to be determined. While there are some dollars earmarked this year for trails in the park budget, the Council will need at look hard at funding in coming years. Council member Hotvet interjected that there is a fee to ride the school bus within two miles of school; therefore, there should be safe access for those who are forced to walk. Edmondson asked if Nielsen had any idea what land acquisition costs might be. Brown stated that they would love to be able to anticipate the land costs but ROW varies tremendously. The figure they used to calculate a base price was $1.50 per square foot. He pointed out that the demographics have changed significantly, with younger families with children moving in looking for safer access points. Nielsen added that, due to various MCWD constraints and overall topographies by the roadsides the trails will likely weave in and out, close to the road at some points and further from the road at other locations. Chair Quinlan asked what the process was from here. Nielsen stated that the Park Commission should discuss the proposal, forward it to the Planning Commission with their recommendations for discussion and approval, a public hearing, and finally adoption by the City Council at which time it would become part of the CIP. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 3 OF 8 Chair Quinlan stated that, as part of the comprehensive CIP, the trail plan would become part of the Park Commissions’ responsibility. Hartmann questioned whether it would then come out of our park budget, which is already stretched thin. Chair Quinlan confirmed this statement acknowledging that the City Council would need to revise the budget to cover these additional expenditures, as well as, maintenance costs. Nielsen commented that the trails would likely need maintenance during the winter months as well. With that he questioned whether the maintenance for the trails would come out of the parks budget or roads. Brown stated that, although public works is not equipped to clear trails, with additional trail construction the city will be required to obtain new equipment to do so. Kjolhaug suggested two additional sections be added to the recommendation, the small stretch on Strawberry Lane to Cathcart Park, as well as, the block from Eureka Road to Crescent Beach on Birch Bluff to the Tonka Bay border. Nielsen stated that, if the commission has additions, they should make them part of the recommendation they forward to the Planning Commission and committee for consideration. Robb stated that, without costs, he was uncomfortable adding the trails amendment to the Park Budget and CIP. Brown stated that, despite being part of the CIP, each section of trail will go thru an entire planning process and pursued on a case by case basis. If the dollar estimates are way off, the CIP will have to be tweaked to accommodate the costs. Robb argued that the trails should always be worked from the schools outward, not vice versa. Kjolhaug pointed out that every section on the map will have its own set of difficulties. Hartmann agreed with Kjolhaug’s additions that the trail run to Crescent Beach at the Tonka Bay border. The Commission had consensus on the two trail additions. Robb complimented the committee on a well thought out and executed report. He believes further discussion was warranted with regard to how the implementation will change the dollar values. Nielsen agreed, stating that the completion of even the first trail section will give staff a better understanding of the costs that can be anticipated for future projects. He relayed that the committee felt it important to have some success before embarking on sections that will provide bigger tests in order to get the process moving. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 4 OF 8 Edmondson moved, Kjolhaug seconded, to recommend the Trail Plan Implementation Report be forwarded to the Planning Commission for Public Hearing on 20 September with nd the additional trail segments on West 62 St from Strawberry Lane to Cathcart Park and the block from Eureka Road on Birch bluff to the Tonka Bay border at Crescent Beach. Motion passed 5/0. 5. DETERMINE NEXT STEP FOR BADGER PARK REHAB Anderson summarized the history behind the Badger Park warming house rehab project and relayed staff recommendation to paint the exterior, remove the lean-to structure, and perform other minor construction work, as well as, repair the stoops. She then invited Building Inspector Pazandak to share his comments and recommendations from a staff perspective on alternatives. Pazandak reviewed his submitted ‘wild ideas and wild cost estimates’ list of variables for consideration. He showed the Commission how changing the building structure, ever so slightly, leads to ramifications that seem to multiply with regard to frost, soils, footings, stoops, and more. Anderson pointed out that, at minimum, as recommended by staff, the exterior paint job and light construction work should be accompanied by the additional stoop replacement cost of $2250 per stoop as a safety concern. Chair Quinlan asked what the short term versus long term recommendation should be. Robb reminded the Commission that they had merely earmarked a face lift to make it more user friendly and coordinate with City Hall. In an effort to add more life to the building, Brown suggested the commission focus on the cosmetic practical changes as opposed to the entire building rehab at this time, with the given that the stoops be done. These items are affordable in the near term and then take time to determine what the future holds later. Chair Quinlan agreed that these items including the stoop, painting, lean-to removal, etc would buy them additional time to consider interior changes. Pazandak pointed out that if they were to swing the exterior doors in, then we would need to frame up an inner wall to limit access. If they chose to add or change the bathrooms for exterior access additional elements and costs would need to be considered approaching $15,000 to do so. Chair Quinlan asked if it was conceivable to do more than the facelift at this time. Pazandak stated that the Commission could recommend the removal of the hockey rink and use the city’s street sweepings for back fill to fill in the lower areas. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 5 OF 8 Brown explained that street sweepings are managed fill and is expensive to have hauled away to landfills. He was not aware of a way in which this could be used in landfill and questioned whether Engineer Landini was aware of a way to make use on site. He acknowledged that if they had found a way to make use of it on site the savings could possibly be re-directed to parks. Kjolhaug questioned whether the Park Commission truly wished to remove the structure altogether, not to mention the hockey rink. Robb moved, Edmondson seconded, to recommend the City Council award the painting contract to Eclipse Painting in the amount of $2090.00, the construction prep work to Pete Seamans Construction in the amount of $1975.00, and two stoop repairs totaling an additional $4500, (as a safety concern); the total project costs not to exceed $8565.00 Motion passed 5/0. 6. DISCUSS AND REVIEW OTHER COMMUNITY PARK AMENITIES Chair Quinlan asked each Commissioner to share their photos of various park amenities in a PowerPoint overhead that Anderson had assembled. Edmondson presented a handful of photos from Glen Lake Skate Park. Robb shared photos of skate parks and rinks in Carver County. Hartmann had photos from Braemar little league fields. Anderson shared Swaggert’s photos of Frisbee golf tees and baskets. Kjolhaug presented photos from Long Lake natural area and lake, as well as, the new Excelsior Community Garden. Anderson shared photos of the Mound skate park. Chair Quinlan shared photos from Plymouth’s Millennium Gardens, arbors, pergolas, sculpture and walkways. While the Commission took no action, Anderson noted that several members chose to share photos of skate parks and their amenities. Chair Quinlan suggested the Commission keep these ideas in mind as we move towards discussing the long term CIP and parks. 7. REVIEW AND DISCUSS CIP Anderson summarized the CIP for 2012 and beyond, presenting the planning tools to the Commission for their discussion; the current CIP, wish list, and priority needs assessment and asked them for feedback. She highlighted several suggestions laid out in the memo for consideration, the installation of message boards at the parks, moving the $12,000 for tot lot equipment into a separate line item, and moving the skate equipment and rehab up in the CIP. Edmondson suggested the Commission consider removing the garage storage shed down at the Southshore Center and replacing it with a shelter or pergola. Anderson indicated that the garage is on park property. She acknowledged that a pergola, similar to the Millennium Gardens would make a lovely backdrop for the Center, as well as Badger Park. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 6 OF 8 Anderson presented an estimate from Midwest Asphalt to overlay the grassy area under the current skate equipment at the Southshore Community Park in the amount of $9,500. She pointed out that, should the Commission choose to overlay the entire skate park surface, this would be an additional $14,600. Although a work program item for 2011, Anderson suggested the Commission discuss this further, since no dollars had been assigned to the project. Furthermore, given these estimates, she suggested the Commission consider whether they wish to move the skate park surface rehab and equipment replacement up on the CIP. Robb asked whether they were interested in still moving forward with the resurfacing, given the price. He suggested the Commission give thought to a new surface altogether, concrete as opposed to asphalt. Brown reminded the Commission that the current skate park is located on a reclaimed rest area site and little had been done to the surface. He indicated that concrete would be the preferred surface by skaters. Hartmann asked if the City had ever spoken to the boarders who use the park to see what surface or equipment they prefer. Anderson pointed out that year’s back, when the original equipment was installed, it was a group of young people who led the charge and designed the space. She agreed that, should the Commission choose to expand or change the skate park equipment, contact should be made with the skate boarding public. Director DeJong suggested, whether it is this year or next, that the Park Commission adjust its CIP by moving the currently budgeted $30,000 for the LRT out of the Park CIP and into its own Trail CIP and let the City Council determine how they wish to see these funds used or grow. By doing so, this which would give the Park budget back the money to work with. Chair Quinlan pointed out that the Park Commission did not have to vote on the budget for 2012 and beyond this evening, but as a first brush give some thought to the CIP. He suggested staff go back and add the Badger swing set, message boards, move the trail item off and the Skate Park equipment and surface rehab projects up in the CIP and bring that back in September for the Commission to consider. 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES A.City Council B.Park Commission Edmondson reported that, as liaison to the Park Foundation, the group is focusing their efforts on trying to brainstorm creative fundraising ideas. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 7 OF 8 C.Staff Update on Installation of Message Boards at Manor and Freeman Anderson reported that public works staff is installing the message boards at Manor Park this summer; however, the remaining purchase and installation of message boards for the other parks will have to wait until the 2012 CIP. Status on Repair of Park Tour Findings Based on the 2011 Park Tours, staff was supplied with a list of items to address. Anderson had shared those items with the appropriate personnel and was pleased to report that many of the tasks had been accomplished by the public works department on top of their other duties. The roof repair at Freeman shelter was underway. Silverwood Park tree trimming to showcase the new signage, re-enforcing the porta-potty fence, replaced damaged tennis backboard sheeting, moved the picnic table, and as mentioned by Director Brown, once the primary roadway projects are complete attention can be given to blacktop pathways in parks. Manor Park porta-pottys have recently been removed and interior bathrooms fully operational with locks. The trail access from the parking lot to the playground, once again, will be attended to once the rest of primary roadway work is complete. Building Inspector Pazandak is working on the gutter installation at Manor Park to address water issues; however, public works has top-soiled and re-seeded areas around the warming house. Report on Meeting with Minnehaha Watershed District Regarding Freeman Park Anderson mentioned to the Commission that she, Administrator Heck, MCWD reps Eric Evenson, and James Wisker met to discuss the Freeman Park Wetland Enhancement project. The group also toured the area. Although follow-up has not been scheduled, Anderson stated that the MCWD was interested in partnering in some way to improve the area, but was more excited in a potential creek restoration project, than wetland enhancement project. Anderson promised to update the Commission as available. D.Work Program E.Quarterly Expenditure Report – will be provided at the next meeting, as Administrator Heck was unable to pull this information together prior to his absence. Robb asked that a grant report be supplied at the next meeting. Anderson stated that staff would pull the report to share, mentioning that once the new CIP is established it will be easier to direct their efforts towards different initiatives. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 8 OF 8 10. ADJOURN Robb moved, Kjolhaug seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of August 9, 2011, at 10:10 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder #7A MEMORANDUM __________________ To: City Council Mayor Lizée From: Kristi Anderson – CRR Date: August 17, 2011 Re: Badger Park Warming House Rehab Recommendation As a follow-up to the Park Commission discussions regarding the scope of the Badger Park warming house rehab project, Coordinator Anderson presented options to remodel the existing structure at a staff level utilizing grants, as well as estimates for the minor patch work, stoop and exterior painting of the warming house for their consideration. The 2011 CIP earmarked $5,000 for the Badger Park warming house rehab/facelift. As staff evaluated the facility and spoke to the sports users, consideration was given to renovation, demolition, and safety. The Commission chose to recommend that the City Council award contracts for painting, minor patch work, and stoop repair (which in their current state are hazards to those entering and exiting the facility), to allow them time to consider future steps for Badger Park within the long term CIP. The Park Commission recommended the City Council award the painting contract to Eclipse Painting Contractors in the amount of $2,090.00; and award the construction prep work to Pete Seamans Construction in the amount of $1,975.00; as well as, the repair work for two stoops, for a total project cost not to exceed $8,565.00 Since this motion was made, Building Inspector Pazandak contacted staff to say that there may be some minor removal costs associated with the stoop removal that may push that estimate upward slightly; therefore, staff would recommend the City Council remove the mandate that the project ‘not exceed’ the estimated $8,565.00 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council award the painting contract to Eclipse Painting Contractors in the amount of $2,090.00; the construction prep work to Pete Seamans Construction in the amount of $1,975.00; as well as, the repair work for two stoops, for an estimated project cost of $8,565.00 #5 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-474-3236 Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us __________________ To: Park Commission From: Kristi Anderson – CRR Twila Grout – Administrative Assistant Date: August 4, 2011 Re: Badger Park Warming House Rehab Recommendation As a follow-up to the Park Commission discussions of May 10 and June 14, 2011, Coordinator Anderson was directed by the Park Commission to A) put together options to remodel the existing structure at a staff level, and B) provide estimates for the minor patch work and exterior painting of the warming house for consideration. Building Inspector Pazandak, will be attending the Park Commission meeting to share staff level plans, similar to what was done for Manor Park warming house to include storage space and out/indoor accessible bathrooms, with the intent that the City apply for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant. In addition, attached are several estimates from exterior painting contractors, as well as, an estimate for the prep, patchwork, and labor required to ready the shelter for painting and clean-up the facility. Originally, $5,000 was allocated for the exterior facelift for the warming house. In addition to painting, Pete Seamans Construction estimate of $1975.00, which includes tearing off the lean-to fenced area, roof repair, two new steel doors, boarding up one door and residing the exterior, patching hardie board where necessary, caulking and renailing siding and facial boards should be included in the base total. An add-on item to repair the stoop for the door, would be an additional $2,250.00 Each of the painting contractors estimates include materials, labor, power washing, scraping/sanding, filling/ priming, and two coats, including the foundation. The estimates range from $2,090.00 to $3931.00 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Park Commission should 1.Direct staff to pursue one of the staff level remodeling projects as proposed, obtain further detail, and follow the application process for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant 2.Recommend the City Council award the painting contract to Eclipse Painting Contractors in the amount of $2,090.00; and award the construction prep work to Pete Seamans Construction in the amount of $1,975.00 for a total project exterior facelift cost of $4,065.00 3.Do nothing ECLIPSE PAINTING CONTRACTORS BID The bid for 5755 Country Club Rd – Shorewood is as follows: Warming House Prep – Pressurewash to clean 3 or more days prior to painting. Hand scrape and belt/palm sand any loose and peeling areas. Prime all bare wood. Caulk all loose joints and splits. Fill any holes with wood filler. Sand metal doors to etch, clean and paint. Material – Sherwin Williams Woodscape stain – 2 colors – 2 coats Price – $1890.00 Labor and material $200.00 Add-on Foundation Respectfully submitted, Lane Underdahl Eclipse Painting, Inc. 401 Rolling Hills Dr Minnetrista, MN 55364 952-495-1141 952-495-8511 eclipse@frontiernet.net #8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Deer Feeding Ban Ordinance – First Draft Meeting Date: 22 August 2011 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Attachments: Draft Ordinance Policy Consideration: Should the City institute a prohibition on the feeding of deer in Shorewood? Background: The results of the deer feeding ban survey are in. As of this writing, we received 904 responses to the question of whether residents in Shorewood favor or oppose an ordinance banning the supplemental feeding of deer in Shorewood. A total of 726 respondents to the survey (80%) answered yes to the question, while 198 did not favor an ordinance. Numerous comments were received on the matter and have been made available for your review and consideration. Having reviewed the results and the comments from residents, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that an ordinance banning deer feeding should be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The draft ordinance is attached. Financial or Budget Considerations: Negligible. Enforcement would be handled by current staff. Options: Adopt the code amendment; revise the amendment; or do not adopt any amendment. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff seeks direction on this item. Clearly, the Planning Commission agreed with the majority of respondents to the survey. Next Steps and Timelines: The ordinance, if adopted would be published next week and would be effective upon publication. Connection to Vision / Mission: Contributes to a healthy environment and maintains attractive amenities (landscape). 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. _______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING OF DEER Section 1 . City Code Title 700 is hereby amended to include: CHAPTER 704 “ PROHIBITION ON FEEDING DEER Section 704.01 Purpose 704.02 Prohibition on supplemental deer feeding 704.03 Exemptions from provisions 704.04 Violation 704.01 PURPOSE . It is hereby determined that an increasing population of deer within the city: poses a threat to public safety by increasing the likelihood of deer-vehicle collisions, and the transmission of diseases to humans from deer; poses a threat to native plant and animal life by excessive foraging which disturbs natural ecological balances; and poses a threat to the quality of life by deer-related damage to landscaping and vegetable gardens. This Chapter is intended to reduce these threats by restricting supplemental feeding of deer, which results in unnatural concentrations of deer and can affect the normal movement of deer within the community. It is not the intent of this Chapter to regulate the recreational feeding of birds. 704.02 PROHIBITION ON SUPPLEMENTAL DEER FEEDING Prohibition: No person may place or permit to be placed on the ground, or within five (5) feet of the ground surface any grain, fodder, salt licks, fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, hay or other edible materials which may reasonably be expected to intentionally result in deer feeding, unless such items are screened or protected in a manner that prevents deer from feeding on them. Living fruit trees and other live vegetation shall not be considered as supplemental deer feeding. 704.03 EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS . The prohibition described in Section 704.02, above shall not apply to: Subd. 1. Veterinarians, city animal control officials or county, state or federal game officials who are in the course of their duties and have deer in their custody or under their management; Subd. 2. Persons authorized by the City of Shorewood to implement the Deer Management Program approved by the City Council; or Subd. 3. Any food placed upon the property for purposes of trapping or otherwise taking deer where such trapping or taking is pursuant to a permit issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 704.04 VIOLATION . Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a Class A Offense, pursuant to Chapter 104.03 of this Code.” Section 2 . That 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 22nd day of August 2011. CHRISTINE LIZÉE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Waterford Pond Meeting Date: Aug 22, 2011 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Attachments: Metro Blooms Planting Plan Policy Consideration: Should the Council authorize the planting plan outlined for Waterford Pond? Background: In 2010 Shorewood maintained the Waterford pond by replacing the outlet structure and rebuilding the inlets. This spring, residents living around the pond contacted staff indicating their concern and dissatisfaction with the appearance of the pond. Specifically, they commented on the general water level and visibility of what they termed “mud flats” around the pond where water and vegetation used to be. Staff met with the residents on site to discuss their concerns and possible solutions. Staff followed up and modified the outlet structure so that the water level in the pond returned to the level before rehabilitation. Staff also suggested working with Metro Blooms on a planting plan around the pond to provide more aesthetics, improve water quality, create a buffer area, and over time, provide screening of the outlet structure. Staff received a plan from Metro Blooms and met with residents to discuss the specifics of the plan. The residents are happy with the proposal and are excited to see the area improved. Metro Blooms provided the attached plan and cost estimate for the work. Metro Blooms intends to partner with the Minnesota Conservation Corp. to stabilize the slopes with vegetation. Metro Blooms estimates the project to be $13,448.21 which includes a dense planting of 1,585 plants. Financial or Budget Considerations: This project would be funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund which has sufficient balance to perform the project. The project is not budgeted for in 2011. The project would be eligible for reimbursement through future bond sales as passed by Council in June 2011. Options: 1.Direct staff to contract with Metro Blooms for the vegetation project. 2.Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends working with Metro Blooms to stabilize the area adjacent to Waterford Pond. Next Steps and Timelines: Connection to Vision / Mission: This project improves the attractiveness of Shorewood’s infrastructure. 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 Project Overview êÛÓÉ× íôå ÖÊÍÏ ÈÍ ÈÔ×Ê×Úà ÈÔ× ÎÍÊÈÔ ×ÎØ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÌÍÎØ turf ê×ÏÍÆ× ÈÇÊÖ ÖÊÍÏ ÉÍÇÈÔ é÷ ÉÐÍÌ×É turf ÓÎÉÈÛÐÐ ×ÊÍÉÓÍÎ ÙÍÎÈÊÍÐ ÚÐÛÎÑ×È ÈÔ×Î ÌÐÛÎÈ ÌÐÇÕÉ ÛÎØ ÉÔÊÇÚÉ ÈÍ Ô×ÐÌ ÉÈÛÚÓÐÓÂ× Ð×ÉÉ×Î Ê×ËÇÓÊ×Ø ÏÍÅÓÎÕ èÍ Ú× ÙÍÏÌÐ×È×Ø ÓÎ Reed Canary Grass Sheet Index Waterford Pond ÷ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕ ùÍÎØÓÈÓÍÎÉ ÷ÊÍÉÓÍÎ ùÍÎÈÊÍÐ ìÐÛÎ ìÐÛÎÈÓÎÕ îÍÈ×É 911 1 910 ìÐÛÎÈ ðÓÉÈ ùÍÉÈ ÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ× Mud Flat 912 turf 913 915 920 914 925 930 1 Sarah Ash 7/20/2011 1” = 30’ SCALE Waterford Pond Existing Conditions RCG Buffer Planting Remove Reed Canary Grass Notes: 7,500 sf to be Planted from this 20’ wide area. Plant óÎÉÈÛÐÐ éù úîÉ with Prairie Cordgrass & Blue- êÛÓÉ× íôå ÖÊÍÏ ÈÍ ÈÔ×Ê×Úà ¬ Ä ¬ ÍÆ×Ê ÛÊ×Û joint Grass spaced 1’ apart. ÓÎØÓÙÛÈ×Ø ÍÆ×ÊÐÛÌÌÓÎÕ ÈÔ× ÎÍÊÈÔ ×ÎØ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÌÍÎØ ® é×ÙÇÊ× ÅÓÈÔ ÉÍØ 20’ ÉÈÛÌÐ×É ×Æ×Êà ¬ ÛÊÍÇÎØ turf Ì×ÊÓÏ×È×Ê ÛÎØ ×Æ×Êà ¬ ê×ÏÍÆ× ÈÇÊÖ ÖÊÍÏ ÉÍÇÈÔ é÷ ÉÐÍÌ×É ÅÓÈÔÓÎ ÚÓÍÎ×È óÎÉÈÛÐÐ éù úî ×ÊÍÉÓÍÎ ÙÍÎÈÊÍÐ ÚÐÛÎÑ×È ÛÙÙÍÊØÓÎÕ ÈÍ ÏÛÎÇÖÛÙÈÇÊ×Ê¬É ØÓÊ×ÙÈÓÍÎÉ É×ÙÇÊÓÎÕ ÅÓÈÔ ®Ä ® ÉÈÛÌÐ×É öÍÊ ÈÔ× ÉÖ ÛÊ×Û ÓÎØÓÙÛÈ×Ø ÚÐÛÎÑ×ÈÉ ÅÓÐÐ Ú× Î××Ø×Ø úÊÍÙÑ åÔÓÈ× Reed Canary Grass É×ÐÐÉ ÈÔ×É× ÖÍÊ ÊÍÐÐ 200’ ìÐÛÎÈ ÌÐÇÕÉ ÛÎØ ÉÔÊÇÚÉ ÈÍ Ô×ÐÌ ÉÈÛÚÓÐÓÂ× ÈÔ× ÉÐÍÌ× ÉÌ×ÙÓ×É ÓÎØÓÙÛÈ×Ø Waterford Pond ÍÎ ÉÔ××È ì×Ê×ÎÎÓÛÐ ÌÐÇÕÉ ÛÊ× ÈÍ Ú× ÉÈÊ×ÈÙÔ ÙÐÍÉ×ÉÈ ÈÍ ÈÔ× ÊÍÛØ èÔ× Ê×ÉÈ ÍÖ 911 1 910 ÈÔ× ÌÐÛÎÈÓÎÕ ÓÉ ÈÍ Ú× ÉÔÊÇÚÉ ìÐÛÎÈ ÛÙÙ×ÉÉ ÈÍ ÌÍÎØ ÓÎÐ×ÈÉ ÍÇÈÐ×ÈÉ ÅÓÈÔ ÐÍÅÕÊÍÅÓÎÕ ÉÌ×ÙÓ×É ìÐÛÎÈÓÎÕ ÛÊÊÛÎÕ×Ï×ÎÈ ÓÉ ÈÍ Ú× 912 ÛÌÌÊÍÆ×Ø ÍÎ ÉÓÈ× ÚÃ Û ï×ÈÊÍ úÐÍÍÏÉ 913 915 ðÛÎØÉÙÛÌ× ø×ÉÓÕÎ×Ê 920 914 ìÐÛÎÈ ÉÌÛÙÓÎÕ Ø×Ì×ÎØÉ ÍÎ ÈÔ× ÉÙÔ×Ï× 925 ÈÔ× ÙÍÉÈ ×ÉÈÓÏÛÈ× ® ÍÙ ÍÊ ® ÍÙ ÖÍÊ 930 ÌÐÇÕÉ ÛÎØ ¬ ÍÙ ÖÍÊ ÈÔ× ÉÔÊÇÚÉ èÍ Ú× ÙÍÏÌÐ×È×Ø ÓÎ 2 Sarah Ash 7/20/2011 1” = 30’ SCALE Waterford Pond Erosion Control Plan & Planting Notes Metro Blooms PLANT SCHEDULE James LandiniTotal Plants:1386 forbs, 185 shrubs Waterford PondLF: ShorewoodSF:7,600 Pond PlantingDate:8/3/11 15' x 20' Reed Canary Grass Buffer Plants Qty:Scientific:Common:Moisture:Native Habitat:Flower:Period:Height:Size:Spacing: 50Calamagrostis canadensisBluejoint Grassw,umprairie, marsh, swampGreenJuly-Sept36-72"plug1' 50Spartina pectinataCord Grassw,umprairie, marsh, lake edgeYellowAug-Oct48-72"plug1' 100 Shrubs Qty:Scientific:Common:Moisture:Native Habitat:Flower:Period:Height:Size:Spacing: 5Cornus alternifoliaPagoda Dogwoodum,udforest, swampWhiteMay-July10-20'gal5' 30Corylus americanaAmerican Hazelum,udforest, lake edgePurpleMarch-April3-10'gal5' 20Sambucus pubensRed Berried Elderberryum,uddry to moist forestWhiteMay4-8'gal6' 100Cornus sericea (stolonifera)Red-osier Dogwoodw,um,udforest, lake edgeWhiteMay-July5-12'gal6' 20Sambucus canadensisCommon Elderberryw,umlake edge, marsh, swampWhiteJuly-Aug3-12'gal6' 10Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbushw, umforest, swamp, lake edgeWhiteJune-Sept6-12'gal8' 185 Plugs for the 10' x 200' Buffer Qty:Scientific:Common:Moisture:Native Habitat:Flower:Period:Height:Size:Spacing: Flowers 50Agastache foeniculumFragrant Hyssopum,udprairie, savannaBlueJune-Oct24-40"plug18" 25Amorpha canascensLeadplantudprairie, savannaBlueJune-July18-42"plug18" 25Anaphalis margaritaceaPearly Everlastingum,ud prairie, savanna, woodlandWhiteJuly-Sept6-18"plug18" 25Artemisia ludovicianaPrairie Sageum,ud prairie, savannaYellowJuly-Sept12-36"plug18" 25Asclepias tuberosaButterfly Weedudprairie, savannaOrangeJune-Sept12-24"plug18" 25Aster novae-angliaeNew England Asterw,umprairie, marsh, swampBlueAug-Oct24-48"plug18" 25Dalea candidumWhite Prairie Cloveruddry prairie, savannaWhiteJune-July12-30"plug18" 25Dalea purpureaPurple Prairie Cloveruddry prairie, savannaPurpleJune-July12-24"plug18" 25Echinacea angustifoliaPurple Confeflowerum,udprairie, savannaPurpleJuly-Aug24-36"plug18" 25Epilobium angustifoliumFireweedw,umwoodland, forest clearcutsMagentaJune-August36-48"plug18" 25Geum triflorumPrairie-smokeum,uddry prairie, woodlandPurpleApril-June6-12"plug18" 50Heliopsis helianthoidesOxeyew,um,udprairie, savanna, lake edgeYellowJune-Oct24-42"plug18" 25Heuchera richardsoniiAlum Rootum,udprairie, savanna, woodlandWhiteMay-July12-18"plug18" 25Lespedeza capitataBush Cloverum,udprairie, savanna, woodlandWhiteJuly-Oct24-36"plug18" 25Liatris asperaRough Blazing Starum,udprairie, savanna, woodlandPurpleJuly-Sept18-36"plug18" 25Monarda fistulosaWild Bergamotum,udprairie, savanna, woodlandLavenderJuly-Aug36-48"plug18" 50Rudbeckia hirtaBlack Eyed Susanum,udprairie, savanna YellowJune-Oct24-36"plug18" 50Tradescantia bracteataPrairie Spiderwortum,udprairie, savannaBlueJune-Aug18-30"plug18" 25Verbena strictaHoary Vervainudprairie, savanna, woodlandBlueJune-Sept12-24"plug18" 25Veronicastrum virginicumCulver's Rootumprairie, savanna, woodlandWhiteJuly-Aug36-60"plug18" 50Zizia aureaGolden Alexandersw,umprairie, savanna, woodlandYellowMay-July24"plug18" 650 Grasses 60Bouteloua curtipendulaSide Oats Gramaum,udprairie, savanna, woodlandRedJuly-Sept18-30"plug18" Waterford Pond 100Elymus hystrixBottlebrush Grassw,um,udforest, woodland, lake edgeGreenJune-July24-48"plug18" 60Panicum virgatumSwitchgrassw,um,udprairie, swamp, lake edgePurpleJune-Oct36-60"plug18" Plant Schedule 60Schizachyrium scopariumLittle Bluestemum,udprairie, savanna, woodlandAmberJuly-Sept18-36"plug18" 60Sporobolus heterolepisPrairie Dropseedum,udprairie, savannaGreenAug-Oct18-36"plug18" 100Stipa sparteaPorcupine Grassud prairie, savanna, woodlandPurpleJune-Jult36-48"plug18" 3 440 Sarah Ash 4" Forbs for Pond Edge Qty:Scientific:Common:Moisture:Native Habitat:Flower:Period:Height:Size:Spacing: Flowers 7/19/2011 20Eupatorium maculatumJoe Pye Weedw,umwet prairie, marsh, swampPurpleJuly-Sept24-48"4"18" 20Vernonia fasciculataIronweedw,umprairie, marsh, swampPinkJuly-Sept24-42"4"18" 20Verbena hastataBlue Vervainw,umprairie, marsh, swampBlueJune-Sept36-48"4"18" 20Mimulus ringensMonkeyflowerw,ummarsh, lake edge, swampLavenderJuly-Sept18-24"4"18" 20Iris versicolorBlue Flag Iriss,wmarsh, peatland, lake edgeBlueJune-July24-36"4"18" 100 Grasses 32Carex lacustrisLake Sedges,w,ummarsh, swamp, lake edgeGreenMay-June24-36"4"18" 32Acorus calamusSweet Flags,wlake edge, marshYellowMay-July24-42"4"18" 32Scirpus pungensThree-square Bulrushs,wmarsh, pond, lake edgeBrownJune-July24-48"4"18" 96 Metro Blooms COST ESTIMATE James LandiniTotal Plants :1,585 Waterford PondLF: Shorewood, MNSF:7,600 Pond PlantinDate:8/3/11 g COST/LABOR ESTIMATE 18" Plug Spacing Scenario MaterialsQtyUnit Unit Cost AmountPotential Source SC150BN11roll119.53$ 1,314.83$ (6.5' x 108', or equal)Brock White, (651) 647-0950 Securing staples- 500 ct 3box28.00$ 84.00$ (6" x 1") Brock White, (651) 647-0950 MATERIALS SUBTOTAL$1,398.83 Plants Native Plu - 1,400each1.25$ 1,750.00$ g (1"- 6 Pack)Native Plant Supplier Native Shrub 185each15.00$ 2,775.00$ (1 Gallon) Native Plant Supplier PLANT SUBTOTAL$4,525.00 Misc Labor, Minnesota Conservation Corps4day1,000.00$ 4,000.00$ DNR Install Coordination1flat rate500.00$ 500.00$ Install Supervision4day400.00$ 1,600.00$ Plant Delivery2job100.00$ 200.00$ Native Plant Supplier MISC SUBTOTAL6,300.00$ Materials1,398.83$ Plants4,525.00$ Misc6,300.00$ Materials Estimate12,223.83$ Labor Estimate Project Estimate12,223.83$ :-10%11,001.45$ :+10%13,446.21$ Waterford Pond Cost Estimate 4 Sarah Ash 7/19/2011 úÎÊÉøÊÉÔÐÜÉØÞæÜÉØË×ÎËÙíÎÏÙÅÑÊÅ #9B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Otta seal Enchanted Point Road Meeting Date: 8/22/2011 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Attachments: Policy Consideration: Background: Enchanted Point Road is a gravel road that was selected for stabilization in March of 2011. Two soil borings were taken and showed a gravel base of 12-13” which is sufficient to proceed with a low traffic volume otta seal. Staff solicited quotes from four firms with Allied Blacktop providing the only quote for the project. Their quote was for $52,800. Staff worked with Allied Blacktop and Midwest Asphalt on alternatives. Midwest Asphalt offered a quote of $50,560 to pave the road with an experimental road base. The two firms working concurrently offered a quote of $36,881 to otta seal the roadway. Financial or Budget Considerations: The project is not in the 2011 Capital Improvement Plan making this an unbudgeted project for 2011. Options: 1.Direct staff to proceed with this project utilizing the team concept to otta seal Enchanted Point Road. 2.Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council direct staff to utilize the team contractor concept for the otta seal. Next Steps and Timelines: If approved order the project to see if Flint Hills Refinery received enough of an order to produce the oil. Connection to Vision / Mission: Experimental project will improve Enchanted Point Road as an attractive amenity. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 #10A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Ordinance Amendment requiring rental property to test drinking water Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Joe Pazandak Attachments: Draft Ordinance Policy Consideration: Should the City Council amend the Rental License Ordinance to require owners of rental property connected to a private well to test the water supply? Background: Earlier this year, a tenant contacted the City with concerns about the level of arsenic in the water of the home he rented. He stated the property owner told him he could install a purification system at the tenants cost. The tenant believed the city, through its licensing of the property, hold the property owner accountable, and require the property owner to install a purification system or be subject to sanctions under the license. Following council discussion of the issue, council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance requiring property owners to provide proof the water met the same criteria the public water system must meet. Staff worked with the attorney to amend the ordinance reflecting the direction of the Council. Staff also contacted several testing companies and the Minnesota Department of Health on testing of private wells. Staff also received feedback from a few property owners regarding the possible change to the licensing requirement. Staff discovered that testing for all elements required for the public water system is relatively costly – up to $1,700. One of the property owners stated they contacted several companies regarding testing for all the elements listed and could not find one that did this comprehensive of a test. The Minnesota Department of Health recommends testing for a smaller number of contaminants as well as a couple not included in the public water test. The Department of Health recommends testing for Coliform, Nitrate, Arsenic, Copper, and Lead. The testing labs and MDH also suggest requiring purification systems, if necessary, for the facilities used for consumption and not a whole house system. The draft amendments require testing for Coliform bacteria, nitrates, copper, lead, and arsenic upon first application, at license renewal, or change of ownership where the property continues as a rental. The owner or owner’s representative will be required to provide testing results from a certified lab upon application. If amounts exceed MDH threshold for public systems, the property owner must install adequate purification of the water to remove contaminates at facilities used primarily for consumption. Financial or Budget Considerations: At this time, staff does not anticipate significant increase in staff time to process applications. Property owner’s or their representatives bear the cost of the testing. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Options: 1)Review amendments and provide staff additional direction based on comment / input by property owners; 2)Approve amendments as drafted; 3)Suggest modifications to draft and approve as modified; 4)Do nothing Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends council take public input, consider additional changes, and direct staff to bring amended ordinance back to the September 12, 2011 meeting for adoption. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will make necessary changes to the ordinance based on input and discussion and return to the next meeting. If Council approves the amendments at the meeting, staff will publish the amendments as required and send information on the new requirements along with reference material to all rental property owner’s with private wells. Connection to Vision / Mission: A healthy environment. CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD RENTAL HOUSING CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO PRIVATE WELL DRINKING WATER TESTING Section 1 . City Code Section 1004.04 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to add: “r. Drinking Water. The property owner of rental dwelling units having domestic water supplied by private well must provide a test result of the water from a lab certified by the Minnesota Department of Health at the time of application for initial license. (1) The domestic water supply must be tested upon renewal every three-years thereafter or earlier upon change of property ownership. (2) The domestic water supply must meet the standards as established by Minnesota Rules Part 4720.0350 as may be amended from time to time for Arsenic, Nitrates, and coliform bacteria.” Section 2. City Code Section 1004.04 Subd. 3, is hereby amended to add: “h. Domestic water used primarily for consumption which exceeds the safe drinking water standards contained in Minnesota Rules Part 4720.0350 as may be amended from time to time for Arsenic, Nitrates, and coliform bacteria, must be brought into compliance by the property owner before a rental license is issued.” Section 3 . 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 22nd day of August 2011. CHRISTINE LIZÉE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK Jean Panchyshyn From: jacque ridgway [mailto:jacqueridg@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:28 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Well testing for landlords Brad, I own a rental property in Shorewood and I received the letter regarding the tenant who wants to amend the rental housing code to include testing of private well water and require landlords to be subjected to the same testing as city water. I periodically test my well for arsenic, bacteria, and nitrate, and I use Tri-City/William Lloyd Analytical Laboratory in Bloomington. I called them and read the list of other elements listed in the proposition and they do not even have the ability to test for radon, radium, alpha emitters, barium, and sodium. I also spoke with Mark Johnson at the Minnesota Department of Health, Well Management Department (651- 201-4590) and he said when a new well is constructed, the state requires testing for arsenic, nitrate and coliform bacteria. I read the list of other elements in the letter I received from the City of Shorewood, and Mark said that bottled water is not even required to test for all of those elements. I do not think that landlords in the City of Shorewood should be held to a higher standard than the State of Minnesota requires. I have attached the relevant State Code (4725.5650) for your review. Since we are all aware that arsenic can be a problem in Shorewood wells, I agree that landlords should be required to test private wells periodically (upon initial application of a rental license and upon renewal of the license) for arsenic, nitrate and bacteria, but I do not think we should be held to the same standards as city water since we do not have the benefit of having city water available to us. If a tenant wants to test for the other elements, I think they should do that at their own expense. A renter should be aware that we have well water in Shorewood - if they want city water they should move to Uptown. Likewise, we don't have sidewalks and street lights here. If they want those, they should move to a big city. The next thing you know, we will have a renter petitioning the city to install street lights because they think it's unsafe to walk in the dark. We enjoy a small town environment in Shorewood that should be celebrated. If someone doesn't want all of the elements that go along with that lifestyle (like well water and deer) they shouldn't more here. Thanks for your time. Jacque Ridgway 1 Jean Panchyshyn From: markwelty@aol.com [mailto:markwelty@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:18 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Proposed water standards private wells - Smithtown Rd. Hello Brad - Hope your doing well. is no longer living in Shorewood Fortunately, the tenant that made the stink about the water . Kim and I went to court with Keith Carothers, and we mutually agreed to part company back in May. We have a new tenant in the property and he is awesome. Anyway, a couple of key points: We were constantly doing things at the demand of the Carothers. We finally got tired of it and drew the line. We offered to put in an under the sink system, but they declined and said they wanted a whole house system. As you know, these cost thousands of dollars, and there is not a site on the internet that says this is necessary. The arsenic levels for the property were between 10 and 20. I also saw e-mails from Keith to the city of Shorewood quoting Twin City water testing results. The funny thing is, he never paid them and they refused to give him the results. I held out $50 from his damage deposit as he said that is all he owed (which was not true). I sent that to Twin City Testing myself to get them something (they came out and took the sample which is why it was far more then $50) So yes, Keith cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But they are gone, thank goodness. So, to the point at hand which is not a simple problem. I happen to think it is a good idea for all persons to have their well water checked, and certainly when a property is sold or inspected for a rental licence. I do not, however, agree that the owner should be responsible for bringing the water up to public water standards until the EPA feels it is necessary. Certainly, it would be crazy to require a whole house system, and public standards also look at turbity, Fe, and other items that are for clarity, etc. and not health concerns. It is some of these values that the previous tenant also complained about. Does the city want to get in the middle of these issues? For about $100, anyone can get a counter top system that will remove Arsenic. It does not matter if water is ingested at 50PPM while brushing teeth, showering, etc., as this adds up to nothing if the primary water intake is from a filtered countertop system. So again, I think sharing results is good, but that is where it should stop for the City of Shorewood. Just to let you know, I put a large undersink system in the kitchen that filters the cold water at the Smithtown rental property. I also put an in-line filter for the ice maker in the refrigerator. The total cost was under $200, and the property now has water well below the public water standard. Why did I do this? For $200, why not. My water in Shorewood is under 10PPM, and my son's is also under 10PPM, so we have done nothing and we are fine with the current levels around 7PPM (Hey, we all grew up with up with the 50PPM standard) To recap my recommendations: 1. Do nothing, leave regulation to to the EPA, and recommend all residents have their water tested as you have done already. 2. Require all new tenants be given a notice that Shorewood recommends they have their water tested, or ask the Landlord if it has been tested. 1 3. Require all owners (not just rental), to have water tested at property transfer or for a rental license. 4. Same as #3, but require no more than a countertop unit or under sink system for the cold water. 5. Require a whole house system which is unnecesary and rediculous. 6. Require the whole house to meet ALL public standards for clarity, minerals, etc. I would go with #1 or #2. While your requirements may cause a significant hardship for many owners depending on the decisions made, the cost of a whole house system would not be a financial hardship for me. That being said, as a Landlord, I do not want to have to defend every change in water clarity, rust, turbitiy, that may occur over time, and that is what will happen if City decides to become the local EPA. I am very proud to live in Shorewood, and believe the City leadership does a good job of looking after the interests of the comunity. I know you are not responding solely on the rants of a nut case resident, but this issue needs to be kept in perspective. We are not in Bangledesh where the Arsenic levels are 100 times what we are discussing, and the the threat below 50PPM has yet to be proven, and discounts the fact that arsenic is taken in as part of our food supply. Thanks for listening, Mark and Kim Welty 2 #10B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Background Checks for Employment and Licenses Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Attachments: 1) Police Chief memo; 2) Draft Ordinance Background: Over the past several years, the City has had the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) conduct background checks for various city-issued licenses and employment purposes. The SLMPD went through an audit, and it was identified that member cities need to have specific language included in their ordinance that authorizes the SLMPD to conduct these background checks on behalf of the City. Attachment 1 is the memo from Police Chief Litsey regarding this topic. In order for the SLMPD to continue to conduct background checks for city-issued licenses, such as solicitors and canvassers, and for employment purposes, the city needs to adopt an ordinance that authorizes the SLMPD to provide this service. Staff amended the League of Minnesota cities model ordinance, which complies with the audit requirements, and has provided a draft ordinance for council’s consideration (Attachment 2). The city could conduct its own background check using the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension public web site; however, this site is limited and does not provide arrest or criminal court data with no conviction. Staff believes this information is important to have, especially for license requests for peddlers and solicitors. The City also has authorization to conduct background checks related to the Child Protection Background Check Act, and has conducted these checks for employees who work around children, such as the seasonal rink attendants. The City also has an agreement with the Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) for driving record checks, used for employees who drive for the City on a routine basis. The SLMPD is only authorized to access driving records for law enforcement purposes. Financial or Budget Considerations: There is no additional fee for the SLMPD to conduct the background check for City licenses and employment. There will be a small fee for publishing and codifying the ordinance amendment. Options: 1) Adopt the Ordinance, authorizing the SLMPD to conduct background checks on behalf of the City for City- issued licenses and employment purposes. 2) Do not adopt the Ordinance and rely only on the BCA public website for background information. 3) Direct staff to provide additional information and continue discussion of this issue to a future Council meeting. Recommendation / Action Requested: Adopt the Ordinance authorizing the SLMPD to conduct background checks on behalf of the City for City-issued licenses and employment purposes. Next Steps and Timelines: The ordinance will be published in the upcoming legal papers. Connection to Vision / Mission: Conducting background checks supports the safety of the city’s residents. 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 #10C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Southshore Community Center (SSCC) Ongoing Operations Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn Attachments: Policy Consideration: Should the City Council commit to the ongoing operation of the SSCC? Background: The city began the management of the SSCC in July of 2009. The city agreed to do this on a three year trial on behalf of the partner cities (Excelsior, Deephaven, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay). The city contracted with Community Rec. Resources to provide management services for the City. This agreement is also set for three years. The city will enter the third year of the agreement starting in 2012. To avoid the situation that occurred in 2009 when there was significant uncertainty as to the future of the center, there is a need to make a decision about ongoing operations. During the past two years, the center has increased visibility and increased activity and the trend continues to improve. Financial or Budget Considerations: Staff projects an ongoing general fund contribution to the Center of $10,000 to $15,000 per year. Options: 1)Offer to continue to manage the SSCC. 2)Negotiate with the other communities in an effort to transfer management responsibility to another partnering City. 3)Privatize the operation of the Center. 4)Close the Center at the end of 2012. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the Council commit to the ongoing operation of the SSCC. Staff also recommends Council direct staff to work with the other cities on extending the agreement. Finally, staff recommends working with the existing contractor to negotiate an extension of the agreement. Next Steps and Timelines: Should the Council commit to the ongoing operations of the Center; staff will begin the process to extend the agreement with the other cities as well as working with the contractor to renegotiate that agreement. Staff will also work with the contractor to develop a suitable business plan. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 #10D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Community Survey Meeting Date: Monday, August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Bruce DeJong, Julie Moore Attachments: Proposals from: Decision Resources, Springstead, University of Minnesota, and National Research Center. Policy Consideration: Does the Council wish to pursue a comprehensive community survey? Background: Over the past couple of years, the council discussed and entertained the idea of conducting a community survey. The purpose of the survey, as I understand it, is to gather information on attitudes from residents on the status of the city, to establish a baseline on residents impressions of city services, and to gather information from residents on what they feel are important programs and services to assist the council in strategic planning, priority setting, and budgeting. The council considered a proposal from Decision Resources in 2008 and decided to forgo the survey at that time for several reasons, cost and vagueness among them. Council began working on a strategic plan with a facilitator in early 2011. It soon became clear that assessing community attitudes and feelings about programs and services was a key component in moving forward with any type of strategic plan. In addition to this, council passed a resolution in July to participate in a program overseen by the State Auditor that requires participants to measure success on 10 specific measures. A community survey is one of the methods identified as a means to meet the program requirements. Financial or Budget Considerations: Staff estimates the total project will cost less than $20,000. The 2011 budget has an allocation of just over $36,000 that was set aside for the measureable management program. Council chose not to pursue this program and as a result, there are dollars available to cover the cost of the community survey. Options: 1)Authorize contracting with National Research Center to conduct the community survey; 2)Authorize contracting with one of the other firms that submitted a proposal; 3)Reject all proposals and pursue a different option; 4)Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends council authorize working with National Research Center to conduct the community survey. Staff makes this recommendation based on the significant expertise this organization has in conducting municipal surveys, the recommended 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 methodology, the additional services provided including identification of key drivers, ongoing follow-up and support, a web based option, and ability to compare results with other similar municipalities nationwide. This firm also provides an optional workshop called “Next Steps” that will assist staff and council in creating an action plan based on survey results. Next Steps and Timelines: Upon approval, staff will begin working with the selected firm in the development of a questionnaire and solid timeline for the project. Staff will also seek input from the Fire and Police departments as well as commissions to ensure questions are included that pertain to their specific operations. Connection to Vision / Mission: This project meets all the components of the City’s mission statement DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 612-920-2401 612-920-1069 (fax) wmorris@drlmpls.com August 4, 2011 Mr. Brian Heck City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mr. Heck: Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this survey research proposal to you for the City of Shorewood. This prospectus is organized into five parts: general information about the firm; examples of similar telephone surveys for public sector clients; proposed project team; public sector references; and, a cost proposal to complete the work. General Information about the Firm: Decision Resources, Ltd., is a full-service market and survey research firm. DRL was incorporated in 1983, and has served clients across the nation in the private, public, and political sectors. The firm’s main offices are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As a full-service firm, all word processing, duplication, printing, sample selection, interview tabulation, and computer analysis are undertaken on-site. All telephone surveys are conducted at the DRL phone banks located in Saint Paul and Shakopee, Minnesota. Company personnel administer local in-home and elite/specialized interviews, as well as all residential telephone surveys. The company is composed of forty full-time and part-time employees. The main principals of the firm possess extensive backgrounds in marketing, public affairs, survey research, and statistical methods. This cross-disciplinary background allows DRL to approach research problems from many different perspectives, and to evaluate potential strategies from a myriad of theoretical bases. Examples of Similar Telephone Studies: Over the past few years, Decision Resources, Ltd., has conducted survey research and/or focus group projects in the following Hennepin County communities: City of New Hope City of Crystal City of Brooklyn Park City of Golden Valley City of Plymouth City of Minnetonka City of Eden Prairie City of Edina City of Saint Louis Park City of Hopkins City of Robbinsdale City of Mound City of Orono City of Champlin City of Minnetrista Proposed Project Team: The primary researcher for this project would be Dr. William Morris, the President of Decision Resources, Ltd. He would be assisted in every phase of the research by Ms. Diane Traxler, Managing Partner, and Mr. Peter Leatherman, Research Director. These three principals of the Company have been involved in numerous projects with political jurisdictions in Hennepin County. Public Sector References: Mr. John Gunyou, City Manager, City of Minnetonka Ms. Anne Norris, City Manager. City of Crystal Mr. Jamie Verbrugge, City Manager, City of Brooklyn Park Telephone Survey Research Decision Resources, Ltd., proposes to complete a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected households in the City of Shorewood. A sample of 400 residents would provide results projectable to the entire city adult population within 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. This sample is of sufficient size to permit the area to be divided into a maximum of four categories for more detailed analysis, such as age, mobility, home ownership, location of residence, presence of children, ethnicity, and other demographic characteristics. To insure the integrity of the sample, DRL places the most exacting sampling standards in the industry on our procedures. Before an alternate household is substituted for a designated target, at least fifteen tries are made to contact the initial households during a seven-day period. The telephone calls take place during various times on weekday evenings and during the weekend. Our interviewers are also instructed to seek convenient appointments with interviewees, cutting our non-contact rate to less than five percent on average. An unbiased selection process is also used to identify the adult member of the household to be interviewed. To validate the completed sample, the updated United States Census updated population characteristics are utilized as a standard of comparison. The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and supervised personnel. The computer analysis will be obtained from our in-house C-MENTOR and SPSS statistical analysis systems, insuring both access to the most current analysis programs and confidentiality of the data set. The City of Shorewood will be presented with two bound copies and electronic copies of the final report highlighting all the major findings of the study. A volume of all computer- generated cross tabulations and other multivariate statistical techniques will also be included. Schedule 1. Planning with clients to establish the topics to be covered in the survey. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would word specific, neutral questions. This activity can be in a meeting or by electronic communications, depending on client wishes, within one week of the initiation of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. This is an iterative process and continues until all parties are satisfied with question wordings. These activities are usually completed within two-to-three weeks of the initiation of the questionnaire construction process. 3. Final determination of the field dates for interviewing. 4. Pre-testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity is to be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 5. Completion of all fieldwork within a three-week period. 6. Computer analysis and preparation of written report. All analytical tests and commentary will be available within two weeks after completion of the fieldwork. Page 3 of 5 7. Formal presentation of the findings and implications at a City Council meeting. 8. Delivery of the final written report and presentation graphics to City of Shorewood. Afterwards, telephone consultation, as the need arises, will be provided about the study’s findings and implications. PROJECT COSTS: The cost of a survey is driven by two factors: sample size and questionnaire length. A study whose parameters are a maximum of 50 questions units administered to a stratified random sample of 400 households in the city, including one formal presentation of the results, would cost $12,500.00. Each additional question unit beyond the initial allotment would be $135.00. FOCUS GROUP RESEARCH GOALS OF THE RESEARCH: Decision Resources, Ltd., could conduct a series of focus group discussion panels. While the results of focus group research are not projectable to the public as a whole, the findings can be suggestive. DESIGN AND SCHEDULE OF THE RESEARCH: The Company structures a focus group by recruiting 8-10 participants who possess pre-defined characteristics. They are assembled for 90 minutes in a conveniently located conference room. A financial incentive is provided as well as a snack or light meal, depending on the time of day. The facilitator employs a script composed of open-ended questions, monitoring the conversation to insure no one dominates or withdraws. A recorder takes notes on the proceedings, which becomes a part of the final analysis of the group session. Our typical timeline follows, but can also be amended to meet the needs of the Client: 1. One major planning meeting with you and other designated participants to establish topics for the focus group scripts. This activity can be completed within two weeks of the initiation of the contract and may also be accomplished, in the interests of efficiency, by using telephone and faxes. 2. Structuring of questions and approval of the focus group scripts at a formal meeting reviewing the preliminary script. These activities can be completed within four weeks of the initiation of the contract. Page 4 of 5 3. Final determination of the dates for the focus groups. 4. Recruitment of participants by telephone. A reminder telephone call would also be made just prior to the convening of the focus group. 5. Convening and moderating of the focus group. 6. Telephone discussion with you and designated participants to explain and discuss each focus group results. This preliminary discussion can be arranged at a time convenient for you and appropriate staff. 7. Analysis and preparation of the written report, provided to the client within two weeks after the conclusion of the focus group session. 8. A meeting with city staff and City Council members to explain and discuss the results and implications of the findings. The final presentations and discussion sessions can be arranged at a time convenient for the client. COST OF THE RESEARCH: The cost of the development of each discussion script would be $1,000.00, assuming each group is asked a set of common questions in addition to unique topics of interest. The recruitment of participants would include the initial recruitment, a mailed confirmation letter and the reminder phone call, for $2,000.00 per session. This price would increase with the number of qualifications required for participation in the focus group. The structure of the focus group would include a moderator, note-taker, public or community room, light refreshments and/or meals, and written report, at $2,500.00 per session. If needed, focus group facilities with two-way mirrors are available in the metro area. The incentives for participation would not exceed $75.00 per person, for a maximum of $750.00 for each session. The cost of one focus group session would be a maximum of $6,250.00 if held in a public or community room. I hope this overview sufficiently covers all the information you require. Let me assure you we believe we can provide you with timely and reliable information. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you. But, in any case, we wish you the best of luck with your efforts. Sincerely yours, Peter Leatherman Peter Leatherman Research Director Page 5 of 5 Ю±°±¿´ Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ß«¹«¬ ëô îðïï Ì¿¾´» ±º ݱ²¬»²¬ ÔÛÌÌÛÎ ÑÚ ÌÎßÒÍÓ×ÌÌßÔ ïßÞÑËÌ ÌØÛ Ú×ÎÓòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ï îÍÝÑÐÛ ÑÚ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ì í÷ôëðiê øåíøë×ÛÒÝÛ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ç ìÌ×ÓÛÚÎßÓÛ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ïï ëÎÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ïî êßÜÜ×Ì×ÑÒßÔ ×ÒÚÑÎÓßÌ×ÑÒ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ïí éÍÌßÌÛÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÚÛÛÍ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ïì ñô÷éîiê ëøêèðøßÐÐÛÒÜ×È × òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ÍËÎÊÛÇ ÓÛÍÍßÙÛ ÌÛÍÌ×ÒÙ ÍÌÎßÌÛÙ×ÛÍßÐÐÛÒÜ×È ×× òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò Ó··±² ͬ¿¬»³»²¬ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ °®±ª·¼» ¸·¹¸ ¯«¿´·¬§ô ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬ º·²¿²½·¿´ ¿²¼ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ¿¼ª·±®§ »®ª·½» ¬± °«¾´·½ ¿²¼ ²±²ó°®±º·¬ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ©±®µ ©·¬¸ ¬¸»³ ·² ¬¸» ´±²¹ó¬»®³ °®±½» ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬¸»·® ½±³³«²·¬·» ±² ¿ º·½¿´´§ ±«²¼ ¿²¼ ©»´´ó³¿²¿¹»¼ ¾¿·ò ß¾±«¬ ¬¸» Ú·®³ ï ïò ß¾±«¬ ¬¸» Ú·®³ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ײ½±®°±®¿¬»¼ íèð Ö¿½µ±² ͬ®»»¬ô Í«·¬» íðð Í¿·²¬ п«´ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ ëëïðï Ì»¿³ Ó»³¾»® ܱ² Ô·º¬±ô Í»²·±® Ê·½» Ю»·¼»²¬ô Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ײ½±®°±®¿¬»¼ô ©·´´ ¾» ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ´»¿¼ ±² ¬¸· »²¹¿¹»³»²¬ò Ø» ©·´´ ½±±®¼·²¿¬» ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ©·¬¸ êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙjÊ ÊÈËÇØÄ ÚÎÏÊÈÑÉÜÏÉ ùË ó Þ®¿¼º±®¼ Í»²¼»²ô Ю·²½·°¿´ ±º ¬¸» Ý»²¬»® º±® ݱ³³«²·¬§ Ñ°·²·±²ò Ô·º¬± ¿²¼ Í»²¼»² ¸¿ª» ³±®» ¬¸¿² ïë §»¿® »¨°»®·»²½» ¼»·¹²·²¹ô ¿¼³·²·¬»®·²¹ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®°®»¬·²¹ ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» «®ª»§ º±® ¿ ª¿®·»¬§ ±º °«¾´·½ ¶«®·¼·½¬·±²ò Ô·º¬± ©·´´ ¿´± ½±±®¼·²¿¬» ¿²§ °´¿²²·²¹ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± °±¬ó«®ª»§ º±½« ¹®±«° ¿ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ÔÏ ÉÕØ úÔÉÄjÊ ëØÌÈØÊÉ ×ÎË íËÎÍÎÊÜÑ éÕÔÊ ÍÕÜÊØ Î× ÉÕØ ÆÎËÒ ÆÎÈÑÙ ÛØ ÙÎÏØ ¾§ Ü¿ª·¼ ˲³¿½¸¬ ¿²¼ñ±® ͸¿®±² Õ´«³°°ô ½±²«´¬¿²¬ ¿¬ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ò ß º«´´ ®»«³» º±® ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ´»¿¼ô ܱ² Ô·º¬±ô ½¿² ¾» º±«²¼ ·² ß°°»²¼·¨ ×ò ܱ² Ûò Ô·º¬±ô иòÜòô Í»²·±® Ê·½» Ю»·¼»²¬ Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ѻº·½»æ íèð Ö¿½µ±² ͬ®»»¬ô Í«·¬» íððô Í¿·²¬ п«´ô ÓÒ ëëïðï Ü®ò Ô·º¬± ¾®·²¹ îë §»¿® ±º «°»®·²¬»²¼»²¬ »¨°»®·»²½» ¬± ¬¸» Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ¬»¿³ô ¸¿ª·²¹ »®ª»¼ ·² ®«®¿´ô «¾«®¾¿² ¿²¼ ·²¬»®³»¼·¿¬» ½¸±±´ ¼·¬®·½¬ò Ü®ò Ô·º¬± · ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿² »¨°»®¬ ·² «·²¹ ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» ®»»¿®½¸ ¬± ·²º±®³ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ ½±²¼«½¬·²¹ ®»º»®»²¼¿ò Ø· ¼·»®¬¿¬·±² º±½«» ±² ¬®¿¬»¹·½ º¿½¬±®ô ²±²ó¬®¿¬»¹·½ º¿½¬±® ¿²¼ ½®·¬·½¿´ »ª»²¬ ¿ºº»½¬·²¹ ¬¸» ±«¬½±³» ±º ½¸±±´ ¾±²¼ »´»½¬·±²ò Ø» · ½±¿«¬¸±® ±º ͽ¸±±´ Ú·²¿²½» Û´»½¬·±²ô ¿ ݱ³°®»¸»²·ª» ²¼ д¿²²·²¹ Ó±¼»´ º±® Í«½½»ô î Û¼·¬·±² ô ¿²¼ · °«¾´·¸»¼ »¨¬»²·ª»´§ ·² ²¿¬·±²¿´ ¶±«®²¿´ò Ø» · ¿ º®»¯«»²¬ °®»»²¬»® ¿¬ ²¿¬·±²¿´ ½±²º»®»²½» °±²±®»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ß³»®·½¿² ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±®ô ¬¸» Ò¿¬·±²¿´ ͽ¸±±´ Þ±¿®¼ ß±½·¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ Þ«·²» Ѻº·½·¿´ ײ¬»®²¿¬·±²¿´ò Öò Þ®¿¼º±®¼ Í»²¼»² ô Ю·²½·°¿´ ±º ¬¸» Ý»²¬»® º±® ݱ³³«²·¬§ Ñ°·²·±² îíï Ó¿®µ»¬ д¿½» ýîíëô Í¿² ο³±²ô Ýß çìëèí Öò Þ®¿¼º±®¼ Í»²¼»² ®»½»·ª»¼ ¸· иòÜò º®±³ ײ¼·¿²¿ ˲·ª»®·¬§ò Ø» »®ª»¼ ¿ ¬¸» ݸ·»º ±º ͬ¿ºº ¬± ¬¸» Ü»³±½®¿¬·½ Ý¿«½« ±º ¬¸» ײ¼·¿²¿ ر«» ±º λ°®»»²¬¿¬·ª» º±® º±«® §»¿®ò ߺ¬»® ´»¿ª·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ °±·¬·±²ô ¸» »®ª»¼ ¿ ¬¸» ײ¼·¿²¿ ͬ¿¬» ݱ±®¼·²¿¬±® º±® ¬¸» Ø¿²¼ ß½®± ß³»®·½¿ °®±¶»½¬ò Ø» ¬¸»² º±«²¼»¼ ¸· ±©² °±´·¬·½¿´ ½±²«´¬·²¹ º·®³ ©¸·½¸ ¸» ³±ª»¼ ¬± Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ¿ ¸· ©±®µ ©·¬¸ ½¸±±´ô ´·¾®¿®·»ô ½·¬·» ¿²¼ ½±«²¬·» ¬± °´¿² ¿²¼ »¨»½«¬» «½½»º«´ ¬¿¨ ½¿³°¿·¹² »¨°¿²¼»¼ ·² ¬¸¿¬ ¬¿¬»ò Ѫ»® î𠧻¿® ¸» ¸¿ ½±³°´»¬»¼ ²»¿®´§ ëðð «®ª»§ °®±¶»½¬ ¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬ ¬¸» ½±«²¬®§ò Ø· ³±®» ¬¸¿² ¬©»²¬§ Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ß¾±«¬ ¬¸» Ú·®³ î §»¿® ±º »¨°»®·»²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¿¨ °®±°±¿´ ¸¿ ·²ª±´ª»¼ ¸·³ ·² °®±¶»½¬ ·² ½±³³«²·¬·» ·² ¿´´ °¿®¬ ±º Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ò Ø· «®ª»§ ®»»¿®½¸ ¬»½¸²·¯«» °®±ª·¼» ¸·¹¸´§ ¿½½«®¿¬»ô °®»¼·½¬·ª» ¼¿¬¿ò ̸» ¯«¿´·¬§ ±º ¬¸» «®ª»§ ¸» ¸¿ ½±²¼«½¬»¼ º±® ®»º»®»²¼¿ô ¿»³»²¬ô ½¿²¼·¼¿¬» ¿²¼ ·«» · ¾«·´¬ ±² ¸· ¼»¬¿·´»¼ µ²±©´»¼¹» ±º ¸±© ¬¸» ·²º±®³¿¬·±² º®±³ «½¸ ¿ «®ª»§ ©·´´ ¾» «»¼ô ©¸»¬¸»® ·¬ · «»¼ ¬± ©·² ¿ ¬©±ó¬¸·®¼ »´»½¬·±² ±® ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ¿ ¹±±¼ ¼»½··±² ³¿µ·²¹ °®±½»¼«®»ò ײ îðïðô ¸» ½±ó¿«¬¸±®»¼ ©·¬¸ Ü®ò ܱ² Ô·º¬± ͽ¸±±´ Ú·²¿²½» Û´»½¬·±²æ ß Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» д¿²²·²¹ Ó±¼»´ º±® Í«½½»ô ²¼ î Û¼·¬·±² °«¾´·¸»¼ ¾§ ßßÍß ¿²¼ α©³¿² ¿²¼ Ô·¬¬´»º·»´¼ò Ü¿ª·¼ Öò ˲³¿½¸¬ô Í»²·±® Ê·½» Ю»·¼»²¬ Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ѻº·½»æ íèð Ö¿½µ±² ͬ®»»¬ô Í«·¬» íððô Í¿·²¬ п«´ô ÓÒ ëëïðï ðË èÏÐÜÚÕÉ ÔÊ ÉÕØ ÙÔËØÚÉÎË Î× êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙjÊ îËÖÜÏÔÃÜÉÔÎÏÜÑ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ñØ«³¿² 뱫®½» ¹®±«°ò Ó®ò ˲³¿½¸¬ ¾®·²¹ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ïë §»¿® ±º ½±«²¬§ ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² »¨°»®·»²½»ô ¸¿ª·²¹ ©±®µ»¼ º±® ͽ±¬¬ ¿²¼ Ü¿µ±¬¿ ½±«²¬·»ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ø» ¸¿ ¿´± ©±®µ»¼ ¿ Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® ·² Ю·±® Ô¿µ» ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® ·² Þ»´´» д¿·²»ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ø» ¹«·¼» ½´·»²¬ ·² ¾«¼¹»¬ ¿²¼ ®»±«®½» °´¿²²·²¹ô ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²¿´ ¿²¼ ´»¿¼»®¸·° ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ¬¿ººñ»´»½¬»¼ ±ºº·½·¿´ ®»´¿¬·±²ô ¸«³¿² ®»±«®½»ô ·²¬»®¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ ½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·±²ô ½±³°®»¸»²·ª» °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ ¹®±©¬¸ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ô ½±³³«²·½¿¬·±² ¬®¿¬»¹·»ô º¿½·´·¬¿¬·±² »®ª·½» ¿²¼ ¬®¿¬»¹·½ ÍÑÜÏÏÔÏÖ õØ ÕÜÊ Ü ÐÜÊÉØËjÊ ÔÏ íÈÛÑÔÚ üÙÐÔÏÔÊÉËÜÉÔÎÏ ×ËÎÐ ùËÜÒØ èÏÔÇØËÊÔÉÄ ÔÏ ôÎÆÜ ÜÏÙ Ü ÛÜÚÕØÑÎËjÊ ÙØÖËØØ ÔÏ ûÈÊÔÏØÊÊ üÙÐÔÏÔÊÉËÜÉÔÎÏ ÜÏ٠б´·¬·½¿´ ͽ·»²½» º®±³ É¿®¬¾«®¹ ݱ´´»¹» ·² ×±©¿ò ͸¿®±² Ùò Õ´«³°°ô Í»²·±® Ê·½» Ю»·¼»²¬ Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ѻº·½»æ íèð Ö¿½µ±² ͬ®»»¬ô Í«·¬» íððô Í¿·²¬ п«´ô ÓÒ ëëïðï Óò Õ´«³°° °»½·¿´·¦» ·² ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²¿´ ¿²¼ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ½±²«´¬·²¹ º±® °«¾´·½ ¿¹»²½·»ò Óò Õ´«³°° ¸¿ »¨¬»²·ª» ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ »¨°»®·»²½»ô ¸¿ª·²¹ »®ª»¼ ¿ ¿² Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ü·®»½¬±® ±º ¬¸» Ó»¬®±°±´·¬¿² ݱ«²½·´ óó ¬¸» »ª»²ó½±«²¬§ ®»¹·±²¿´ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿¹»²½§ º±® ¬¸» Ì©·² Ý·¬·» ³»¬®±°±´·¬¿² ¿®»¿ ±º Ó·²²»±¬¿ô ¿ ¬¸» ß±½·¿¬» Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ü·®»½¬±® º±® ¬¸» Ô»¿¹«» ±º Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ý·¬·»ô ¿ ¿ Ý·¬§ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® ¿²¼ ¿ ¿² ß·¬¿²¬ Ý·¬§ ðÜÏÜÖØË êÕØ ÕÎÑÙÊ Ü ÛÜÚÕØÑÎËjÊ ÙØÖËØØ ÔÏ ÍÎÑÔÉÔÚÜÑ ÊÚÔØÏÚØ ÜÏÙ Ü ÐÜÊÉØËjÊ ÔÏ ÍÈÛÑÔÚ ÜÙÐÔÏÔÊÉËÜÉÔÎÏ Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ß¾±«¬ ¬¸» Ú·®³ í Ú·®³ Ø·¬±®§ ðÔÏÏØÊÎÉÜ ÕÜÊ ÛØØÏ êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙjÊ ÕÎÐØ ·²½» ±«® ·²½»°¬·±²ò ̸» ¹®±©¬¸ ¿²¼ «½½» ±º Ó·²²»±¬¿ ½±³³«²·¬·» º±®³ ¬¸» º±«²¼¿¬·±² ±º ±«® ¿½¸·»ª»³»²¬ò Ú®±³ ѳ±² Í°®·²¹ÉØÙjÊ ×ÔËÊÉ ÎÏØÍØËÊÎÏ êÜÔÏÉ íÜÈÑ Î××ÔÚØ ÔÏ ÉÕØ ØÜËÑÄ Ê ÉÎ ÎÈË ÊÉÜÏÙÔÏÖ ÉÎÙÜÄ ÜÊ ÉÕØ ÊÉÜÉØjÊ ×ÎËØÐÎÊÉ ÜÙÇÔÊÎËÄ ×ÔËÐ ÊØËÇÔÏÖ ðÔÏÏØÊÎÉÜjÊ ÍÈÛÑÔÚ ÜÏÙ ÏÎÏÍËÎ×ÔÉ ØÏÉÔÉÔØÊ ÕÜÊ ¾»»² ±«® µ»§ ¬± «½½»ò ̸» ¹®±©¬¸ ·² ±«® °¿®¬²»®¸·° ©·¬¸ Ó·²²»±¬¿ ½±³³«²·¬·» ¸¿ ´»¼ ¬± ±«® °®±³·²»²½» ¿ ¿ º·²¿²½·¿´ ¿¼ª·±®ô ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¬± ¬¸» »¨°¿²·±² ±º ±«® »®ª·½» ¬± ½±ª»® ¿´´ º·²¿²½·¿´ô »½±²±³·½ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²¿´ ¿®»¿ò Ñ«® º«¬«®» · ¾¿»¼ ±² ±«® ½±³³·¬³»²¬ ¬± »®ª» ¿´´ Ó·²²»±¬¿ ½±³³«²·¬·»ò Ø·¬±®§ ±º Í«®ª»§ Ì»¿³ Ô·º¬± ¿²¼ Í»²¼»² ¸¿ª» ³±®» ¬¸¿² î𠧻¿® »¨°»®·»²½» ¼»·¹²·²¹ô ¿¼³·²·¬»®·²¹ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®°®»¬·²¹ ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» «®ª»§ ©·¬¸ ½·¬·»ô ½±³³«²·¬§ ½±´´»¹»ô ´·¾®¿®·»ô ½¸±±´ ¼·¬®·½¬ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¶«®·¼·½¬·±²ò Þ±¬¸ ¿´± ¸¿ª» »¨¬»²·ª» »¨°»®·»²½» ½±²«´¬·²¹ ©·¬¸ ½´·»²¬ ·² ¬¸» °±¬ó«®ª»§ ¬¿¹» ·² ¬»®³ ±º ½±³³«²·½¿¬·±² °´¿²²·²¹ò Í·²½» ïççí Ô·º¬± ¿²¼ Í»²¼»² ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ·²ª·¬»¼ ¾§ ßßÍßô ÒÍÞß ±® ßÍÞÑ ïë ¬·³» ¬± °®»»²¬ ±² ®»º»®»²¼«³ °´¿²²·²¹ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ «» ±º «®ª»§ ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ò ß ¬¿¬»¼ »¿®´·»®ô ¬¸»§ ¿®» ½±¿«¬¸±® ±º ¬©± ¾±±µ ±² ¬¸· ¬±°·½ ¿²¼ ¸¿ª» ¸¿¼ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ¿ ¼±¦»² ¿®¬·½´» °«¾´·¸»¼ ±² ®»º»®»²¼«³ °´¿²²·²¹ ·² ²¿¬·±²¿´ ¶±«®²¿´ò Ó¿²§ ±º ±«® ½´·»²¬ ®»¯«»¬ ¿·¬¿²½» ±² «·²¹ ±«® «®ª»§ º·²¼·²¹ ¿ ·²°«¬ ·²¬± ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ¬®¿¬»¹·½ °´¿² ¿²¼ ³¿¬»® ½±³³«²·½¿¬·±² °´¿² ·² °®»°¿®¿¬·±² º±® ¿ º«¬«®» ¾±²¼ ®»º»®»²¼«³ò ñÔ×ÉÎ ÜÏÙ êØÏÙØÏjÊ ØÅÍØËÔØÏÚØ ØÅÍØˬ·» ¿²¼ ¬®¿½µ ®»½±®¼ ©·´´ °®±ª·¼» ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ª¿´«» ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò Ü¿ª·¼ ˲³¿½¸¬ ¿²¼ ͸¿®±² Õ´«³°° ¸¿ª» »¨¬»²·ª» »¨°»®·»²½» ¿ ³¿²¿¹»® ·² ´¿®¹» °«¾´·½ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¼± ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²¿´ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬®¿¬»¹·½ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ º¿½·´·¬¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ½·¬»ô ½±«²¬·» ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¶«®·¼·½¬·±²ò ̸»·® ½±³¾·²»¼ »¨°»®·»²½» ¿²¼ »¨°»®¬·» ©·´´ ¿¼¼ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ª¿´«» ¬± ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ·º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ »¨°¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¬± ·²½´«¼» °±¬ó«®ª»§ º»»¼¾¿½µ ³»»¬·²¹ ·² ¬¸» º±®³ ±º º±½« ¹®±«°ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» ì îò ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» Í°®·²¹¬»¼ °®±°±» ¬± °´¿²ô ¼»·¹²ô ¿¼³·²·¬»® ¿²¼ ·²¬»®°®»¬ ¿ ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» «®ª»§ ¾¿»¼ ±² ìð𠽿´´ °®±¼«½·²¹ ¿² »®®±® ±º ³»¿«®»³»²¬ ±º ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ õñó ìòëû ©·¬¸ çëû ½±²º·¼»²½»ò ̸» °®±°±»¼ ´»²¹¬¸ ±º ¬¸» «®ª»§ · íé ¯«»¬·±²ô ©¸·½¸ ©±«´¼ ¬®¿²´¿¬» ·²¬± ¿¾±«¬ ïî ³·²«¬» ±² ¬¸» °¸±²» ©·¬¸ ·²¬»®ª·»©»»ò ôÉ ÔÊ ÔÐÍÎËÉÜÏÉ ÉÎ ÏÎÉØ ÉÕÜÉ êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙjÊ ÐØÉÕÎÙÎÑÎÖÄ ÆÕÔÚÕ ÈÊØÊ ÜÏ ¿²²±¬¿¬»¼ ®»¹·¬»®»¼ ª±¬»® º·´» ¬± ¼®¿© ¬¸» ®¿²¼±³ ¿³°´»ô ¿´´±© « ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ ©·¬¸ ®·½¸ ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ¾®»¿µ¼±©² ±º ¼¿¬¿ ©·¬¸±«¬ µ»»°·²¹ ®»·¼»²¬ ±² ¬¸» °¸±²» ¿² ·²±®¼·²¿¬» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ¬·³» ®»°±²¼·²¹ ¬± ¿² ±ª»®´§ ´±²¹ ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®»ò Ñ«® ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ ©·´´ °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©·¬¸ ½®±ó¬¿¾«´¿¬·±² ±º ¼¿¬¿ º±® ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ¹®±«°æ Ù»²¼»® ß¹» п®»²¬ ¬¿¬« ø·º ¬¸· ¼¿¬¿¾¿» · «»¼÷ Æ×Ð ½±¼» Ю»½·²½¬ ʱ¬»® ß½¬·ª·¬§ ͽ¿´» ß ¿² ±°¬·±²¿´ »²¸¿²½»³»²¬ô ¬¸» ͸±®»©±±¼ ½¿² ½±²¬®¿½¬ º±® ©¸¿¬ ©» ÚÜÑÑ møÅÍÜÏÙØÙ úËÎÊÊ éÜÛÊl ô× ÉÕÔÊ ±°¬·±² · ¼±²»ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©·´´ ¿´± ¸¿ª» ¿²¿´§» ¾¿»¼ ±² ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½æ ײ½±³» Û¼«½¿¬·±² ´»ª»´ ¸»¿¼ ±º ¸±«»¸±´¼ ر«·²¹ ¬§°» Ô»²¹¬¸ ±º ®»·¼»²½» ͸±®»©±±¼ ¿´± ®»¯«»¬»¼ ¿ ¯«±¬¿¬·±² º±® °±¬ó«®ª»§ »²¹¿¹»³»²¬ ©±®µò Ú±® ¬¸» »½±²¼ °¸¿» ±º ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ô ¸±«´¼ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ »´»½¬ ¬± »¨°¿²¼ ¬¸» ¬«¼§ô Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ©·´´ °´¿²ô ½±²¼«½¬ ¿²¼ ®»°±®¬ ±² «° ¬± ¬¸®»» º±½« ¹®±«° ±® ½±³³«²·¬§ º»»¼¾¿½µ º±®«³ò ײ ¬»®³ ±º ¬¸» ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» «®ª»§ô ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ «³³¿®·¦» ¬¸» ½±³°±²»²¬ ¿²¼ °®±½»ò ïòÓ»»¬ ©·¬¸ ͬ¿ºº Ô·º¬± ¿²¼ ˲³¿½¸¬ ©·´´ ³»»¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª» ¬¿ºº ·² ͸±®»©±±¼ ¿º¬»® ®»½»·ª·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»ª·»©·²¹ ®»´»ª¿²¬ ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ®»´»ª¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¼»·®»¼ «®ª»§ò ߬ ¬¸» ·²·¬·¿´ ³»»¬·²¹ ·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô ©» ©±«´¼ »»µ ½´¿®·º·½¿¬·±² ±® ½±²¬»¨¬ ®»´»ª¿²¬ ¬± ·²º±®³¿¬·±² °®»ª·±«´§ «¾³·¬¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô ®»ª·»© ¬®¿¬»¹·» ¿²¼ ±°¬·±² ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± «®ª»§ ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ½±²º·®³ ¬·³»´·²» ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼ °®±½»» ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®»ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» ë îòÍ¿³°´» Í»´»½¬·±² Þ»º±®» ¼®¿©·²¹ ¿ ®¿²¼±³ ¿³°´» º±® ¬¸» ¬«¼§ô Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ©±«´¼ ¿²²±¬¿¬» ¬¸» ¼¿¬¿¾¿» ±º ®»¹·¬»®»¼ ª±¬»® ¿²¼ ¬¸»² ¼± ¿ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿²¿´§· ±º µ»§ ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¬·½ ±º ®»¹·¬»®»¼ ª±¬»® ´·ª·²¹ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ò ̸· ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ¿²¿´§· ¯«¿²¬·º·» ¬¸» ®»´¿¬·ª» ·¦» ±º ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ¹®±«° ±º ®»¹·¬»®»¼ ª±¬»® ¾¿»¼ ±² ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¬·½ «½¸ ¿ ¿¹»ô ¹»²¼»®ô °´¿½» ±º ®»·¼»²½» ø·ò»òô ½·¬§ô Æ×Ð ½±¼» ±® °®»½·²½¬÷ô °¿¬ ª±¬·²¹ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ô °¿®»²¬ ¬¿¬«ô »¬½ò ß²¿´§¦·²¹ ¿²¼ ½±«²¬·²¹ ·² ¬¸· º¿¸·±² »²«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿³°´» ¼®¿©² º±® ¬¸» ¬«¼§ ¼±» ²±¬ ±ª»® ¿³°´» «¾¹®±«° ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º·²¿´ ¿³°´» ³·®®±® ¬¸» ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ±º ¿´´ ®»¹·¬»®»¼ ª±¬»® ´·ª·²¹ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò ̸» ¹®¿°¸·½ ¾»´±©ô ©¸·½¸ · ¿ ³¿´´ ²¿°¸±¬ ±º ±«® ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ¿²¿´§·ô · ®»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª» ±º ±«® ª±¬»® º·´» ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ò íòÍ¿³°´» Í·¦» ß ¿³°´» ·¦» ±º ìðð ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿¼»¯«¿¬» º±® ¿ ª·¿¾´» ¿²¼ ¿½½«®¿¬» Ý·¬·¦»² Í«®ª»§ º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô ®»«´¬·²¹ ·² ¿² »®®±® ±º ³»¿«®»³»²¬ ±º ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ õñó ìòëû ©·¬¸ çëû ½±²º·¼»²½»ò ìòÜ»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º Í«®ª»§ ײ¬®«³»²¬ ̸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ ©±«´¼ ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ º·®¬ ¼®¿º¬ ±º ¬¸» «®ª»§ ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®» º±® ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ·²°«¬ ¸±®¬´§ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» °´¿²²·²¹ ³»»¬·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¿ºº «³³¿®·¦»¼ ·² ýï ¿¾±ª»ò ̸» Ý·¬§ ©±«´¼ ¾» ³¿¼» ¿©¿®» ±º ¬®¿¬»¹·» ¿²¼ ±°¬·±² ·²½´«¼·²¹ °´·¬ó¿³°´» °®±¾»ô ±°»²ó»²¼»¼ °®±¾» ¿²¼ ³»¿¹» ¬»¬·²¹ «·²¹ ÍÍÐÍ º±® É·²¼±©ò д»¿» ®»º»® ¬± ß°°»²¼·¨ ×× º±® ¿ ½±°§ ±º ¿² ¿®¬·½´» ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± «®ª»§ ³»¿¹» ¬»¬·²¹ ¬®¿¬»¹·» «·²¹ ¬¸»» ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹·»ò Í¿³°´» ±º «®ª»§ ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®» «»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬» ±º λ¼ É·²¹ô Þ´¿·²» ¿²¼ η½¸º·»´¼ ½¿² ¾» º±«²¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¾¿½µ ±º »¿½¸ ±º ¬¸»·® ®»°»½¬·ª» ɱ®µ¾±±µ ±² ¬¸» º´¿¸ ¼®·ª»ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» ê ߺ¬»® ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ º»»¼¾¿½µ º®±³ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô ¿ »½±²¼ ¼®¿º¬ ±º ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®» ©±«´¼ ¾» ¼»ª»´±°»¼ò ðÎÊÉ Î× ÎÈË ÍËÎÓØÚÉÊ ËØÌÈÔËØ o ®»²¼·¬·±² ¾»º±®» ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®» · ®»¿¼§ º±® º·»´¼ ¬»¬·²¹ò Ѳ ¬¸» ²»¨¬ °¿¹» ©» ¸¿ª» ·²½´«¼»¼ ¿ ¿³°´» ¯«»¬·±² «»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Þ´¿·²»ò ëòÚ·»´¼ Ì»¬·²¹ Ѳ½» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ ¸¿ ·¹²»¼ ±ºº ±² ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®»ô »¨°»®·»²½»¼ °¸±²» ·²¬»®ª·»©»® ©·´´ ¼± ´·ª» º·»´¼ ¬»¬ ¬± »²«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±² ©»®» «²¼»®¬±±¼ ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ °®±¼«½» ®»´»ª¿²¬ º»»¼¾¿½µ º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò ׺ ²»½»¿®§ô ¾¿»¼ ±² º»»¼¾¿½µ º®±³ ¬¸» º·»´¼ ¬»¬ô º«®¬¸»® »¼·¬ ·² ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®» ©±«´¼ ¾» ³¿¼» ¬± ·³°®±ª» ¬¸» ®»´·¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¼¿¬¿ ½±´´»½¬·±² º®±³ ®»°±²¼»²¬ò êòݱ²¼«½¬ Í«®ª»§ ¿²¼ ݱ´´»½¬ Ü¿¬¿ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ «» ¿ °®±º»·±²¿´ ½¿´´·²¹ ½»²¬»® ·² ײ¼·¿²¿ô ©¸·½¸ ¸¿ ¼±²» ¸«²¼®»¼ ±º ·³·´¿® «®ª»§ º±® ±«® ½´·»²¬ò Ü»³±¹®¿°¸·½ °¿®¿³»¬»®ô ¾¿»¼ ±² ¬¸» ª±¬»® º·´» ¿²¿´§· «³³¿®·¦»¼ ·² ýî ¿¾±ª»ô · ½±²¬®±´´»¼ ¾§ ½±³°«¬»® ¬± »²«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ½±³°±·¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¿³°´» ½´±»´§ ³·®®±® ¬¸» ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ±º ¿´´ ®»¹·¬»®»¼ ª±¬»®ò ̸» Ý·¬§ · ¹«¿®¿²¬»»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ©» ©·´´ ½±³°´»¬» ¿¬ ´»¿¬ ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ®¿²¼±³ ½¿´´ ½±²¬®¿½¬»¼ º±®ô ©¸·½¸ ²±®³¿´´§ ¬¿µ» º±«® ¬± ·¨ ¼¿§ ¬± ½±³°´»¬»ò ß´¬¸±«¹¸ ¯«¿´·¬§ ½±²¬®±´ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¸¿ª» °®±ª»² ¬± ³·²·³·¦» °®±¾´»³ ¿²¼ ½±³°´¿·²¬ ¼«®·²¹ ¼¿¬¿ ½±´´»½¬·±²ô ©» ¿®» ¿¾´» ¬± ¬®¿½µ ¿²¼ ·²ª»¬·¹¿¬» ¿²§ ½±³°´¿·²¬ ¿²¼ô ·º ²»½»¿®§ô ®»ª·»© ¿² ¿«¼·± ¬®¿²½®·°¬ ±º ¿² ·²¬»®ª·»©ò éòЮ±ª·¼» ײ·¬·¿´ ο© Ü¿¬¿ É·¬¸±«¬ ß²¿´§· Ú·²¿´ ©±®µ °®±¼«½¬ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ½·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¿ Ý·¬·¦»² Í«®ª»§ ©±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¿ ɱ®µ¾±±µ ±º ®¿© ¼¿¬¿ô ɱ®µ¾±±µ ±º ±°»²ó»²¼»¼ ®»°±²» ¿²¼ ¿ б©»®Ð±·²¬ «³³¿®§ ±º µ»§ º·²¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²ò ̸» º·®¬ ±º ¬¸»»ô ¿ ɱ®µ¾±±µ ±º ®¿© ¼¿¬¿ô · ¼»°·½¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¿³°´» ¾»´±©ô ©¸·½¸ · ¬»¬·²¹ ¬¿¨ ¬±´»®¿²½» º±® ¿ °±¬»²¬·¿´ °®±¶»½¬ò Í¿³°´» ±º ¿´´ ¬¸®»» ©±®µ °®±¼«½¬ ¿®» °®±ª·¼»¼ ±² ¬¸» º´¿¸ ¼®·ª»ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» é èò Ü¿¬¿ ß²¿´§· ¿²¼ Ý®±ó¬¿¾«´¿¬·±² É» ¸¿ª» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿ ¿³°´» ±º ±«® ¼¿¬¿ ¿²¿´§· ¿²¼ ½®±ó¬¿¾«´¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸» º´¿¸ ¼®·ª» »²½´±»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °®±°±¿´ò ß §±« ©·´´ ²±¬» ·² ¬¸» ¿³°´»ô ©¸·½¸ ©¿ ¿´± ¬»¬·²¹ º±® ¾±²¼ ·«¿²½» º»¿·¾·´·¬§ô ±«® ɱ®µ¾±±µ ·²½´«¼» çð °¿¹» ±º ¿²¿´§» ©·¬¸ »¨¬»²·ª» ½®±ó ¬¿¾«´¿¬·±²ò ̸» ¹®¿°¸·½ ¾»´±© ¼»°·½¬ ½®±ó¬¿¾«´¿¬·±² ±º ¼¿¬¿ ¾¿»¼ ±² °¿®»²¬ ¬¿¬«ò п®»²¬ ¼¿¬¿ º®±³ ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ Õóïî ¼·¬®·½¬ ½±«´¼ ¾» ÜÏÏÎÉÜÉØÙ ÔÏÉÎ ÉÕØ úÔÉÄjÊ ÐÜÊÉØË ×ÔÑØ ÆÔÉÕ ÉÕØ ÚÎÎÍØËÜÉÔÎÏ Î× ÉÕØ ùÔÊÉËÔÚÉ ·º ¬¸»®» ©»®» ¿² ·²¬»®»¬ ·² ¼»¬»®³·²·²¹ ¸±© °¿®»²¬ ®»°±²» ¼·ºº»®»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» ±ª»®¿´´ ®»°±²» ¬± ª¿®·±« °®±¾»ò çòÜ®¿º¬ λ°±®¬ ß´± ·²½´«¼»¼ ±² ¬¸» º´¿¸ ¼®·ª» · ¿ ¿³°´» ±º ¿ б©»®Ð±·²¬ «³³¿®§ ±º µ»§ º·²¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²ò É» ©±«´¼ °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ б©»®Ð±·²¬ ¼®¿º¬ º±® ®»ª·»© ·³·´¿® ¬± ¬¸» »¨¿³°´» °®±ª·¼»¼ò ײ ´·»« ±º ¿ б©»®Ð±·²¬ ®»°±®É ÜÉ ÉÕØ úÔÉÄjÊ ÙÔÊÚËØÉÔÎÏ ÆØ ÆÎÈÑÙ °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» «³³¿®§ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ·² ¿ ²¿®®¿¬·ª» º±®³¿¬ò ̸» º·²¿´ б©»®Ð±·²¬ «³³¿®§ ±® ²¿®®¿¬·ª» ©±«´¼ ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿º¬»® ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º º»»¼¾¿½µò Þ»´±© · ¿² »¨¿³°´» ¸±©·²¹ Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» è ®»¿½¬·±² ¬± ¿ °±¬»²¬·¿´ ¾±²¼ ®»º»®»²¼«³ ¾»º±®» ¿²¼ ¿º¬»® ·²º±®³¿¬·±² · °®»»²¬»¼ô »°¿®¿¬»¼ ¾¿»¼ ±² ¹»²¼»®ò ïðò д¿² ¿²¼ ݱ²¼«½¬ б¬ó«®ª»§ Ú±½« Ù®±«° Ü¿ª» ˲³¿½¸¬ ¿²¼ ͸¿®±² Õ´«³°° º®±Ð êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙjÊ ðÜÏÜÖØÐØÏÉ ÜÏ٠ݱ²«´¬·²¹ Í»®ª·½» Ù®±«° ©·´´ °´¿²ô ½±²¼«½¬ ¿²¼ ®»°±®¬ ±² «° ¬± ¬¸®»» °±¬ó «®ª»§ º±½« ¹®±«° ¿ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ò ̸» °«®°±» ±º ¬¸»» º±½« ¹®±«° ©±«´¼ ¾» ¬± ®»ª·»© «®ª»§ ®»«´¬ ¿²¼ »»µ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ º»»¼¾¿½µ ¿²¼ °»®°»½¬·ª» º®±³ ¹®±«° ±º ·²¬»®»¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ÷ÔËÐjÊ øÅÍØËÔØÏÚØ ç ÷ÔËÐiÊ øÅÍØËÔØÏÚØ ÷ÔËÐiÊ øÅÍØËÔØÏÚØ ÆÔÉÕ Ñ¬¸»® Ó«²·½·°¿´·¬·» ß ¬¿¬»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô °®±¶»½¬ ¬»¿³ ³»³¾»® Ô·º¬± ¿²¼ Í»²¼»² ¸¿ª» ½±³¾·²»¼ ±² ìëé ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» «®ª»§ ±ª»® ¬¸» °¿¬ ïë §»¿®ò ̸· ¸¿ ·²½´«¼»¼ ½·¬§ô ½¸±±´ ¼·¬®·½¬ô ½±³³«²·¬§ ½±´´»¹» ¿²¼ ´·¾®¿®§ ½´·»²¬ò Ѳ ¬¸» º´¿¸ ¼®·ª» ©» ¸¿ª» °®±ª·¼»¼ º±´¼»® º±® ¬¸®»» ·³·´¿® ½·¬§ °®±¶»½¬ º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬·» ±º λ¼ É·²¹ô Þ´¿·²» ¿²¼ η½¸º·»´¼ò ÷ÔËÐiÊ øÅÍØËÔØÏÚØ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ¬¿ºº ¸¿ª» »¨¬»²·ª» »¨°»®·»²½» ·² º¿½·´·¬¿¬·²¹ ½±³³«²·¬§ ³»»¬·²¹ò ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¾±¬¸ ͸¿®±² Õ´«³°° ¿²¼ Ü¿ª·¼ ˲³¿½¸¬ ¸¿ª» ©·¼» ®¿²¹·²¹ »¨°»®·»²½» ·² º¿½·´·¬¿¬·²¹ ¬®¿¬»¹·½ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ ¹±¿´ »¬¬·²¹ »·±² ©·¬¸ ½·¬§ ¿²¼ ½±«²¬§ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ò ײ ¬¸» °¿¬ô ͸¿®±² Õ´«³°° ©¿ ·²ª±´ª»¼ ·² ½±³³«²·¬§ °´¿²²·²¹ °®±½»» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬·» ±º Þ´±±³·²¹¬±² ¿²¼ ݱ±² ο°·¼ò ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¬©± ®»½»²¬ »¨¿³°´» ¿®» ·²¼·½¿¬·ª» ±º ¬¸» ²¿¬«®» ±º ¬¸» ©±®µ ©» ©·´´ ¼± ·² ͸±®»©±±¼ò ɸ·¬» Þ»¿® Ô¿µ» ݱ³³«²·¬§ α«²¼ ß ¿ ½±³°±²»²¬ ±º ¬¸»·® Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ¬®¿¬»¹·½ °´¿²²·²¹ »·±²ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ·²ª·¬»¼ ±ª»® ïë ½·¬·¦»² ¬± °¿®¬·½·°¿¬» ·² ¬¸»·® °®±½»ò Ü¿ª» ˲³¿½¸¬ º¿½·´·¬¿¬»¼ ¿ ï c »·±² ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ô ½·¬·¦»² ¿²¼ ½·¬§ ¬¿ººò ̸» ½·¬·¦»² ©»®» ¿² ·²¬»¹®¿´ ½±³°±²»²¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±½»ô ¿²¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» »ºº±®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ º¿½·´·¬¿¬·±² ©±®µ ¬¸»§ ©»®» ª¿´«¿¾´» ½±²¬®·¾«¬±® ¬±©¿®¼ ¿·¬·²¹ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ·² ¼»¬»®³·²·²¹ ¬¸»·® «°½±³·²¹ ¬®¿¬»¹·» ¿²¼ °®·±®·¬·»ò Ú±® ®»º»®»²½» ·²º±®³¿¬·±² °´»¿» ½±²¬¿½¬ Û´´»² η½¸¬»®ô ß·¬¿²¬ Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® ¿¬ êëïóìîçóèëðëò É·²¼±³ Ì¿¾´» Ü·½«·±² ¬¸ Ѳ Ö«´§ ê ¿²¼ ïï ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º É·²¼±³ ¸»´¼ ¬©± ½±³³«²·¬§ ³»»¬·²¹ ¬± »»µ ·²°«¬ ·²¬± ¬¸»·® ¬®¿¬»¹·½ °´¿²²·²¹ °®±½»ò ̸» ³»»¬·²¹ ©»®» ¸»´¼ ·² ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ ½»²¬»® ¿²¼ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ íð ½·¬·¦»² °¿®¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ò Ü¿ª» ˲³¿½¸¬ º¿½·´·¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸» ¬©± »·±² ¿²¼ °®»°¿®»¼ ¿ «³³¿®§ ±º ¬¸» ¼·½«·±² ¿²¼ º·²¼·²¹ º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ò ̸· ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ©¿ °®»»²¬»¼ ±² Ö«´§ ïíò Ú±® ®»º»®»²½» ·²º±®³¿¬·±² °´»¿» ½±²¬¿½¬ ͬ»ª» Ò¿¾§ô Ý·¬§ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® ¿¬ ëðéóèíïóêïîçò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ Í»½¬·±²Ò¿³»í ïð ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¾±¬¸ Ü¿ª» ˲³¿½¸¬ ¿²¼ ͸¿®±² Õ´«³°° ¸¿ª» »¨¬»²·ª» »¨°»®·»²½» ·² º¿½·´·¬¿¬·²¹ ³»»¬·²¹ ±º »´»½¬»¼ ±ºº·½·¿´ ¿²¼ ¬¸»·® ¬¿ººò ͸¿®±² ®»½»²¬´§ »®ª»¼ ¿ ¿ º¿½·´·¬¿¬±® º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ ¿²¼ ¸¿ Ü ÖËØÜÉ ÈÏÙØËÊÉÜÏÙÔÏÖ Î× ÉÕØ úÔÉÄjÊ ÖÎÜ´ ¿²¼ °®·±®·¬·»ò Ü¿ª» ˲³¿½¸¬ ¸¿ ®»½»²¬´§ ½±³°´»¬»¼ º¿½·´·¬¿¬·±² ©±®µ º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ô·²± Ô¿µ»ô Ý¿®ª»® ¿²¼ ܱ¼¹» ݱ«²¬§ò λº»®»²½» ¿²¼ ½±²¬¿½¬ ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ¿®» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» «°±² ®»¯«»¬ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± Ю±ª·¼» ß Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ Ì·³»º®¿³» ïï ìò Ì·³»º®¿³» Ó±¬ ±º ±«® ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» «®ª»§ ¿®» ½±³°´»¬»¼ ©·¬¸ o ÆØØÒÊ ×ËÎÐ ÉÕØ ÙÜÉØ Î× ØÏÖܹ»³»²¬ ¬¸®±«¹¸ °®»»²¬¿¬·±² ±º º·²¿´ ®»«´¬ò ̸» µ»§ ª¿®·¿¾´» ·² ¬»®³ ±º ¼«®¿¬·±² · ¸±© ´±²¹ ·¬ ¬¿µ» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬± °®±½» »¿½¸ ¼®¿º¬ ±º ¬¸» «®ª»§ ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®»ò Û¨°»½¬»¼ Ý·¬§ ͬ¿ºº Ì·³» º±® ß·¬¿²½» ·² ¬¸» Í«®ª»§ Ю±½» Þ»º±®» ½±³°´»¬·²¹ ¬¸» º·®¬ ¼®¿º¬ ±º ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®»ô ©» ¿µ ¬¸» ½´·»²¬ ¬± »³¿·´ ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ®»´»ª¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ±¾¶»½¬·ª» ±º ¬¸» ¬«¼§ò ߺ¬»® ®»ª·»© ±º ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ô ©» ¬§°·½¿´´§ ½¸»¼«´» ¿¾±«¬ ¿ ìë ³·²«¬» °¸±²» ½±²º»®»²½» ¬± ¼·½« ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ò Ó±¬ ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®» ¹± ¬¸®±«¹¸ íóì ¼®¿º¬ ±º ¬¸» ¾»º±®» ·¬ · ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¿²¼ º·»´¼ ¬»¬»¼ò ͬ¿ºº ¬·³» ©±«´¼ ¾» ·²ª±´ª»¼ ·² ®»ª·»©·²¹ ¿²¼ °®±ª·¼·²¹ « ©·¬¸ º»»¼¾¿½µ ±² »¿½¸ ¼®¿º¬ò Ѫ»®¿´´ô ¬¿ºº ¬·³» ¿³±«²¬ ¬± ¿ º»© ¸±«® °®·³¿®·´§ ·² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ¯«»¬·±²²¿·®» ¿²¼ ³·²·³¿´ ¬·³» ¬± »´»½¬®±²·½¿´´§ »²¼ ±¬¸»® º·´» ±º ²»»¼ ±® ·²¬»®»¬ ¬± ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ λº»®»²½» ïî ëò λº»®»²½» λ¼ É·²¹ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ó®ò Ó¿®¸¿´´ Ø¿´´±½µ Ú·²¿²½» Ü·®»½¬±® êëïóíèëóíêðî Ý·¬§ ±º Þ´¿·²»ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ó®ò Þ®§¿² ͽ¸¿º»® д¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ü·®»½¬±® éêíóéèëóêïìì Ý·¬§ ±º η½¸º·»´¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ó®ò ͬ»ª» Ü»ª·½¸ Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® êïîóèêïóçéðî Ò±¬»æ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ³»¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª» ¬¿ºº ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Þ´¿·²» ±² Ö«´§ îëô ¿¬ ¬¸»·® ®»¯«»¬ô ¬± ¾»¹·² °´¿²²·²¹ º±® ¿ îðïï º±´´±©ó«° ¬± ¬¸» úÔÉÄjÊ ÊÚÔØÏÉÔ×ÔÚ ËÜÏÙÎÐÊÜÐÍÑØ «®ª»§ ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ¾§ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý»²¬»® º±® ݱ³³«²·¬§ Ñ°·²·±²ò ̸» ¬¿ºº ©·´´ ¾» ¾®·²¹·²¹ êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙjÊ ÍËÎÍÎÊÜÑ ÉÎ ÉÕØ úÔÉÄ úÎÈÏÚÔÑ ×ÎË ËØÇÔØÆ ÔÏ üÈÖÈÊÉ éÕØ ×ÜÚÉ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Þ´¿·²» ±´·½·¬»¼ ¿ »½±²¼ °®±°±¿´ º®±³ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ · ·²¼·½¿¬·ª» ±º ¬¸»·® ¿¬·º¿½¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¬¸» îððé ¬«¼§ò ̸» Ý·¬§ ¸¿¼ °®»ª·±«´§ «»¼ ¿²±¬¸»® ª»²¼±® º±® ¬¸· ¬§°» ±º ©±®µò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ײ«®¿²½» ïí êò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ײº±®³¿¬·±² ݱ²º´·½¬ ±º ײ¬»®»¬ ß ¿² ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬ º·²¿²½·¿´ ¿¼ª·±® ¿²¼ ½±²«´¬¿²¬ô Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ©¿ º±«²¼»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¾»´·»º ±º¿ª±·¼¿²½» ±º ½±²º´·½¬ ±º ·²¬»®»¬ ©¸»² ½±²¼«½¬·²¹ ¾«·²» ±® °®±ª·¼·²¹ »®ª·½» ±² ¾»¸¿´º ±º ±«® ½´·»²¬ò Ñ«® ·²¼»°»²¼»²½» ½±ª»® ¿´´ »®ª·½» ´·²» º®±³ Ы¾´·½ Ú·²¿²½» ¬± ݱ²«´¬·²¹ Í»®ª·½»ò Ñ«® ±²´§ ½´·»²¬ ¿®» °«¾´·½ »²¬·¬·» ¿²¼ ²±²ó°®±º·¬ ½±®°±®¿¬·±²ò ײ »ª»®§ ½¿» ©» ¬¿²¼ ±² ±²´§ ±²» ·¼»ô ©·¬¸ ©¸¿¬ · ·² ¬¸» ¾»¬ ·²¬»®»¬ ±º ±«® ½´·»²¬ò Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ¸¿ ²± ½±²º´·½¬ ±º ·²¬»®»¬ ·² ®»´¿¬·±²¸·° ¬± ¬¸· °®±¶»½¬ò Ю±º»·±²¿´ Ô·¿¾·´·¬§ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ײ½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ¸¿ ¿ ´±²¹ ¸·¬±®§ ±º ½¿®®§·²¹ °®±º»·±²¿´ ײ«®¿²½» ´·¿¾·´·¬§ ·²«®¿²½» º±® ¬¸» °®±¬»½¬·±² ±º ±«® º·®³ô ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ±«® ½´·»²¬ò ײ ¬¸· ´·¬·¹·±« ±½·»¬§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¸·¹¸´§ ®»¹«´¿¬»¼ô ²«³¾»®ó·²¬»²·ª» »²ª·®±²³»²¬ ·² ©¸·½¸ ©» ±°»®¿¬»ô ¬¸· ¬§°» ±º ½±ª»®¿¹» · »»²¬·¿´ò Ñ«® °±´·½§ ´·³·¬ ¿®» üîôðððôððð °»® ±½½«®®»²½» ¿²¼ üîôðððôððð ¿¹¹®»¹¿¬»ô ©·¬¸ ¿ ¼»¼«½¬·¾´» ¾¿»¼ ±² »®ª·½» ¾»·²¹ °®±ª·¼»¼ò ׬ · ±«® ·²¬»²¬·±² ¬± ³¿·²¬¿·² ¬¸· ½±ª»®¿¹» ·² º±®½» ¿ ´±²¹ ¿ ·¬ · ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»ò ׺ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½±ª»®¿¹» · ®»¯«»¬»¼ô ©» ½¿² ±¾¬¿·² ¿ °®·½» º±® ¬¸» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ·²«®¿²½» ¿²¼ ¿¼¼ ¬¸¿¬ ½±¬ ¬± ±«® ½±²¬®¿½¬ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ͬ¿¬»³»²¬ ±º Ú»» ïì éò ͬ¿¬»³»²¬ ±º Ú»» ̸» ¾¿» º»» º±® ¬¸» ½·»²¬·º·½ô ®¿²¼±³ó¿³°´» «®ª»§ ©·´´ ¾» üïçôíìë ·²½´«·ª» ±º ³·´»¿¹»ô ³»»¬·²¹ ¿²¼ ³·½»´´¿²»±« »¨°»²» ·²½«®®»¼ ÛÄ êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙ ô× ÉÕØ úÔÉÄ ÙØÊÔËØÊ ÉÎ ÚÎÏÉËÜÚÉ ×ÎË møÅÍÜÏÙØÙ úËÎÊÊ éÜÛÊl ¿ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ·² ¬¸» ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» »½¬·±²ô ¬¸» ¾¿» ½±¬ ©·´´ ¾» üïçôééðò ׺ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¼»·®» ¬± °«®½¸¿» ¿ ½±³°´»¬» ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ ½±«²¬ ¾±±µ ±º ®»¹·¬»®»¼ ª±¬»®ô ·² ¾±¬¸ ¾±«²¼ °¿°»® ¿²¼ »´»½¬®±²·½ º±®³¿¬ô ¬¸» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °®±º»·±²¿´ º»» ©·´´ ¾» üêêðò DZ« ½¿² ®»ª·»© ¿ ¿³°´» ±º ¿ ½±«²¬ ¾±±µ ·² ¬¸» Þ´¿·²» º±´¼»® ±² ¬¸» º´¿¸ ¼®·ª»ò ׺ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¼»·®» ¬± ¾®±¿¼»² ¬¸» ¬«¼§ ¬± ·²½´«¼» «° ¬± ¬¸®»» º±½« ¹®±«° ±® ½±³³«²·¬§ º»»¼¾¿½µ ³»»¬·²¹ô ¬¸» °®±º»·±²¿´ º»» ©·´´ ¾» üéë𠺱® ¬¸» º·®¬ «½¸ ³»»¬·²¹ ¿²¼ üëð𠺱® ¿²§ «¾»¯«»²¬ ³»»¬·²¹ ¿«³·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¼»·¹² ±º ¿²§ «¾»¯«»²¬ ³»»¬·²¹ · ¹»²»®¿´´§ ·³·´¿® ¬± ¬¸» º·®¬ò Ý·¬§ ±º ͸±®»©±±¼ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ю±°±¿´ ¬± ݱ²¼«½¬ ¿ ݱ³³«²·¬§ Í«®ª»§ ßÐÐÛÒÜ×È × ñÔ×ÉÎiÊ ëØÊÈÐØ Ü±² Ûò Ô·º¬±ô иòÜò Ü®ò ܱ² Ûò Ô·º¬± · ¿ Í»²·±® Ê·½» Ю»·¼»²¬ ¿²¼ Ý´·»²¬ λ°®»»²¬¿¬·ª» ©·¬¸ êØÏÔÎË çÔÚØ íËØÊÔÙØÏÉ Í°®·²¹¬»¼ ײ½±®°±®¿¬»¼ò Ø» °®»ª·±«´§ »®ª»¼ ¿ ¿ °«¾´·½ ½¸±±´ úÑÔØÏÉ ëØÍËØÊØÏÉÜÉÔÇØ «°»®·²¬»²¼»²¬ º±® îë §»¿® ·² ®«®¿´ô «¾«®¾¿² ¿²¼ ·²¬»®³»¼·¿¬» ½¸±±´ ¼·¬®·½¬ ·² Ó·²²»±¬¿ò Ü®ò Ô·º¬± ¾®·²¹ ½±²·¼»®¿¾´» µ·´´ »¬ ¬± ¸· ©±®µ ©·¬¸ ½¸±±´ ¼·¬®·½¬ô ¿·¬·²¹ ¬¸»³ ·² º·²¼·²¹ º·²¿²½·¿´ ¿²¼ ÐÜÏÜÖØÐØÏÉ ÊÎÑÈÉÔÎÏÊ ÉÎ ÉÕØ ÔÊÊÈØÊ ÉÕÜÉ ×ÜÚØ ÉÎÙÜÄjÊ ØÙÈÚÜÉÔÎÏ ÊÄÊÉØÐ Ü®ò Ô·º¬± · ½±¿«¬¸±® ±º ͽ¸±±´ Ú·²¿²½» Û´»½¬·±²ô ¿ ݱ³°®»¸»²·ª» д¿²²·²¹ Ó±¼»´ º±® Í«½½»ô Í»½±²¼ Û¼·¬·±² ô ¿²¼ · ¾®±¿¼´§ °«¾´·¸»¼ ·² ²¿¬·±²¿´ ¶±«®²¿´ ±² ¬¸» ¬±°·½ ±º °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ »¨»½«¬·²¹ «½½»º«´ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ¿²¼ º¿½·´·¬§ ®»º»®»²¼¿ò Ø» ¿´± · ¿ º®»¯«»²¬ °®»»²¬»® ±² ¬¸· ¬±°·½ ¿¬ °®±º»·±²¿´ ³»»¬·²¹ °±²±®»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ò¿¬·±²¿´ ͽ¸±±´ Þ±¿®¼ ß±½·¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» ß³»®·½¿² ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ Þ«·²» Ѻº·½·¿´ò Í·²½» ½¸±±´ ¿®» ¼»°»²¼·²¹ ³±®» ¿²¼ ³±®» «°±² ¬¸»·® ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¬± «½½»º«´´§ °¿ ®»º»®»²¼¿ô Ü®ò ñÔ×ÉÎjÊ ÍÜÊÉ ÆÎËÒ ÔÏ ËØ×ØËØÏÙÈÐ ÍÑÜÏÏÔÏÖ ÔÊ ÜÏ ÜÊÊØÉ ÉÎ êÍËÔÏÖÊÉØÙjÊ ÚÑÔØÏÉÊ Ü®ò Ô·º¬± ¸¿ »¨¬»²·ª» »¨°»®·»²½» ©±®µ·²¹ ©·¬¸ ½¸±±´ ¾±¿®¼ ·² ¾±¬¸ ®«®¿´ ¿²¼ «¾«®¾¿² »¬¬·²¹ò Ü«®·²¹ ¸· ½¿®»»® ¿ ¿ «°»®·²¬»²¼»²¬ô ¸» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ³«´¬·°´» «½½»º«´ ®»º»®»²¼¿ ¿²¼ °´¿²²»¼ ¿²¼ ³¿²¿¹»¼ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ º¿½·´·¬§ °®±¶»½¬ º±® ²»© ¿²¼ ®»³±¼»´»¼ ½¸±±´ò Û¼«½¿¬·±² ˲·ª»®·¬§ ±º Ó·²²»±¬¿ô Ó·²²»¿°±´·ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ ܱ½¬±®¿¬» ·² Û¼«½¿¬·±²¿´ б´·½§ ¿²¼ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² É·²±²¿ ͬ¿¬» ˲·ª»®·¬§ô É·²±²¿ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ó¿¬»® ±º ß®¬ ¼»¹®»» ·² Û´»³»²¬¿®§ Û¼«½¿¬·±² Í·¨¬¸óÇ»¿® Ý»®¬·º·½¿¬» ·² Û¼«½¿¬·±²¿´ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² ˲·ª»®·¬§ ±º Ó·²²»±¬¿ô Ó±®®·ô Ó·²²»±¬¿ Þ¿½¸»´±® ±º ß®¬ ¼»¹®»» ·² и·´±±°¸§ Ю±º»·±²¿´ ߺº·´·¿¬·±² Ó·²²»±¬¿ ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® ß³»®·½¿² ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® Ó·²²»±¬¿ ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ Þ«·²» Ѻº·½·¿´ Ó·²²»±¬¿ ͽ¸±±´ Þ±¿®¼ ß±½·¿¬·±² É·½±²·² ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º ͽ¸±±´ Ü·¬®·½¬ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® ßÐÐÛÒÜ×È ×× Í«®ª»§ Ó»¿¹» Ì»¬·²¹ ͬ®¿¬»¹·» UM NIVERSITY OF INNESOTA ______________________________________________________________ Twin Cities Campus Minnesota Center for Survey Research 879 29th Avenue SE, Suite 103 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Office: 612-627-4282 Fax: 612-624-1334 August 3, 2011 Brian Heck, Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Dear Mr. Heck: Thank you for requesting a cost estimate for your citizen survey of Shorewood residents to assess the community’s feelings and attitudes about the quality and level of services provided by the City. The Minnesota Center for Survey Research (MCSR) is part of the Office of Measurement Services at the University of Minnesota, specializes in telephone and mail surveys, and offers high quality survey research with a public policy orientation tailored to the needs of clients. The Office of Measurement Services (OMS) offers additional services related to Web surveys, scannable paper surveys, and focus groups which have also been incorporated as options for this proposal. The services that will be provided by MCSR include: questionnaire design, data collection, data processing, and reporting. MCSR staff will work closely with the Shorewood City Council and staff to design the questionnaire, and at least ten pretest surveys will be completed to confirm that community members can understand the questions. The final questionnaire will need to be approved by the City Council prior to the start of data collection. Mail data collection will be completed on-site at MCSR, or telephone data collection will be subcontracted to a local private research firm which has a phone bank in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and conducts interviews using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software from Sawtooth Software. MCSR has conducted telephone surveys in partnership with local private research firms in the past, and have developed protocols to ensure high-quality data collection utilizing interviewer monitoring, tracking the sample, and delivery of data. The standard procedures for our surveys are based on minimizing error and maximizing the accuracy of the information collected. For a telephone survey, we will begin with a listed telephone sample, and will select a random adult in the household to be interviewed. Based on our standard procedures, a telephone number will not be removed from the sample until it has a minimum of ten attempted contacts at various times of the day. For a mail survey, we will begin with a random sample of households and request that an adult (or the adult with the most recent birthday) complete the questionnaire. Our standard protocol for mail surveys is based on an initial mailing and a postcard reminder being sent to the entire sample, with a follow-up mailing being sent only to non-respondents. At the completion of data collection, responses to any open-ended questions will be coded into categories which can either be developed from the responses themselves or provided by the City of Shorewood. An SPSS file of all numeric data will be compiled and reviewed by MCSR for data consistency. This SPSS data file and a brief report on numeric results and technical details will be the basis for subsequent analyses and report writing. TIMELINE. Typically, a project such as this community survey requires three to four months to complete: one month for questionnaire design, one month for telephone survey data collection or six weeks for mail survey data collection, and four to six weeks for data processing and report writing. SAMPLE SIZE. Based on the approximately 2,800 households in the City of Shorewood, the recommended sample would be 339 completed surveys. This recommendation presumes a 95% confidence level and a sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points. COSTS. The estimated cost to complete 339 six minute telephone interviews is $22,700, assuming that the interview averages six minutes in length and includes about 25 questions. The estimated cost to mail an 8 page survey to 675 Shorewood households, with the goal of obtaining a minimum of 339 completed surveys (and the expectation of 400 completed surveys), is $20,300. This mail survey would probably include about twice as many questions as the telephone survey. These cost estimates assume that a maximum of three meetings will be held with the City Council and staff of Shorewood: one for questionnaire design, one for questionnaire approval, and one for the final presentation. In addition, supplies and other expenses will be reimbursed for the actual costs incurred. Finally, these are ‘not to exceed’ estimates, which would only be subject to change if there was a change in the project specifications. SCANNABLE SURVEYS. It would be possible to use a lower cost scannable survey form, rather than MCSR’s standard small booklet format (samples of each type of survey are included with this proposal). Scannable surveys typically have lower response rates, but are also less expensive to tabulate. The estimated cost to distribute scannable surveys to 1,350 Shorewood households, with the goal of obtaining a minimum of 340 completed surveys, is $9,550. WEB SURVEY. Adding a web survey option to any other data collection methodology would increase the cost by $1,800. We would not recommend a Web-only survey, since the City does not have e-mail addresses for all households so it would not be possible to select a random sample for the survey invitation. FOCUS GROUPS. The City of Shorewood was also interested in the possibility of holding focus groups or community “round table” type discussions on specific topics based on the results of the initial survey. We recommend that the survey include a final question about interest in participating in such a discussion and obtain an e-mail address for future contact, to minimize the cost of recruitment of participants for these focus groups. The cost of recruitment via e-mail, facilitating three focus groups, and preparing a written summary is $4,250. More information regarding Focus groups is included with this proposal. The remainder of this proposal letter will address the seven numbered items identified as ‘Information Required in all Proposals’. 1. All tasks, with the exception of telephone interviewing, will be performed at the address th on this letter: 879 29 Avenue SE, Suite 103, Minneapolis, MN. Questionnaire design, project management, and reporting writing tasks will be performed by Rossana Armson. Data collection and data processing tasks will be performed by support staff at the Office of Measurement Services or by the telephone subcontractor. Focus groups tasks will be performed by Shelly Wymer at the Office of Measurement Services. 2. Staff resources available to this project include two individuals employed by the Minnesota Center for Survey Research, three individuals employed by the Office of Measurement Services who have expertise in scannable surveys, web surveys, and focus groups, and five student employees working as support staff who are available as needed. 3. The Minnesota Center for Survey Research has been conducting telephone surveys since 1982, and mail surveys since 1984. The Office of Measurement Services has been conducting Web surveys since 2001 and custom designed scannable surveys since 1983. 4. The Minnesota Center for Survey Research has provided assistance with questionnaire design and consultation on data collection to the UCGO project at the University of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs for two municipal surveys in the past two years: the Hugo Park and Recreation Survey, and a Resident Survey on Trails for Transportation and Recreation in Louisville Township. In addition, MCSR conducted a mail survey in 2010 for the Nokomis East Neighborhood Association in the City of Minneapolis. 5. The Office of Measurement Services has been conducting focus groups since 2003, and has completed six focus group projects (31 individual focus groups) in the past three years. One project was conducted in two out of state locations. 6. It is our expectation that City of Shorewood staff will provide the following assistance in the completion of this survey project: designate a primary contact person, provide an electronic listing of a random sample of Shorewood households which can be used for distribution of the mail survey if that option is selected, and provide guidance on the format of the final report on survey results. 7. Samples of the recent Hugo Park and Recreation Survey and an older survey of residents for the City of Brooklyn Park are included with this proposal. Please feel free to contact me after August 15 if you have any questions about this proposal or if you need additional information. I look forward to having the opportunity to work with the City of Shorewood on this project. Sincerely, Rossana Armson Director Focus Group Project Implementation Phase 1: Project Planning and Definition Brief literature review: Review of existing materials including previous customer data and external materials from secondary sources which lead to development of instrumentation for the focus groups. Phase 2: Data Collection Conducting of focus group(s), including one moderator and one transcriber, debrief and summary of findings. Focus groups will be recorded for verification purposes. Phase 3: Reporting and Communication Reporting outputs will include overall summary of data collection. Presentation of the results will be given to the City of Shorewood upon completion of the research study. the City of Shorewood will receive an executive summary of the overall findings as well as the raw data from all focus groups (not including audio recordings). The Focus Group Summary Report will include (1) the background and objectives of the project, (2) a summary of the methodology used, and (3) a summary of major findings and recommendations. Additionally, focus group data utilization consulting can be applied on a needs basis. Implementation & Planning & Reporting & Data DefinitionCommunication Collection Deliverables: Deliverables: Deliverables: Project Objectives Focus Group Facilitation Report will include: • • Sample Criteria FG Data Collection/Note Background and Objectives • • • Logistics (Timeline & Location, Taking Methodology • • Equipment, etc.) Summary and • Communication Recommendation • Discussion Guide Data Utilization Consulting • • Description Data Security Statement OMS provides data security and privacy protection by using a dedicated server to store data, by performing daily data backups and with Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), the industry-standard means for safeguarding web communications. As a third-party data collector, OMS can de- couple respondent name and demographics from survey answers thus preserving confidentiality anonymity. Additionally, during storage and transmission encryption further ensures data security. 8/18/2011 Data Ownership The City of Shorewood owns the data throughout the project. The City will be provided all raw data from the collection phase (except audio files) as well as a hardcopy of the report. The City of Shorewood will control all access to the data outside of OMS. Estimated Cost Project Activity Per Group Unit Cost Subtotal Project Coordination Total ($100/hr) (includes: Project planning, 5 $100.00 $500.00 recruitment, and selection) Participant Incentives (3 groups) (paid for by client) 8-10 $25.00 $750.00 Focus Group 3 $600 $1,800.00 Write Executive Summary (3 focus groups) 10 $100.00 $1000.00 Logistical Costs (estimate: refreshments, parking, etc) $200.00 Total $4,250.00 8/18/2011 2 #10E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Recognition of Service for Commissioners Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Reviewed by: Brian Heck, Brad Nielsen, and Bruce DeJong Attachment: Resolution Adopting a Policy on Recognition of Service for Commissioners Background: Past practice has been that when a Park or Planning Commissioner resigns or retires from service, their service is recognized at a Council meeting and they are presented an engraved walnut plaque. The city was purchasing the plaques from a local business in Excelsior, but they have recently gone out of business. This has prompted Staff to review other options for recognition of city commissioners. The plaques cost around $90 each. The cost would be similar with a new vendor, but there would be a one-time set-up fee of $70 - $150, as well as shipping fees. Staff is proposing that rather than giving a plaque, it would be more useful to the commissioner and the local economy to give the outgoing commissioner a gift certificate to a local business, such as a grocery store, a local restaurant, or a Visa gift card that could be used at any place of business, along with a letter from the Council thanking the Commissioner for their service. Staff has prepared a Resolution Adopting a Policy for Recognition of Park and Planning Commissioners (Attachment 1). The policy proposing a $25 gift card for a commissioner who serves up to a 3-year term, and $50 for over 3 years. This is not out of line with the staff recognition awards that council approved in November of 2008 (Attachment 2). The current Employee Recognition and Public Purpose Expenditures policy provides for items of limited value for people who volunteer for the city (see page 2 of Attachment 3). Financial or Budget Considerations: Financial impact would save the city approximately $40-$65 per recognition. Options: 1) Approve the proposed Commissioner Recognition Policy, as provided. 3) Other action as determined by Council. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the Resolution Adopting a Policy on Recognition of Service for Commissioners, or further direction from Council. Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, the new policy will be effective immediately. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 11-______ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY ON RECOGNITION OF SERVICE FOR PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS , Residents of Shorewood apply for and are appointed by the City Council to serve on the City’s Park and/or Planning Commission; and WHEREAS , Residents serve on a volunteer basis for a term of up to three years, and are sometimes reappointed to serve additional terms; and WHEREAS , The City Council wishes to provide an award of limited value to those residents who serve their community on the Park or Planning Commission as follows: Service on a Commission for up to three years - $25 gift certificate Service on a Commission for more than three years - $50 gift certificate NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council will present the service award to the outgoing Commissioner at a City Council meeting with a letter of thanks to the Commissioner. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of August, 2011. _________________________ ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor __________________________________ Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk Attachment 1 C 'I" SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION and PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES Purpose regarding Employee Recognition: By an Act of the Legislature in 2007, cities are expressly granted the authority to establish and make expenditures for activities recognizing their employees. As codified in Minnesota Statute § 15.46, "... A county or a statutory or home rule charter city may establish and operate a program of preventive health and employee recognition services for its employees and may provide necessary staff, equipment, and facilities and may expend funds as necessary to achieve the objectives of the program." The following is intended to provide guidelines regarding which personnel expenditures are for public purposes. Examples are not meant to be all-inclusive. These permitted expenditures are intended to serve the public purpose of recruitment and retention of the City's largest asset, its personnel. These practices are meant to ensure high employee productivity and morale and reduce expenses from low productivity and high turnover (e.g., recruitment, training, inexperience, and lack of knowledge). Personnel is meant to have a broad definition, and to include members of the City Council, staff, members of advisory boards and commissions and committees, and volunteers. 1. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION -MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS A. Permitted Expenditures: Use of City funds in reasonable amounts for meals and/or refreshments for elected and appointed City officials and employees are permitted in the following circumstances: • City-sponsored events of a community-wide interest where staff are required to be present. • City Council, boards and commissions and committees meetings held during or adjacent to a meal hour. • Professional association meetings. • Meetings related to City business in which the .attendees are predominantly non-city representatives (e.g., city/school district meetings, Chamber of Commerce meetings). • Meetings, training or conferences held outside the seven-county metropolitan area. • Conferences and training when meals are included as part of the registration or program fee, or when meals are not included but a necessary expense due to travel. .s ~®r~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2 • Annual employee recognition events to which all employees are invited (e.g., City Council's annual appreciation event, which also applies to guests). • Annual recognition events for non-benefited employees (e.g., City Council's annual appreciation event, which applies to members of board and commissions and committees, and their guests; SLMPD Reserve Officer appreciation event). • City-sponsored training or work-related meetings where employees are required to participate or be available during break periods. • Work activities requiring continuous service when it is not possible to break for meals (e.g., election days, watermain breaks). • Refreshments (e.g., coffee or water services) made available for City employees and guests, visitors, and others conducting business with the City for productivity and hospitality. • Events recognizing participants in aCity-sponsored wellness program). • Retirement or leaving-employment recognition (light refreshments only). • Events recognizing completion of a significant work-related project. B. Prohibited Expenditures: Use of City funds for meals and/or refreshments for elected and appointed City officials and employees are prohibited in the following circumstances: • Purchase of alcoholic beverages for City-sponsored events. • Purchase of alcoholic beverages as part of an otherwise authorized meal expense. • Employee-sponsored fundraising events (e.g., charitable giving campaign) • Employee functions or celebrations that are solely social in nature (e.g., birthdays, holiday luncheon) • Fundraisers for non-City related events. • Meetings, training or conferences held inside the seven-county metropolitan area. • Conferences and training when meals are not included as part of the registration or program fee, unless meals are a necessary expense due to travel. • Meetings between staff members not in accordance with "l.A. Permitted Expenditures for Meals and Refreshments" (above). 2. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION -OTHER EXPENDITURES A. Other Permitted Expenditures: Use of City funds in reasonable amounts are permitted in the following circumstances: • For a funeral flower arrangement upon death of an employee or elected official, or one of their immediate family members. • Prizes of moderate value awarded randomly at employee recognition events. • Awards of limited value to all attendees at employee recognition events.. • Awards of limited value for participants in aCity-sponsored wellness program. • Meals, refreshments, or other items of limited value for people who volunteer for the City. • Enhancing or ensuring the safety of the public and City employees while using public facilities (e.g., centralized hot water for coffee, tea). B. Other Prohibited Expenditures: Use of City funds are prohibited in the following circumstance(s): • Participation in recreational activities unless included as part of an overall conference registration fee. 3. OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES Purpose: This section is intended to provide guidelines regarding some miscellaneous expenditures that are for public purposes. Examples are not meant to be all-inclusive. These expenditures are intended to serve the public purpose of fostering community relations, cooperative associations, and positive relationships with residents and the business and nonprofit communities. A. Permitted Expenditures: Use of City funds in reasonable amounts are permitted in the following circumstances: • Memberships and dues in organizations when the primary purpose of the membership is for public benefit and not personal interest or gain. • Refreshments or items of limited value available to attendees at City-sponsored events to which members of the public have been invited (e.g., City cultural events, neighborhood information meetings). • Meals or refreshments for afee-for-service of volunteer consultant attending aCity-sponsored meeting in which employees qualify under Section 1.A. (above), and when that individual plays a major role in the meeting (e.g., a trainer/instructor, manager of a City project). B. Prohibited Expenditures: Use of City funds are prohibited in the following circumstances: Gifts to private individuals or organizations. Donations to non-City related events. January 2008 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 11th day of February, 2008. ATTEST: ~~- ,_ ,~ Christine Lizee, Mayor /~ C arC ig V4.'T)~ vso~n, City Administrator/Clerk #10F MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Park Commission Appointment Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution Background: Earlier this evening, Council held a special meeting to interview candidates for consideration of appointment to the Park Commission to fill the seat vacated this past June by Josh Trent. The term of the appointment goes through February, 2013. Ms. Susan Gordon and Mr. Bill Haines were scheduled for interviews. Action Options: 1) Adopt a resolution appointing one of the candidates interviewed earlier this evening. 2) Do not appoint one of the candidates interviewed and direct staff to continue to advertise for the Park Commission opening. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 11-____ A RESOLUTION MAKING PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has advertised for Shorewood residents to apply to serve on the Park Commission; WHEREAS, the City Council did complete the selection procedure for appointment to said Commission, and at its August 22, 2011 meeting, made a motion to appoint the candidate as indicated below. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby makes the following appointment to the Park Commission effective August 22, 2011, with the term expiration as indicated: Park Commission: Member Term Expiring 1.____________________ February 28, 2013 Said appointment is added to the current Park Commission which consists of the following additional members: Member Term Expiring 2.Bob Edmondson February 29, 2012 3.Thomas Robb February 29, 2012 4.Lynda Gooch Hartmann February 28, 2013 5.Nicholas Swaggert February 28, 2013 6.Steve Quinlan February 28, 2014 7.Mark Kjolhaug February 28, 2014 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of August, 2011. ____________________________ ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor __________________________________ Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk 10G MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Adoption of the Preliminary 2012 General Fund Operating Budget and Tax Levy Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Brian Heck Attachment: Resolution Policy Consideration: Adoption of this resolution will allow Shorewood to certify the preliminary levy to Hennepin County for inclusion on the Truth-in-Taxation property tax notices Background: By statute, the City Council must annually approve a proposed budget and property tax levy by September 15. The 2012 General Fund Detail Budget attached to the study session item has been prepared in accordance with council recommendations. The budget for revenues and expenditures may change up or down during discussions through December. However, the levy amount set at this point is a cap which may not be increased, except under certain rare circumstances, when final adoption of the budget and levy occur in December. Financial or Budget Considerations: The adoption of this resolution does not commit the City Council to any specific budget levels other than the maximum amount of property tax revenue that may be levied. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1.Adopt the preliminary budget and levy as presented. 2.Make any additional changes desired and adopt the amended budget and levy Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will present the Capital Improvement Plan and Enterprise fund budgets beginning on September th 26. The final budget, tax levy, and CIP adoption will occur in December after the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing is completed. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management by providing financial resources to pay for desired city services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 11- ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2012 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET AND TAX LEVY WHEREAS, City staff have presented the preliminary 2012 budget and tax levy at work sessions in July and August; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the budget and tax levy and made modifications to each that reflect desired community service levels; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to approve and certify the proposed 2012 preliminary levy to the Hennepin County Auditor by September 15; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: 1.The 2012 Preliminary General Fund Budget is hereby set at $5,302,277. 2.$4,763,319 is to be levied for 2011 ad valorem property taxes, collectible in 2012 upon all taxable property in the City of Shorewood. 3. The Finance Director is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of August, 2011. ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor _______________________________ Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk 10H MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Selection of the Truth-in-Taxation Hearing Date Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Brian Heck Attachment: Resolution Policy Consideration: Adoption of this resolution will allow Shorewood to certify the preliminary levy to Hennepin County for inclusion on the Truth-in-Taxation property tax notices Background: The Truth-in-Taxation process to be followed this year is similar to years past. The attached resolution sets Monday, December 5, 2011 as the Truth-In-Taxation hearing date with a follow-up hearing and budget adoption at the next regularly scheduled council meeting of December 12, 2011. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution setting these dates for the truth-in-taxation hearings. Financial or Budget Considerations: This process allows residents an opportunity to provide input on the budget and property tax levy prior to final adoption. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1.Adopt the resolution and dates as presented. 2.Change the date and adopt the amended resolution. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will present the Capital Improvement Plan and Enterprise fund budgets beginning on September th 26. The final budget, tax levy, and CIP adoption will occur in December after the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing is completed. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management by public input into the tax levy and budget for desired city services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 11- SELECTION OF THE TRUTH-IN-TAXATION HEARING DATE WHEREAS, Minnesota State law requires local governments to hold public hearings on their proposed budgets and property tax levies; and WHEREAS, the customary date for the budget hearing is the first Monday in December; and WHEREAS, it is in the spirit of full and open disclosure of the City’s financial condition to provide as much information as necessary for the City Council and residents and property owners to evaluate the budget; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: 1.The 2012 Truth-in-Taxation public hearing for property taxes levied in 2011, collectible in 2012, is set for Monday, December 5, 2011. 2.A continuation date if necessary is set for Monday, December 12, 2011. 3. The Finance Director is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to Hennepin County for inclusion on the parcel specific notices to be mailed in November. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of August, 2011. ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor _______________________________ Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk 10-I MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Purchase of property at 24620 Smithtown Road Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Brian Heck Attachment: Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council purchase property for redevelopment purposes at the Smithtown Crossing location? Background: Smithtown Crossing has been a topic of discussion both at the City Council and the Planning Commission for over one year. There is potential to redevelop this prime intersection in the community as the economy recovers. The Planning Commission strongly recommended that the City Council purchase this property in preparation for redevelopment opportunities. The City Council authorized staff to pursue the purchase of 24620 Smithtown Road through the use of a broker. The offering price of the property at the time this was first discussed was $154,900. Staff reviewed the value set on the property by Hennepin County for tax purposes and the selling price of other similar properties. Based on these discussions, the maximum purchase price for the property was set at $131,000. The broker, Bill Bloomberg, presented an offer of $118,000 which received no response. Mr. Bloomberg was then authorized to offer the full $131,000. This offer again received no response, but the listing price was lowered to $146,000, which the property owner’s agent said was their only response. Staff then reviewed the actions taken with the City Council. The City Council advised staff to not provide any other offer, so the matter was dropped with the expiration of the purchase agreement time limit for acceptance. Last week Mr. Bloomberg received a call from the listing agent stating that the owners had decided to accept the last offer. Staff prepared an updated purchase agreement with new dates. The only condition of sale is that the bathtub will be removed by the owner at their expense prior to closing. The sale of the property is “as is” with no provision for a lead paint addendum or inspection for defects in the property. Since the intent of the city is to demolish the property this is not objectionable to staff. Financial or Budget Considerations: The purchase of this property can be accomplished with funds from the Community Investment Fund which has a fund balance of $1,800,000. This purchase price could potentially be recouped through a development agreement. 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. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1.Adopt the purchase resolution as presented. 2.Change the funding source and adopt the amended resolution. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will pursue closing at First American Title. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management by providing for future redevelopment of the community which will result in increased tax base. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 11-048 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY AT 24620 SMITHT0WN ROAD WHEREAS , the City Council and Planning Commission have endorsed redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing intersection at County Road 19 and Smithtown Road; and WHEREAS , the property at 24620 Smithtown Road is for sale by a willing seller; and WHEREAS , the City Council has authorized staff to acquire the property for future economic development purposes; and WHEREAS , the sellers have agreed to sell the property for $131,000 as presented by the City’s broker, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: 1.Staff is authorized to purchase the property at 24620 Smithtown Road for $131,000 plus usual and customary closing costs. 2.Funds for the purchase of the property and demolition of the structure will be provided from the Community Investment Fund. 3. The property will be titled in the name of the Shorewood Economic Development Authority. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of August, 2011. ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor _______________________________ Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk #10J MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Resolution Supporting the Transfer of AIS management from the LMCD to the MCWD Meeting Date: Monday, August 22, 2011 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Attachments: Resolution of support for moving AIS management from the LMCD to the MCWD Policy Consideration: Should the City Council endorse and support turning AIS responsibilities over to the MCWD and away from the LMCD? Background: Mayor Lizée requested this item and resolution be placed on tonight’s agenda for consideration by the Council. As I understand the situation, the LMCD for many years has convened an Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Taskforce. The task force consists of representatives of the Minnesota DNR, MCWD, Army Corps of Engineers, and other professionals. The group has been mostly focused on vegetative AIS, specifically milfoil. In the past year, another invasive - zebra mussels - appeared in Lake Minnetonka. The presence of this specific organism sparked significant concern and discussion about how to keep the mussel out of neighboring lakes and began to raise the question as to what organization is best suited to manage zebra mussel infestation specifically and AIS in general. Financial or Budget Considerations: Unknown at this time. Options: 1)Approve the resolution as presented; 2)Modify the resolution; 3)Do nothing Recommendation / Action Requested: Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, staff will forward the resolution to the MCWD, LMCD, and member communities of the LMCD and MCWD. Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment, Attractive amenities, and visionary leadership Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 11-____ A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD) TO MANAGE THE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES (AIS) EFFORTS IN THE REGION WHEREAS , the City of Shorewood recognizes currently existing aquatic invasive species (AIS) in lakes pose real, tangible, and negative impacts; and WHEREAS , potential new AIS, yet to infest our lakes, pose substantial threats to water quality and ecosystems; and WHEREAS , existing AIS management and prevention efforts are inadequate due to the many agencies at the state, regional, and local level; and WHEREAS , these overlapping and at times competing interests results in haphazard and poorly coordinated efforts that lead to inefficient use of available resources; and WHEREAS , to be effective, AIS must be addressed and managed on a regional, if not statewide basis; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood recognizes the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has the staffing capability, scientific expertise, and financial capacity to manage AIS on a regional basis. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that it hereby recommends and supports empowering the MCWD to manage AIS in the region. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood endorses and supports the MCWD take on the leadership in coordinating and implementing a comprehensive AIS program throughout the watershed as a model for metro or statewide implementation. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of August, 2011. ____________________________ ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor __________________________________ Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk MEMORANDUM Date: August 22, 2011 To: Mayor Lizee Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: July, 2011 Monthly Budget Report ______________________________________________________________ The 2011 General Fund budget is tracking well overall. At 63.4% of non-property tax revenues, we compare well to the previous three years. Actual revenues are about $65,000 lower than last year at this point. Overall expenditures are at 52.4% which is higher than last year at this point. REVENUES We have received the first half property taxes collected through May 15 from Hennepin County. License and permit revenues are up about $23,000 over last year. This may indicate a sustainable increase in remodeling activity from the severely depressed levels of the past couple of years. Intergovernmental revenues are typical for this point with the first half of the MSA funds in from the state. Charges for services are running just under last year’s level, but are on track to make budget. Fines and forfeitures are about the same as previous years. Miscellaneous revenue is primarily interest earnings which continue to be extremely low – especially given the negative economic news and outlook for the near future. EXPENDITURES Council – looks slightly better than previous years. General Government – looks high because of salary allocations. Elections - looks about on track with previous years. Finance - over because annual software maintenance contract expenditures are one-time expenses early in the year. Professional Services – a bit lower than previous years based on fewer special projects. Municipal Buildings – high because the LMCIT liability insurance costs were paid early in the year. Materials and supplies cover copier and Laserfiche software maintenance, but some Warner Connect charges were miscoded and need to be reclassified as support and services which will bring materials and supplies back below budget. Police and Fire are tracking closely with previous years. Public Works - over because more wages have been coded to this department based on actual time spent. As shown in the budget analysis this will not cause a major problem over the course of the year. Snow and Ice - over because of all the snow received this winter. There is still a chance that the overall budget will not be exceeded if snow fall this fall and early winter is average or below. Parks & Recreation is tracking closely with previous years. Please contact me or Mr. Heck if you have any questions. Attachment: July Monthly Budget Report Monthly Budget Report July 31, 2011 YTDYTD2011% of 2011ExpectedVariance 2010JulyAdoptedAnnual% of 2011(Negative) Year to Date OverviewActual2011BudgetBudgetBudgetor Positive REVENUE Property Taxes 2,463,855 2,450,536 4,763,31951.4%50.0% Licenses and Permits 73,709 97,280 98,20099.1%59.3% Intergovernmental 67,023 34,109 69,40149.1%98.0% Charges for Service 38,808 28,219 35,07580.5%71.0% Fines and Forfeitures 27,938 25,381 52,00048.8%49.7% Miscellaneous 48,540 16,954 63,90026.5%44.0% Transfers from other funds - - 40,0000.0%0.0% TOTAL 2,719,873 2,652,479 5,121,895 51.8%$65,694.77 201,943 318,57663.4% EXPENDITURES Department Council Personnel 9,796 9,796 16,80058.3%57.0% Materials and Supplies 550 619 1,30047.6%100.0% Support and Services 21,686 32,848 102,43032.1%45.3% Total 32,032 43,263 120,53035.9%$14,047.93 Administration Personnel 79,098 80,812 142,82856.6%62.3% Materials and Supplies - - -0.0%7.3% Support and Services 1,815 3,301 4,76069.3%34.3% Capital Outlay 1,631 - -21.7% Total 82,544 84,113 147,58857.0%$6,550.72 General Government Personnel 111,094 135,988 226,38760.1%59.7% Materials and Supplies 8,059 6,418 18,50034.7%48.3% Support and Services 15,397 22,706 32,35070.2%40.0% Capital Outlay 1,213 - -38.0% Total 135,763 165,112 277,23759.6%($8,152.76) Elections Personnel 8,503 273 4,7815.7%15.3% Materials and Supplies 2,305 1,665 2,30072.4%45.3% Support and Services 370 - -51.7% Capital Outlay - - -18.3% Total 11,178 1,938 7,08127.4%($162.25) Finance Personnel 89,630 89,023 153,22458.1%51.7% Materials and Supplies 7,373 6,967 6,950100.2%84.7% Support and Services 1,613 7,306 6,575111.1%23.3% Capital Outlay - - - 12.3% Total 98,616 103,296 166,74961.9%($16,711.77) Professional Services 151,695 140,908 199,00070.8%91.0%$40,182.00 Planning and Zoning Personnel 96,348 91,299 170,69453.5%53.3% Materials and Supplies 54 156 65523.8%100.0% Support and Services 4,831 4,785 11,81040.5%57.0% Capital Outlay - - 31.7% Total 101,233 96,240 183,15952.5%$2,183.50 Municipal Building - City Hall Materials and Supplies 33,779 32,539 16,500197.2%48.7% Support and Services 9,447 96,130 157,75060.9%11.0% Capital Outlay 15,713 1,534 -26.3% Transfers - - 103,9500.0%0.0% Total 58,939 130,203 278,20046.8%($104,820.50) Police Support Services 53,786 581,339 995,75058.4%61.7% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 171,051 172,551 230,06675.0%74.7% Total 224,837 753,890 1,225,81661.5%$31,938.45 Fire Support Services 235,796 252,848 337,13075.0%76.3% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 204,472 203,023 270,69775.0%73.0% Total 440,268 455,871 607,82775.0%($919.62) Inspections Personnel 62,125 64,690 109,09659.3%55.3% Materials and Supplies 22 154 30051.3%5.0% Support and Services 2,277 124 6,7001.9%28.7% Total 64,424 64,968 116,09656.0%($2,665.88) City Engineer Personnel 49,167 54,399 111,10349.0%55.3% Materials and Supplies 44 63 1,2555.0%43.7% Support and Services 3,412 2,048 13,32015.4%21.3% Capital Outlay 44 - 1,0000.0%36.7% Total 52,667 56,510 126,67844.6%$8,723.28 Public Works Service Personnel 146,827 161,591 184,10787.8%55.7% Materials and Supplies 35,507 43,576 71,20061.2%51.3% Support and Services 26,645 24,736 41,44059.7%59.3% Capital Outlay - - -0.0% Total 208,979 229,903 296,74777.5%($66,279.70) Streets and Roads Personnel 54,713 48,153 113,45942.4%55.7% Materials and Supplies 43,448 45,630 85,00053.7%45.7% Support and Services 774 1,703 34,0005.0%12.0% Capital Outlay - - 700,0000.0%0.0% Total 98,935 95,486 932,45910.2%$10,569.51 Snow and Ice Personnel 26,827 41,435 56,56773.2%54.0% Materials and Supplies 12,594 14,326 45,11731.8%34.7% Total 39,421 55,761 101,68454.8%($9,574.26) Traffic control / Street Lights Materials and Supplies 146 2,214 5,00044.3%56.3% Support and Services 20,121 27,827 52,14953.4%50.3% Total 20,267 30,041 57,14952.6%$29,065.00 Sanitation / Waste Control Personnel 3,980 186 2,2818.2%100.0% Materials and Supplies - - 1000.0%1.3% Support and Services 3,210 3,739 4,40085.0%25.7% Total 7,190 3,925 6,78157.9%($513.33) Tree Maintenance Personnel 11,847 11,013 14,02078.6%53.7% Materials and Supplies 34 170 1,42511.9%5.7% Support and Services 6,126 2,394 13,25018.1%35.0% Total 18,007 13,577 28,69547.3%($1,334.68) Parks and Recreation Personnel 86,196 79,516 185,70842.8%58.0% Materials and Supplies 10,336 12,943 19,80065.4%68.7% Support and Services 53,782 49,685 91,90054.1%85.0% Transfers - - 42,0000.0%0.0% Total 150,314 142,144 339,40841.9%$57,277.64 Unallocated - 69,188 -0.0% Total Expenditures 5,218,884 1,997,309 2,736,33752.4%($10,597) Net Revenue less Expenditures (96,989) 722,564 (83,859) Note: The balanced budget includes $150,000 of fund balance in the Transfers item of the Revenue section.