11-14-11 CC Regular Mtg Agenda C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 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 Executive Session Minutes, October 24, 2011 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 24, 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. Extension of Deadline to File Final Plat – Bill Erickson Planning Director’s
memo
C. New Tobacco License Request Deputy Clerk’s
Applicant: Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco memo, Resolution
Location: 23710 Hwy 7, Shorewood Village Shopping Center
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
A. Draft Variance Amendment Planning Director’s
memo, Ordinance
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – NOVEMBER 14, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Certification of Delinquent Utility Bills Finance Director’s
memo, Resolution
B. Discussion to Consider Conducting Town Hall Meetings Administrator’s
memo
C. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board Representative Appointment Deputy Clerk’s
memo, Resolution
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Domestic Partnership Registry Ordinance Administrator’s
memo, Ordinance
B. Review Draft Dog License Ordinance Amendment Administrator’s
memo, Ordinance
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
B. Mayor and City Council
13. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, 14 November 2011
7:00 p.m.
A 5:30 p.m. Special Meeting is scheduled this evening.
A 6:00 p.m. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: Mr. Bill Erickson is requesting an extension for the filing of a final plat for
the rearranging of his and his neighbors parcels of land; they need additional time to finish
cleaning up a number of nonconformities. Staff recommends a six-month extension.
Agenda Item #3C: The city received a request for a tobacco license for a new business -
Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc., located at 23710 Hwy 7 in the Shorewood Village
Shopping Center. The applicant has submitted the required application, paid the license fee
and undergone a background investigation on the owner/manager. There were no
violations within the last five years related to the sale of tobacco products. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution granting the tobacco license for the period
November 15, 2011 – October 31, 2012.
Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6: There are no reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7: There are no park items this evening.
Agenda Item #8A: Staff recommends adopting a code amendment relating to the granting of
variances which will make the city code consistent with changes in the state statutes
relating to this topic. A copy of the recommended changes is provided for council’s
review, as well as an ordinance amending the city’s zoning code.
Agenda Item #9: There are no engineering/public works items this evening.
Agenda Item #10A: This item is the annual review and consideration of certification of
delinquent unpaid water and sewer charges to the County with the other taxes on the
property. A resolution is provided for Council’s consideration.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #10B: This is a discussion item for council to consider holding town hall type of
meetings.
Agenda Item #10C: Earlier in the evening, Council interviewed two candidates for
consideration of appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District board.
Should council decide to appoint one of the candidates, a resolution making the
appointment is in order.
Agenda Item #11A: Additional edits were made to the draft Domestic Partner Registry
Ordinance that Council reviewed and discussed at its October 10 and October 24
meetings. A copy of the revised Ordinance is provided for Council’s consideration.
Agenda Item #11B: The Planning Commission reviewed the dog license ordinance to consider
the issue of the number of dogs allowed per home and the fees associated with the
licensing of dogs. Staff reviewed the ordinance and amended the language in accordance
with planning commission comments. A draft ordinance is provided for discussion.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2011 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; and, Administrator
Heck
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. LABOR ISSUES
All Councilmembers and Administrator Heck were present. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
staffing recommendations made by the Personnel Committee. The recommendations of the Committee dealt
with the potential consolidation of some activities and positions, the potential for providing of contract
services to other communities, and the Park Coordinator contract the City has with Community Rec
Resources (CRR). It was noted that labor negotiations are in progress.
3. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of October 24,
2011, at 7:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane;
City Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director
of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 10, 2011
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of October
10, 2011, as amended in Item 2, Page 3, Paragraph 7, change Sentence 3 to read “Prior to that,
funds were borrowed, and paid back, from the Sewer Fund to purchase the City-owned house.”,
and in Item 2, Page 4, Paragraph 8, Sentence 2, change “the remainder of 2011 for that” to “the
remainder of the budget forecast”. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 10, 2011
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
October 10, 2011, as amended in Item 10.D, Page 5, Paragraph 8, Sentence 1 change “show up in
uniform at their fish fry” to “show up in uniform to solicit for their fish fry”, and in Item 11.A.2,
Page 11, Paragraph 7, change “can make due with” to “can make do with”. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 2 of 10
B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-058, “A Resolution Approving Licenses to
Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products for CUB Foods Shorewood, Holiday Station
Store #12, and Metro Petro Gas and Food.”
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-059, “A Resolution Electing to Not Waive the
Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance.”
D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-060, “A Resolution to Approve a Grant
Agreement with Hennepin County to Receive ‘Incentive Funds’ for the Shorewood
Organic Waste Pilot Project.”
E. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Dump Truck and Plow Equipment
F. Energy Audit of Public Facilities as Part of GreenStep Cities Program
G. Appeal for Extension of Deadline to Correct Rental Housing Violation
Appellant: Eric Danser
Location: 21640 Lilac Lane
Councilmember Woodruff suggested the Staff recommendation for Item E to purchase of a dump truck
and plow equipment also include authorization to sell unit 33 once the new truck is in operation.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
7. PARKS
Park Commission Chair Quinlan reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 11,
2011, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
8. PLANNING
Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 18, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 3 of 10
A. Minor Subdivision / Combination
Applicant: Michael McDonald
Location: 4695 Lagoon Drive
Director Nielsen explained Michael McDonald owns the property located at 4695 Lagoon Drive. A while
ago Mr. McDonald discovered the legal description of his property does not include the southwesterly 30
feet of the property which he has maintained over the years. That portion of what Mr. McDonald thought
was his property is part of a parcel of property owned by a consortium of land owners (five families)
living on Enchanted Island. Mr. McDonald has arranged to purchase the portion of the consortium’s
parcel of property he had thought was his to combine with his property. The proposed
subdivision/combination (i.e., a lot line rearrangement) will clean up the legal description and title for Mr.
McDonald’s property. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision and
combination subject to recording the subdivision and combination within 30 days of receipt of certified
copy of the resolution. He also noted that Planning Commission Chair Geng recused himself from the
Planning Commission discussion about this because he and his wife are members of the consortium.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-061, “A Resolution Approving
a Subdivision and Combination of Real Property for Michael McDonald, 4695 Lagoon Drive.”
Councilmember Zerby stated the resolution includes empty pages for the legal descriptions of Mr.
McDonald’s property and the consortium’s property. He didn’t think the resolution could be adopted
without those descriptions. Director Nielsen stated the resolution can be adopted subject to them being
inserted. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council has approved resolutions before without the legal
descriptions being included at the time the resolutions were adopted.
Councilmember Zerby requested resolutions be complete in the future before they are brought before
Council for consideration.
Without objection from the maker or sender the motion was amended to include, subject to the
legal descriptions being inserted. Motion passed 5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
None.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Staffing Recommendations
Administrator Heck explained that immediately preceding this meeting Council met in Executive Session
to discuss staffing recommendations made by the Personnel Committee. The recommendations of the
Committee dealt with the potential consolidation of some activities and positions, the potential for
providing of contract services to other communities, and the Park Coordinator contract the City has with
Community Rec Resources (CRR).
Heck stated Staff’s recommendation to Council is to accept the following recommendations of the
Personnel Committee. 1) To consolidate the communications coordinator and web designer position into
one position thereby eliminating one part-time position. 2) To dissolve the agreement with CRR for
providing park and recreation coordinating services and to bring those responsibilities back in house. 3)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 4 of 10
To continue to assess possible options for providing contract services for planning, finance and
engineering to other communities.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the consolidation of the communications coordinator
and web designer positions into one position resulting in the eliminating of the part-time web
developer position effective November 1, 2011. Motion passed 5/0.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, adopting a policy which grants one week of severance pay for
every full year of service an employee has worked when an employee’s position is eliminated.
Motion passed 5/0.
Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the dissolution of the contract for providing park and
recreation coordinating services and to have City staff provide those services effective January 1,
2012. Motion passed 5/0.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Amending Chapter 308 of the Shorewood City Code as it Pertains to Transient
Merchants, Solicitors, Peddlers, Canvassers and Garage Sales
Administrator Heck explained Council discussed a draft amendment to the City Code Chapter 308 titled
Transient Merchants, Solicitors, Peddlers, Canvassers and Garage Sales during its October 10, 2011,
meeting. Council recommended some changes be made to it. The meeting packet contains an updated
copy of the amendment. He noted that Staff forgot to make the following change to Chapter 308.08 which
was to change “not to exceed the calendar year or part thereof” to “not to exceed a 12-month period or
part thereof”.
Councilmember Woodruff asked that governmental organizations be added to the list of exclusions in
Chapter 308.04.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 484, “An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 308 of the Shorewood City Code as it pertains to Transient Merchants, Solicitors,
Peddlers, Canvassers and Garage Sales” subject to in Chapter 308.04 adding governmental
organizations to the list of exclusions and in Chapter 308.08 changing “not to exceed the calendar
year or part thereof” to “not to exceed a 12-month period or part thereof”. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Domestic Partnership Registry Draft Ordinance
Mayor Lizée stated the meeting packet contains a draft ordinance which would create a domestic partner
registry. Council discussed the topic of domestic partner registries during its October 10, 2011, meeting.
She noted this topic came up more than a year ago when a question was brought forward during the
candidates’ forum asking the candidates what they knew about domestic partner registries. She stated
people have emailed her and called her about this topic, and she has had conversations when out in the
community.
Lizée explained that many of the City’s contemporaries have adopted a similar ordinance. The first
domestic partner registry was in the City of Minneapolis in 1991. Since then the Cities of Duluth, Edina,
Golden Valley, Maplewood, Minnetonka, Red Wing, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rochester, St. Louis Park,
St. Paul and most recently Hopkins have also approved domestic partnership registry ordinances.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 5 of 10
Lizée read the purpose section of the draft ordinance. It is as follows. “The City of Shorewood authorizes
and established a voluntary program for the registration of domestic partners. The domestic partnership
registry is a means by which unmarried, committed couples who reside in Shorewood and who have a
shared life and home together may document their relationship, thus enabling the registered couple
access to employment benefits, hospital or health care visitation, and other such voluntary benefits. The
adoption of this ordinance does not create or establish rights, privileges or responsibilities that are
available to married couples under state or federal law.”
Administrator Heck explained the ordinance in the meeting packet is in draft form, and it is not identified
as part of the City Code at this time. If Council decides to consider this further it would likely be placed
into Chapter 100 Administration. The City Code does not have a human rights section which is where
some cities have placed their ordinance.
Heck reviewed what the ordinance includes. It defines domestic partner and domestic partnership. It
describes the registration process. It explains what components of the registry can be amended and how to
do that. An individual name cannot be amended unless they have legally changed their name. It explains
how the registration can be terminated. Staff is suggesting a $35 fee for the initial application. Dissolution
and amendment fees would be a little less. A certified copy would cost $2.
Heck explained Staff used Golden Valley’s, Hopkins’ and Red Wing’s ordinances as well as some others
as models for the draft ordinance. The League of Minnesota Cities doesn’t have a model ordinance. He
noted the registry will not provide any legal benefit that a civil union/marriage would provide. He stated
this is the first time Council has had the opportunity to discuss the ordinance. Staff will incorporate
changes recommended by Council and put it into a formal form if so directed by Council.
Rebecca Waggoner, OutFront Minnesota Anti-Violence Program Director, stated she is very excited to be
at the meeting. She noted if the City adopts the ordinance it would join 14 other cities in the State in
taking this fantastic step to support all families. She explained OutFront Minnesota is doing this work for
a variety of reasons. She related that the hospital administrator at North Memorial Hospital stated that
domestic partner registration makes it easier to offer life insurance to its entire staff. She explained there
is no net cost to the City because of the fees. The registry does make it easier for private companies to
offer benefits to all families. She stated from her perspective approving this ordinance would send the
message that the City values all families and would be considered a welcoming, open community. She
encouraged Council to approve this ordinance.
Alison Hawkinson, 20815 Idlewild Path, Ms. Hawkinson read a quote from Monica Meyer (OutFront
Minnesota Executive Director) – “Employers that offer domestic partner benefits have a variety of
options for allowing partners to demonstrate they’re together.” Therefore, domestic partner registry is not
an only option. She explained she works in a corporate human resource department and that company
offers domestic partner benefits. In order to receive those benefits the individuals must first sign a
document stating they are a partner and provide two pieces of information proving they have a bank
account, insurance beneficiary or something similar. Domestic partner registry is not a requirement for
getting domestic benefits and she doesn’t understand how it would make it easier.
Ms. Hawkinson stated people can fill out a Minnesota Health Care Directive form which can be found on
the internet in order to ensure their partner can visit them when they are hospitalized or for having the
authority to make health care decisions for them when they are not capable. Once the document is
notarized it becomes a legal document. There is no need for domestic partner registry.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 6 of 10
Mr. Hawkinson read another quote from Ms. Meyer – “Domestic registries are a meaningful way for
couples to make their togetherness official. People frame their certificates. In a state where this is the only
legal recognition you can get it’s really important. That symbolism entwines domestic registries with a
larger debate over gay marriage. A debate that will only grow as we approach the 2012 vote on the
constitutional amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.” Ms. Hawkinson interprets Ms.
Meyer to be saying domestic partner registry is just a piece of paper and it’s to make a voice for the 2012
vote.
Ms. Hawkinson stated domestic partner registries are not going to accomplish those two things. The City
of Hopkins’ domestic partner registry ordinance states “It doesn’t create rights, privileges, or
responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law.” Domestic partner registry
doesn’t do anything for anyone. There are other ways to do what it is supposed to do.
Mayor Lizée expressed her appreciation for Ms. Hawkinson bringing her points forward. Regarding
health care directives, Lizée stated too few people have the directives.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what the purpose is of including a definition for domestic partnership in
the ordinance because the only time it is used is in the purpose statement. Administrator Heck explained
other cities have included the definition so that they can recognize other cities’ domestic partner registries
when registered couples move into a new city that has such an ordinance. The definition outlines what
that partnership is.
Woodruff stated from his vantage point there is a “high fog” factor in paragraph 1 and 2 [the purpose
section]. He suggested that be made clearer. He suggested changing “who have a shared life” to “who
share a life” in paragraph 1. He suggested adding the word “amend” to “does not create or establish rights
…” in paragraph 2. He suggested that termination section of the ordinance also include that if one partner
terminates the registration the City will send notification to the other partner.
Woodruff asked if third parties can ask for a copy of a registration, and if so is there a fee. Administrator
Heck sated they are public documents and there would be a copy charge. Attorney Keane concurred they
are public documents so people can request a copy. Woodruff suggested adding something about that to
the ordinance.
Councilmember Siakel stated the City may not have to do this but it may be meaningful to many people.
She then stated she thought it would set a tone of respect and inclusivity for the community. She noted
she thought this would be a good thing to do. Councilmember Hotvet expressed her agreement with
Siakel’s comments.
Councilmember Zerby expressed his discomfort with the City taking this role on. He stated he would be
more comfortable with Council passing a resolution urging the State to support domestic partner
registries. He stated he thought this should happen at the State level. He clarified he is not opposed to
domestic partnership registration process or any of the issues. He stated the City doesn’t get involved with
recognized civil unions or marriages or partnership type issues. He suggested caution be exercised before
adding an ordinance to the City Code. He encouraged Council to be cognizant of the impact it will have.
He stated Council shouldn’t create ordinances, which become law, any more than it has to. He noted the
City has sent resolutions to the State for other issues.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, directing Staff to refine the ordinance.
Council also requested staff provide details on the mechanics and process, including sample forms.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 7 of 10
Councilmember Woodruff stated there is no rush to get this done from his vantage point. He clarified he
is not saying he doesn’t want this to proceed with all due speed.
Administrator Heck stated this will be on the November 14, 2011, City Council meeting agenda.
Motion passed 4/0/1 with Zerby abstaining.
C. Carver County Open Fiber Ring
Administrator Heck explained the last time Council and Staff spoke about the possibility of connecting
City Hall, the Southshore Community Center (SSCC), the Public Works facility, and the public safety
facility located in the City to Carver County’s open fiber ring (the ring) Staff was asked to gather
information about costs. Staff was also asked to have further discussions with Carver County (the
County) and the Minnetonka School District. Staff has done that. He, Councilmember Zerby and Director
Brown met with representatives from MP Nexlevel (Nexlevel), a fiber installation company, and walked
through the facilities so Nexlevel could prepare quotes. Nexlevel provided the City with quotes to connect
all four facilities. The cost to install a 24 pair cable to all four facilities and to splice into the ring will cost
approximately $82,000. He and Director DeJong met with the consultant who is working with the County
and the School District to discuss public/private partnerships for private use.
Heck stated the purpose of the discussion this evening is for Staff to provide Council with an update on
what it has learned. Staff also wants to know if Council wants it to continue to gather more detail on this.
He noted Councilmember Woodruff has asked him to prepare a return-on-investment (ROI). He explained
at this time it is difficult to prepare a detailed ROI because some issues have not been solidified yet. For
example, there hasn’t been any discussion about what companies would run the City’s backend services.
Heck explained going to a network that connects at the 511 Building will be less expensive for hosting of
backend services than what it currently costs. The City would be able to connect directly with that
provider at the 511 Building. In order to get more firm pricing estimates Staff needs to know if this
potential project will come to fruition or not. He noted he is not sure what, if any, access charges the
County will assess. Staff has not had any detailed discussion with the police and fire about connecting to
the ring. They have expressed some interest.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he appreciates the fact that preparing a ROI at this time is complex. He
then stated connecting to the ring is a good idea if it makes business sense. Without a robust ROI analysis
he is pretty put off by the $82,000 price tag. He clarified he is not saying he’s against doing this. But, he
doesn’t have enough information to make a decision at this time.
Woodruff commented prior to the Carver County Commission deciding to do the open fiber ring project
the County did a very detailed analysis of its communications costs. That analysis indicated there were
locations in the County that did not have access to services they needed to have. That is not the case for
the City. The analysis showed that by replacing the communications line it was leasing and renting with
its own fiber network the project would have about a three-year payback. Woodruff stated the City would
have an eight-year payback based on the high level analysis, noting lots of things change in eight years.
He suggested Staff gather a lot more detailed information about costs and benefits. He commented that
from his vantage point there is no huge rush to get this done. He asked if the County has indicated there is
a deadline, to which Heck responded no. Heck stated he thought the County would complete the build out
earlier next year.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 8 of 10
Administrator Heck stated if Council were to decide to move forward with this project Staff anticipates it
would be a 2012 project timeline. He suggested Council decide if the capital improvement program
should have a place holder for this potential project. He noted the quote to run fiber from City Hall to the
SSCC seems high and Staff and Councilmember Zerby believe it can be made at a lower cost.
Councilmember Zerby stated the original intent with this effort was to let the County know the City may
eventually want to connect to the ring. He commented it was premature to bring this before Council at
this stage in the process because a lot of information is missing. He stated including the four facilities in
the plan raises the price considerably. Approximately one-third of the $82,000 cost is for connecting City
Hall to the ring. He noted that bringing fiber to the public safety facility involves the other member cities
of the joint powers organizations. He stated his preference is to start with City Hall first and at some
future date consider the other three facilities.
Councilmember Siakel stated she would like to have a lot more information. She is not ready to make a
decision this evening. She also wants it to have a detailed ROI done. An eight-year ROI is too long. She
asked what connecting to the ring would mean to day-to-day operations for the City. She stated she would
like to know what the impact would be on the business, and how the City would justify this type of
expense. She then stated if there is a benefit to connecting the public safety facility she hoped something
could be worked out with the other member cities of the joint powers organizations. She noted she is not
sure what the true benefit of doing this would be to the City.
Administrator Heck stated Staff is not asking Council to approve the project this evening. Staff only
wants to know if Council wants to continue to research the details of it further. Staff wanted to share the
additional information it has gathered.
Mayor Lizée stated if the project were to be approved she preferred it be done in phases. She then stated
the future of Badger Park needs to be considered. The question of whether or not fiber to the SSCC will
be part of the redesign needs to be answered. Depending on what happens with the Park the route for fiber
to the SSCC could vary.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she also wants more information. She wants to know how the schools in
the Minnetonka School District tie into this. She asked what Hennepin County’s plans are with regard to
fiber connectivity.
Administrator Heck stated at this time Hennepin County doesn’t have much going on with regard to fiber
connectivity. He explained Anoka County is installing a fiber ring, Scott County either has done or is in
the process of doing that, and Carver County is in the process of doing that. He noted that rural counties
have received considerable federal grant money for the build outs. Hennepin County is not considered
rural. Hennepin County does have fiber connectivity to some of its libraries. The Minnetonka School
District is connected by fiber and it will be connected into the ring through Minnetonka Middle School
West.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the businesses located in the area are interested in fiber connectivity.
Administrator Heck responded he doesn’t know. The consultant to Carver County and to the School
District has indicated if a couple of businesses want access to fiber connectivity there may be some
possibility.
Councilmember Zerby stated from his vantage point he thought it prudent to explore connecting to the
ring. It would be important for today and for the future to put that connection in place. It would provide
the band width for some time going forward.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 9 of 10
Councilmember Woodruff stated virtually all schools in the metropolitan area have fiber connectivity
between their buildings, and the Minnetonka School District is not exception. If the District connects to
the ring its connection speed of its network will increase and it will get a relatively low cost connection to
the outside world. He then stated the Carver County project as a county project is a government only
network. The County is installing additional fiber that it intends on leasing to private entities which in
turn may potentially build it out for commercial and residential use within the County. He commented he
thought the private part of that initiative is still ill defined. The County is in the process of connecting its
public facilities.
There was Council consensus for Staff to gather more information.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck stated he is in the process of preparing an outline for the GreenStep Cities program.
The City’s resolution was sent to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Staff is in the process of
gathering energy use data and that should satisfy a couple of the best practices action items. He then
stated he has not heard from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District about what the Department of
Natural Resources thinks about the joint powers agreement for the Christmas Lake aquatic invasive
species pilot project. The City is waiting on one more piece of electrical connection before the arms can
go on to the gate posts for the gate at the Christmas Lake boat launch. Director Brown noted the electrical
thst
connection will be completed on October 27 and the gate will be tested on November 1.
Director Brown stated the curb at Waterford Place was removed and replaced today. Restoration will be
completed in the next week or two.
Director Nielsen stated this past weekend was the second weekend for harvesting deer. Over the first
weekend 11 deer were harvested and this past weekend 8 deer were harvested. Nineteen is just a few less
than what was harvested in total during the 2010 harvesting activities.
Mayor Lizée stated Tonka Bay Councilmember De La Vega had indicated to her that the City of Tonka
Bay may be interested in being part of the 2012 program. She asked if the Metro Bowhunters Resource
Base would be interested in expanding its efforts to Tonka Bay. She noted there is a heavy deer run area
between the City and Tonka Bay. She asked Director Nielsen to contact Tonka Bay Mayor LaBelle and
Tonka Bay Administrator Kohlmann.
1. Monthly Budget Report
Director DeJong stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the September 2011 Monthly Budget
Report. The budget is on target.
2. Quarterly Investment Report
Director DeJong stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the 2011 Quarterly Investment Report. The
items on the Report marked with an “m” are matured investments or investments that have been called
during the course of the year. At the end of the third quarter there was too much money in cash because
there had been about $3 million in investment calls. He has found a couple of suitable investments for
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 24, 2011
Page 10 of 10
some of that cash. In order for investments to earn close to one percent recent they have to have an
investment timeframe out three years.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Woodruff appealed to the City’s residents that live in the Westonka School District to
vote in favor of the three bond issues that will be on the school election on November 8, 2011.
Councilmember Zerby stated Excelsior Fire District Chief Scott Gerber was awarded the 2011 Minnesota
State Fire Chiefs Association (MSFCA) Officer of the Year Award during the MSFCA annual conference
st
held on October 21. The list of some of his accomplishments proved the award was well deserved. He
noted that he, Mayor Lizée, Director Brown and his wife, Administrator Heck, Recording Secretary
Freeman, Excelsior Mayor Ruehl and City Manager Luger, and Tonka Bay Councilmember De La Vega
were in attendance for the presentation of the award. He noted Gerber, being the humble human being
that he is, stated there were others more deserving of the award.
Mayor Lizée noted that Chief Gerber was very surprised to be the recipient of the award. She
congratulated Chief Gerber.
Mayor Lizée reminded residents that the residential survey had been mailed out. She encouraged them to
fill out the survey and return it. She wished everyone a safe Halloween.
13. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 24,
2011, at 8:29 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 November 24, 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 52300 through
52362 totaling $376,814.65.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
11/10/2011 12:13 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 1
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE:10/25/2011 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 10/25/2011 000000 11,853.50
00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 11/08/2011 000000 16,292.08
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 10/25/2011 000000 2,132.88
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 11/08/2011 000000 2,739.35
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 10/25/2011 000000 1,092.39
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 11/08/2011 000000 1,092.39
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 10/25/2011 052300 1,561.00
00052 PERA R 10/25/2011 052301 7,057.09
00086 AFSCME COUNCIL 5 R 11/08/2011 052303 305.92
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 11/08/2011 052304 1,561.00
16625 NCPERS MINNESOTA R 11/08/2011 052305 32.00
00052 PERA R 11/08/2011 052306 7,120.24
1 SIPPLE, WILLIAM G. R 11/10/2011 052308 287.11
29306 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 R 11/14/2011 052309 13,840.20
01475 AMERICAN ENGINEERING R 11/14/2011 052310 823.00
16275 AMERICAN MESSAGING R 11/14/2011 052311 6.39
01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 11/14/2011 052312 150.73
04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 11/14/2011 052313 128.29
17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 11/14/2011 052314 348.57
26100 CENTURY LINK R 11/14/2011 052315 1,307.94
04500 CITY OF CHANHASSEN R 11/14/2011 052317 4,978.72
17400 CITY OF MINNETONKA R 11/14/2011 052318 741.51
11/10/2011 12:13 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE:10/25/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
24600 CITY OF TONKA BAY R 11/14/2011 052319 343.00
05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 11/14/2011 052320 98.11
05890 CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC R 11/14/2011 052321 550.64
06000 DALE GREEN COMPANY R 11/14/2011 052322 285.36
29271 DREW KRIESEL R 11/14/2011 052323 1,102.81
02000 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. R 11/14/2011 052324 464.64
07383 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN R 11/14/2011 052325 1,200.00
08500 FRONTIER PRECISION, INC. R 11/14/2011 052326 16.03
08712 G & K SERVICES R 11/14/2011 052327 1,436.59
08760 GAME TIME R 11/14/2011 052328 1,820.00
27195 GRAINGER, INC R 11/14/2011 052329 1,022.72
27400 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. R 11/14/2011 052330 53.75
10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 11/14/2011 052331 64.00
11087 ICS - HEALY-RUFF R 11/14/2011 052332 1,995.10
12575 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC R 11/14/2011 052333 94.09
13300 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES R 11/14/2011 052334 40.00
13550 LIZEE, CHRISTINE R 11/14/2011 052335 35.00
14300 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. R 11/14/2011 052336 413.57
29259 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP R 11/14/2011 052337 4,717.50
15176 MENARDS R 11/14/2011 052338 3.99
15300 METRO SALES, INC. R 11/14/2011 052339 686.00
18085 MOORE, JULIE R 11/14/2011 052340 185.10
11/10/2011 12:13 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE:10/25/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
29407 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER, INC. R 11/14/2011 052341 3,776.00
15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 11/14/2011 052342 235.44
29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 11/14/2011 052343 685.10
15000 PAETEC R 11/14/2011 052344 527.31
20283 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. R 11/14/2011 052345 179.88
22482 SAM'S CLUB R 11/14/2011 052346 261.79
22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 11/14/2011 052347 73.92
23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 11/14/2011 052348 83,135.83
1 STEPHANIE JOCHIMS R 11/14/2011 052349 704.00
29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 11/14/2011 052350 105.82
17200 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS R 11/14/2011 052351 29.40
23738 T-MOBILE R 11/14/2011 052352 87.51
25000 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES R 11/14/2011 052353 773.66
25325 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. R 11/14/2011 052354 158.17
25450 TWIN CITY STRIPING R 11/14/2011 052355 13,637.75
25540 UNITED LABORATORIES R 11/14/2011 052356 364.73
25550 UPS R 11/14/2011 052357 18.45
70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 11/14/2011 052358 275.93
83900 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN R 11/14/2011 052359 540.05
19800 XCEL ENERGY R 11/14/2011 052360 14,619.82
29413 YOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS, INC. R 11/14/2011 052362 264.68
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 11/14/2011 999999 3,704.00
11/10/2011 12:13 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE:10/25/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
06572 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA D 11/01/2011 999999 681.23
07900 HAWKINS, INC. E 11/14/2011 999999 60.00
09400 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 11/14/2011 999999 267.40
10473 HENN CTY TAXPAYER SVCS PUBLIC E 11/14/2011 999999 30.00
13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 11/14/2011 999999 1,205.27
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. E 11/14/2011 999999 374.25
18500 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. E 11/14/2011 999999 16,344.53
19445 NGUYEN, MICHELLE E 11/14/2011 999999 88.00
19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 11/14/2011 999999 80.00
20950 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. E 11/14/2011 999999 2,291.66
23725 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC E 11/14/2011 999999 3,094.31
24450 TOLL GAS & WELDING E 11/14/2011 999999 63.40
28451 WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. E 11/14/2011 999999 10,160.50
29324 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, I E 11/14/2011 999999 282.00
* * T O T A L S * * NO INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNTS CHECK AMOUNT
REGULAR CHECKS: 59 177,332.95 0.00 177,332.95
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 7 35,883.82 0.00 35,883.82
EFT: 14 38,045.32 0.00 38,045.32
NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00
VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ERRORS: 0
VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 80 251,262.09 0.00 251,262.09
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 80 251,262.09 0.00 251,262.09
REPORT TOTALS: 80 251,262.09 0.00 251,262.09
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 305.92_
TOTAL: 305.92
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 11/14/11 RECYCLING Recycling Utility Recycling 13,840.20_
TOTAL: 13,840.20
AMERICAN ENGINEERING 11/14/11 PROJ 10-1 & 2/NELSON/WILDR Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 500.00
11/14/11 2011 CIP - STAR LN/CIR Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 323.00_
TOTAL: 823.00
AMERICAN MESSAGING 11/14/11 612-534-3975 & 612-818-591 General Fund Public Works 3.21
11/14/11 612-534-3975 & 612-818-591 Water Utility Water 1.59
11/14/11 612-534-3975 & 612-818-591 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1.59_
TOTAL: 6.39
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 11/14/11 GEN SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 48.21
11/14/11 HOL BOUTIQUES SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 43.82
11/14/11 INK CARTRIDGES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 58.70_
TOTAL: 150.73
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 11/14/11 FILTERS General Fund Public Works 70.31
11/14/11 BUSHINGS General Fund Public Works 26.18
11/14/11 SEAL BEAM LIGHT General Fund Public Works 31.80_
TOTAL: 128.29
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 11/14/11 5755 CTRY CLUB RD General Fund Municipal Buildings 49.21
11/14/11 24200 SMITHTOWN RD General Fund Public Works 66.38
11/14/11 5745 CTRY CLB RD & 2520 HW General Fund Parks & Recreation 35.64
11/14/11 20630 MANOR RD-WARMING HOU General Fund Parks & Recreation 22.92
11/14/11 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 80.09
11/14/11 20405 KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD Water Utility Water 27.50
11/14/11 28125 BOULDER BRIDGE DR Water Utility Water 66.83_
TOTAL: 348.57
CENTURY LINK 11/14/11 952-470-6340 General Fund Municipal Buildings 120.73
11/14/11 952-470-2294 General Fund Public Works 57.04
11/14/11 10/13-11/12 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 121.71
11/14/11 NOV SVC Water Utility Water 625.23
11/14/11 NOV SVC Water Utility Water 236.43
11/14/11 952-470-9605 Water Utility Water 73.40
11/14/11 952-470-9606 Water Utility Water 73.40_
TOTAL: 1,307.94
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11/14/11 018505-000 ACCT SVC ADDRES Water Utility Water 8.99
11/14/11 018505-001 ACCT SVC ADDRES Water Utility Water 4,969.73_
TOTAL: 4,978.72
CITY OF MINNETONKA 11/14/11 ADDT'L 2009-2011 & 3RD QTR Water Utility Water 741.51_
TOTAL: 741.51
CITY OF TONKA BAY 11/14/11 1/3 COST INS -08/15/11-8/1 General Fund Municipal Buildings 18.00
11/14/11 2011 ANNAUL SPRINKLER SYS- General Fund Public Works 325.00_
TOTAL: 343.00
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 11/14/11 PARK COORDINATOR SERVICES General Fund Parks & Recreation 3,375.00
11/14/11 SSCC ASSISTANT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 329.00
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 3,704.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 11/14/11 DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 64.21
11/14/11 SALT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 33.90_
TOTAL: 98.11
CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC 11/14/11 SSCC -REPAIR FREEZER Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 550.64_
TOTAL: 550.64
DALE GREEN COMPANY 11/14/11 YARDS PULVERIZED-BADGER WE General Fund Parks & Recreation 285.36_
TOTAL: 285.36
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 11/01/11 MONTHLY DENTIST PREMIUM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 681.23_
TOTAL: 681.23
DREW KRIESEL 11/14/11 CONTRACT SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 450.00
11/14/11 GENERAL SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 112.81
11/14/11 HOLIDAYS SVCS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 540.00_
TOTAL: 1,102.81
EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. 11/14/11 BOAT RAMP SIGNS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 219.79
11/14/11 ADDT'L SIGNAGE-XMAS LK BOA General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 244.85_
TOTAL: 464.64
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 10/25/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,013.11
11/08/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,245.41-
11/08/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 10,449.58
11/08/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 200.08-
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,160.09
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,933.03
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 0.01
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 745.77
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,012.60
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80.60
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18.87
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 283.86
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 279.32
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 66.38
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 65.32
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 386.72
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 1,590.18
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 90.43
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 371.91
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 286.37
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 297.03
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 66.97
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 69.46
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 286.57
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 282.29
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 67.02
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 66.01
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 198.53
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 203.81
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 46.43
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 47.67
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 154.94
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 121.56
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 36.24
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 28.43
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 570.28
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 315.59
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 133.35
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 73.81
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 45.22
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 84.91
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 10.58
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 19.86
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 33.11
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 7.75
10/25/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 263.53
11/08/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 244.39
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 61.64
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 57.15
10/25/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 49.86
11/08/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 42.96
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 11.65
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 10.03
10/25/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 158.88
11/08/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 319.47
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 37.17
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 74.71
10/25/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 270.64
11/08/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 345.41
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 63.30
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 80.78
10/25/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 17.21
11/08/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 9.39
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 4.03
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 2.20
10/25/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 102.44
11/08/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 193.44
10/25/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 23.96
11/08/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 45.26_
TOTAL: 28,145.58
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE 11/14/11 STREET LIGHT RELAMP General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 1,200.00_
TOTAL: 1,200.00
FRONTIER PRECISION, INC. 11/14/11 RENMIS-ZEISS NI30 General Fund City Engineer 16.03_
TOTAL: 16.03
G & K SERVICES 11/14/11 CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 197.07
11/14/11 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 1,133.41
11/14/11 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 106.11_
TOTAL: 1,436.59
GAME TIME 11/14/11 INSTALL AT PLAYGROUND Park Capital Impro Park Capital Improveme 1,820.00_
TOTAL: 1,820.00
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 11/14/11 OCT RENTAL Water Utility Water 133.70
11/14/11 OCT RENTAL Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 133.70_
TOTAL: 267.40
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
GRAINGER, INC 11/14/11 LIGHTS-GARAGE General Fund Public Works 257.23
11/14/11 STREET LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 671.25
11/14/11 STREET LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 138.42
11/14/11 STREET LIGHT CREDIT General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 44.18-
TOTAL: 1,022.72
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 11/14/11 OCT SMITHTOWN WAY Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 282.00_
TOTAL: 282.00
HAWKINS, INC. 11/14/11 CHLORINE Water Utility Water 60.00_
TOTAL: 60.00
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 11/14/11 WATER METER PARTS Water Utility Water 53.75_
TOTAL: 53.75
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 11/14/11 800MHZ RADIO General Fund Public Works 64.00_
TOTAL: 64.00
HENN CTY TAXPAYER SVCS PUBLIC RECORDS 11/14/11 EGKF64 -MONTHLY FEE General Fund City Engineer 30.00_
TOTAL: 30.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,435.96
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,435.96
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 125.04
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 125.04_
TOTAL: 3,122.00
ICS - HEALY-RUFF 11/14/11 REPAIR BADGER COMM SYST Water Utility Water 826.60
11/14/11 BADGER WELL COMM FAIL Water Utility Water 1,168.50_
TOTAL: 1,995.10
KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. 11/14/11 MONTHLY PROSECUTION SVC General Fund Professional Svcs 2,291.66_
TOTAL: 2,291.66
LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC 11/14/11 SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 94.09_
TOTAL: 94.09
LANDINI, JAMES 11/14/11 MILEAGE General Fund City Engineer 22.76
11/14/11 IPAD General Fund City Engineer 1,056.73
11/14/11 SUPPLIES General Fund City Engineer 85.78
11/14/11 NOV WELLNESS REIM General Fund City Engineer 40.00_
TOTAL: 1,205.27
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 11/14/11 2011 REGIONAL MTG-EAGAN 11 General Fund Administration 40.00_
TOTAL: 40.00
LIZEE, CHRISTINE 11/14/11 MCWD-HEROES BANQUET 11/17 General Fund Council 35.00_
TOTAL: 35.00
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. 11/14/11 PIN/TUBE/BUSHINGS General Fund Public Works 413.57_
TOTAL: 413.57
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 11/14/11 SEPT GEN MATTERS General Fund Professional Svcs 1,850.00
11/14/11 SEPT ADM CODE ENF General Fund Professional Svcs 592.00
11/14/11 SEPT-24620 SMITHTOWN RD Community Infrastr Community Infrastructu 980.50
11/14/11 SEPT 5750 COVINGTON RD Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,295.00
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 4,717.50
MENARDS 11/14/11 SNAP GUTTER General Fund Parks & Recreation 3.99_
TOTAL: 3.99
METRO SALES, INC. 11/14/11 COPIER MACH MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 686.00_
TOTAL: 686.00
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 11/14/11 NOV NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 374.25_
TOTAL: 374.25
MISC. VENDOR SIPPLE, WILLIAM G. 11/10/11 03-503209-00 Water Utility NON-DEPARTMENTAL 287.11
STEPHANIE JOCHIMS 11/14/11 FUSED GLASS LADIES NITE 10 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 704.00_
TOTAL: 991.11
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 10/25/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,132.88
11/08/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 784.62-
11/08/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,558.89
11/08/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 34.92-
TOTAL: 4,872.23
MOORE, JULIE 11/14/11 ARTIC FEVER-GIRL DOLLS General Fund Parks & Recreation 162.00
11/14/11 ARTIC FEVER-MILEAGE General Fund Parks & Recreation 23.10_
TOTAL: 185.10
NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER, INC. 11/14/11 2011 CITIZEN SERVEY #2 General Fund Council 3,776.00_
TOTAL: 3,776.00
NCPERS MINNESOTA 11/08/11 UNIT #762400 MONTHLY LIFE General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32.00_
TOTAL: 32.00
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 11/14/11 OCT MILEAGE General Fund Finance 88.00_
TOTAL: 88.00
NIELSEN, BRADLEY 11/14/11 WELLNESS General Fund Planning 80.00_
TOTAL: 80.00
OFFICE DEPOT 11/14/11 RETURN CREDIT General Fund General Government 3.84-
11/14/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 87.01
11/14/11 GEN OFF. SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 24.04
11/14/11 GEN OFF SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 128.23_
TOTAL: 235.44
ON SITE SANITATION INC 11/14/11 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/14/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/14/11 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13
11/14/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/14/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/14/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13_
TOTAL: 685.10
PAETEC 11/14/11 SVC -09/29-10/28 General Fund Municipal Buildings 135.86
11/14/11 SVC -09/29-10/28 General Fund Public Works 46.90
11/14/11 SVC -09/29-10/28 General Fund Parks & Recreation 145.60
11/14/11 SVC -09/29-10/28 Water Utility Water 98.70
11/14/11 SVC -09/29-10/28 Water Utility Water 100.25
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 6
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 527.31
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 11/14/11 NUTS BOLTS General Fund Public Works 179.88_
TOTAL: 179.88
PERA 10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,267.17
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,019.11
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 722.70-
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 342.08
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 336.74
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 453.22
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 1,321.59
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 855.62-
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 345.60
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 358.06
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 368.37
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 362.48
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 259.19
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 266.25
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 181.76
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 142.62
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 693.46
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 385.52
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 52.88
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 105.52
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 38.72
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 336.08
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 308.23
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 58.30
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 32.95
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 17.29
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 197.73
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 394.89
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 321.19
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 409.94
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 20.13
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 10.98
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 121.21
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 226.39_
TOTAL: 14,177.33
SAM'S CLUB 11/14/11 CITY HALL General Fund Municipal Buildings 115.87
11/14/11 PUBLIC WORK General Fund Public Works 145.92_
TOTAL: 261.79
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 11/14/11 AED-CH General Fund Municipal Buildings 6.40
11/14/11 HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 20.04
11/14/11 BULB General Fund Public Works 4.25
11/14/11 SPRAY PAINT General Fund Public Works 17.60
11/14/11 GLOVES General Fund Parks & Recreation 25.63_
TOTAL: 73.92
SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 11/14/11 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE General Fund Police Protection 82,642.00
11/14/11 HENN CTY PROCESSING FEE General Fund Police Protection 493.83_
TOTAL: 83,135.83
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 7
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 11/14/11 GAS 09/26-10/13 - FINAL General Fund Public Works 3,094.31_
TOTAL: 3,094.31
SUN NEWSPAPERS 11/14/11 GLOUDE PHN 10/20 General Fund Planning 37.18
11/14/11 DYNAMIC SIGNS 10/20 General Fund Planning 34.32
11/14/11 SMITHTOWN HEARING 10/27 General Fund Planning 34.32_
TOTAL: 105.82
SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS 11/14/11 SMITHTOWN CORSSING HRG 10/ General Fund Planning 29.40_
TOTAL: 29.40
T-MOBILE 11/14/11 952-463-5836 - BRIAN HECK General Fund Administration 87.51_
TOTAL: 87.51
TOLL GAS & WELDING 11/14/11 WELDING SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 63.40_
TOTAL: 63.40
TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 11/14/11 NOV NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 773.66_
TOTAL: 773.66
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. 11/14/11 GARAGE DOOR OPENER General Fund Public Works 158.17_
TOTAL: 158.17
TWIN CITY STRIPING 11/14/11 PV#1-PROJECT #11-10 General Fund Streets & Roadways 13,637.75_
TOTAL: 13,637.75
UNITED LABORATORIES 11/14/11 ENZYME BLOCKS General Fund Parks & Recreation 364.73_
TOTAL: 364.73
UPS 11/14/11 SWAN MOTION PICTURES PICKU General Fund Public Works 6.51
11/14/11 WATER SAMPLER Water Utility Water 11.94_
TOTAL: 18.45
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/14/11 09/13-10/12 SVC General Fund Planning 60.87
11/14/11 L.S. PHONE SERVICES Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 215.06_
TOTAL: 275.93
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 11/14/11 24200 SMITHTOWN RD WASTE S General Fund Public Works 376.39
11/14/11 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD WASTE Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 163.66_
TOTAL: 540.05
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
10/25/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45
11/08/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 2,184.78
WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. 11/14/11 BLACKTOP General Fund Streets & Roadways 4,407.53
11/14/11 CURB & RD REPAIR Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 11,937.00_
TOTAL: 16,344.53
WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 11/14/11 SEPT-2011 MILL & OVERLAY Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 192.00
11/14/11 SEPT-ENCHANTED ISLAND CHIP Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 1,056.00
11/14/11 STORM MAP GIS UPDATES Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 810.50
11/14/11 6180 MURRAY HILL DRAINAGE Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 830.00
11/14/11 5770 COVINGTON LOT SPLIT Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 840.00
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 8
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
11/14/11 SMITHTOWN WAY-ROAD CIP Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 6,432.00_
TOTAL: 10,160.50
XCEL ENERGY 11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 General Fund Municipal Buildings 547.27
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 General Fund Police Protection 5.16
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 General Fund Public Works 495.02
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 28.59
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 4,641.19
11/14/11 5700 CTY RD 19 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 30.91
11/14/11 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 197.51
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 General Fund Parks & Recreation 452.98
11/14/11 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 794.87
11/14/11 24253 SMITHTOWN ROAD Water Utility Water 624.25
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 Water Utility Water 1,404.28
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 Water Utility Water 1,730.57
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 Water Utility Water 3,140.60
11/14/11 SVC 08/25-10/06 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 526.62_
TOTAL: 14,619.82
YOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS, INC. 11/14/11 GAS SVC 10/18-10/19 General Fund Public Works 264.68_
TOTAL: 264.68
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 10/24/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300.00
General Fund Administration 9,363.08
General Fund General Government 31,914.10
General Fund Finance 9,705.71
General Fund Planning 10,080.71
General Fund Protective Inspections 7,247.57
General Fund City Engineer 4,474.12
General Fund Public Works 14,882.63
General Fund Streets & Roadways 2,184.97
General Fund Tree Maintenance 534.03
General Fund Parks & Recreation 8,886.89
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 1,497.05
Water Utility Water 8,173.67
Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 10,084.39
Recycling Utility Recycling 429.08
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4,794.56_
TOTAL: 125,552.56
11-10-2011 12:38 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE: 9
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 285,544.56
402 Park Capital Improvements 1,820.00
404 Street Capital Improvemen 13,685.00
450 Community Infrastructure 980.50
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 5,857.61
601 Water Utility 25,821.38
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 12,452.62
621 Recycling Utility 14,333.22
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 16,319.76
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 376,814.65
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 9
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Erickson, Bill – Extension of Deadline to File Final Plat
Meeting Date: 14 November 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council grant a further extension to Mr. Bill Erickson for the
filing of his final plat?
Background: Bill Erickson owns three properties in the southwest corner of Shorewood. He and his
neighbors have joined together to purchase a large parcel of land that was in foreclosure for the
purpose of rearranging and enlarging their existing properties. Essentially they propose to make five
lots into four. In the process, they are cleaning up a number of nonconformities that currently exist.
Through Mr. Erickson, they have requested approval of a preliminary plat. Aside from improving zoning
compliance, the City also obtains drainage and utility easements around the new lots, as well as a
conservation easement over the wetland on the property. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter and voted unanimously to recommend approval, commending the owners for
their efforts.
Since then, the Council has granted three extensions of the deadline for filing a final plat. The delay has
been caused by inconsistencies in the survey and legal descriptions for some of the parcels involved.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Approval of the extension has no financial impact on the City.
In fact, the City has only to gain by obtaining the drainage and utility easements associated with the plat.
Options: Approve the extension or deny the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends another six-month extension.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon resolution of the title issues, Mr. Erickson will file a final plat which
is subject to approval by the City Council.
Connection to Vision / Mission: This action is viewed as providing quality public service and also
contributes to a healthy environment through the acquisition of wetland, drainage and utility
easements.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: New Tobacco License Request
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Attachments: Resolution
Policy: Should a new tobacco license be issued to Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc.
Background: This Resolution issues a tobacco license for the sale of tobacco products to a new
establishment: Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc., located at 23710 Hwy 7, in the Shorewood Village
Shopping Center. The applicant has submitted the license application, paid the $250 license fee and
undergone a background investigation on the owner/manager. There were no violations within the last
five years related to the sale of tobacco products.
The applicant indicates that all tobacco products and related accessories will be sold, including rolling,
chewing, cigars, cigarettes, related pipe tobacco and accessories.
Options:
1) Adopt the Resolution approving licenses to sell tobacco products to Shorewood Cigars and
Tobacco, Inc.
2) Do not adopt the Resolution.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends Council adopt the Resolution approving the license to sell tobacco products to
Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc, for the period November 15, 2011 – October 31, 2012, which is the
normal ending date for all tobacco licenses.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Upon approval, Staff will issue the license to sell tobacco products to Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco,
Inc.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSES TO A RETAILER
TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Sections 302 and 1301 provide for the licensing
of the sale of tobacco products in the City; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, and shall
pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS,
the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application and paid
the appropriate fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the sale of tobacco products be issued for a term of one year, from
November 15, 2011 to October 31, 2012, consistent with the requirements and provisions
of Chapter 302 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicants:
Applicant Address
Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. 23710 State Highway 7
ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 14th day of November,
2011.
___________________________
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
___________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2011 7:00 P.M.
DRAFT MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Davis, Garelick (arrived at 7:17 P.M.), Hasek (arrived
at 7:01 P.M.) and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council
Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Councilmember Charbonnet
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, approving the agenda for November 1, 2011 as presented. Motion
passed 4/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 18, 2011
Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
October 18, 2011, amended in Item 1, Page 5, Paragraph 5, Sentence 12, change “buildings that are
over 1200 square feet in size” to “buildings that are over 150 square feet in size”. Motion passed
5/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Don and Kiki Gloude
Location: 4675 Fatima Place
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a November 28, 2011, Regular City
Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained Don and Kiki Gloude own the property located at 4675 Fatima Place. They
have begun a substantial expansion and remodeling of their existing home, including a new garage. They
propose building a new entry and covered porch on the front of the house as part of the project. The entry
is an allowable encroachment in residential districts, but the porch is specifically precluded. They propose
building the covered porch 4.5 feet into the front yard setback. Therefore, they have requested a front yard
setback variance.
The property is located in the R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. In addition to
their home there is an attached garage, swimming pool and two small accessory buildings on the property.
In this district the minimum allowable lot size is 10,000 square feet. Their lot contains 26,866 square feet
of area with the current hardcover at 16.4 percent. The proposed additions will increase the amount of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 2 of 15
hardcover to 20.8 percent. Currently the house is situated 31.7 feet back from the street right-of-way. The
new garage and addition will be built out to the 30-foot required setback; the smallest front setback of all
of the four single-family residential districts. The enclosed entry extends 4.5 feet into the front setback
area which is allowed under the City’s zoning regulations. The covered porch to the left of the entry also
extends 4.5 feet into the front setback area and that is specifically prohibited.
The applicants propose having a 3-foot by 3-foot concrete stoop coming off of the entry way. When Staff
first discussed this project with the applicants Staff told them that is not allowed. Therefore, the applicants
thought they needed to include the stoop in their variance request. Upon further investigation Staff
determined the stoop is allowable as long as it is not covered. The stoop is no longer part of the variance
request.
Nielsen displayed illustrations of the site location map and the proposed floor plan. He noted this is the
first variance request being considered under the new “practical difficulties” regulations versus the old
“hardship” regulations.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the request has to conform to all of the criteria
for a variance. He reviewed how the applicants’ request conforms to the criteria. Although it is not
unreasonable to want a covered porch, the question at hand is if it should be allowed to encroach into
what is already a minimal front yard setback. The Ordinance requires porches comply with the setback
requirement. Its encroachment into the setback could be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code
and Comprehensive Plan.
Practical difficulties include three factors: reasonableness; circumstances are unique to the property and
not caused by the landowner; and, the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. All three
criteria must be met. Reasonableness was just discussed. The applicants’ circumstances are not unique to
the property. Many homes in the neighborhood have a similar type of entry condition as the applicants,
but they do comply with the setback requirement. While the applicants may not have built the original
house, the house was built very near the minimal setback and therefore it does not allow for additions to
the front of the building. The applicants have inherited what the previous owner has done.
Nielsen reviewed the four reasons the applicants have given for granting the variance. They are: 1) safety;
2) handicap access; 3) use of land; and 4) aesthetics/property value. With regard to safety, the applicants
are allowed an eave overhang of 3.7 feet. This is nearly double what many of the houses in the
neighborhood have. There are other ways of directing drainage away from the stoop. The applicants want
a shed-type roof off of the new entry feature. In other instances people have gone with an “eyebrow”
design where the entry is covered by a gable facing the street, directing drainage away from the doorway.
The ability of the applicants to have the stoop should resolve any handicap access issues. Being able to
have the front stoop should resolve any use of land issue. Aesthetics and property value are not criterion
for granting variances under the previous hardship standard or in the practical difficulties test. They are
simply too subjective to use as reasons. The City has historically placed considerable value on the open
space afforded by reasonable setback areas.
Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case Staff believes the applicants’ request does not satisfy the
criteria for granting a variance under the “practical difficulties” test. Staff believes a text amendment to
the Zoning Code would be a more appropriate way to address the request. It would be difficult to say the
same arguments could not be made for any number of homes in the neighborhood.
Nielsen then stated Staff recommends not approving the variance request.
Nielsen noted the applicants are present this evening.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 3 of 15
In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the four-foot wide step
next to the stoop is allowed. In response to another question, Nielsen stated it’s the roof that is the issue.
Mr. Gloude clarified the notch in the eyebrow roof is the only thing that is being talked about for a
variance. He noted the house was built about 50 years ago by other people that owned the property. He
explained the current house is a flat faced house with about 8 inches of eave. During the approximate 10
years he and his wife have owned the property they have had problems with ice forming on the front
stoop and steps because there is nothing to cover them. Their proposed design should address that issue.
The first design they considered did have a gable entry going toward the street. They were told they
couldn’t have that because it encroached too much into the setback. They were also told they had to do a
side entry door. When they open the door to their house the door almost hits the stairs going to the
upstairs. There is no internal room to recess an entry.
Mr. Gloude stated that he and his wife have friends that are wheelchair bound. Therefore, they are trying
to make their home more handicapped accessible for those friends. He then stated they believe the
proposed design for the roofline and covered sidewalk improve the aesthetic appearance of the house and
it naturally guides you to the front door. It would enhance the value of the property.
Mr. Gloude stated he and his wife worked the design a number of different ways. The proposed design is
the one that fits best within the constraints they have, but they do need a variance for the one section of
the roof. He noted they have spoken with their neighbors and the neighbors are very supportive.
Commissioner Davis asked how people in wheelchairs will be able to get up the step that is depicted on
the floor plan. Mr. Gloude explained they had spoken to people about putting in a slopped sidewalk and
were told that would be more unsafe than a step. Visitors would still have to get up the step but they
wouldn’t have to maneuver on the small stoop. Their proposed design addresses access and safety by
mitigating the buildup of ice and snow near the entry to the house.
Commissioner Hasek asked Mr. Gloude if they had a handicapped accessible bathroom for their visitors.
Mr. Gloude responded the proposed remodeling includes adding a handicapped accessible bathroom.
Chair Geng asked if there has been consideration given to gutters. Mr. Gloude explained there are gutters
on the house today, but that hasn’t stopped the buildup of ice dams. There will be gutters on the new
design. Mr. Gloude noted the eyebrow design proposed in the roof will be metal. Having a gutter in the
middle of that portion of the roof would not have been aesthetically appealing. Commissioner Arnst
commented having a roof over the stoop will help mitigate the ice and snow problem.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the proposed stone on the front of the house will be located in the setback.
Director Nielsen responded that is an allowable encroachment. Mr. Gloude stated the brick that had been
on the house has been removed and the proposed stone is just replacing that.
Hasek stated it appears to him that the Gloude house is located closer to Fatima Place than the other
houses in the neighborhood, but there is another house that is almost as close. He expressed concern about
creating a variance precedent for what seems to him to be aesthetic reasons thereby requiring the City to
grant similar variances in the future. He commented that he is pleased the applicants propose other
improvements to accommodate those with physical challenges. He stated what he hears is that the
applicants want to do what they propose, not that they need to do it. He commented there are times when
gutters have to be used. He asked if a variance would be required if the proposed roof didn’t have posts
under it to which Director Nielsen responded it would because it is more than two feet deep.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 4 of 15
Commissioner Hutchins asked Mr. Gloude what the current status of the exterior construction is and what
the estimated time to complete it is. Mr. Gloude stated the back of the home has builtright and exposed
wall in the back and the builders are continuing to build according to plan. The brick and siding has been
removed from the front portion of the house. Most of the house has sheathing on the first floor, but not on
the front of the garage. Mr. Gloude stated the builder had indicated at the start of the project that it would
take seven months but it may take longer because of some engineering things that had to be worked out
for two beams. He thought the estimate completion date is at least six months out.
Hutchins stated he had some concerns about the proposed variance request. He noted he had not had time
to visit the site because he had been out of town most of the time between when he received the
supporting material for this request and now. He stated he did not believe he had enough information to
make an informed decision on this variance request this evening. He questioned if the construction
timetable would permit continuing this item to the next meeting. Director Nielsen noted the City would
have to give notice that it will not be able to satisfy the 60-day rule for acting on this request. The notice
can extend the time to 120 days.
Commissioner Arnst and Commissioner Garelick expressed their support for continuing this item to the
next meeting. Commissioner Hasek expressed his disappointment with doing that. Director Nielsen stated
if this request is continued it could still be placed on the November 28, 2011, City Council meeting
agenda for consideration. Therefore, it would not have to be noticed. Commissioner Hutchins noted that
independent of the construction schedule he would have made the same recommendation.
Davis moved, Garelick seconded, continuing consideration of the front yard variance request from
Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place, to the November 15, 2011, Planning Commission
meeting. Motion passed 6/0.
In response to a question from Commissioner Arnst, Director Nielsen explained either the City or an
individual can initiate a request for an amendment to the City’s Zoning Code.
Chair Geng stated he was intrigued by Director Nielsen’s comments that this request could be handled by
an amendment to the ordinance. He asked if the amendment would be for the R-1D/S District only or
would it be City wide. He suggested before considering an amendment Staff find out how many
properties in the neighborhood have a similar problem. He noted the residences existed prior to the
setback requirements being added to the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if the problem is unique to that
District. Nielsen stated the problem exists in that District because it has some of the older homes. The lots
tend not to comply with the requirements set up in the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Davis stated there has been discussion about retrofitting homes for the older population.
People are trying to make their homes safe for people with mobility problems.
Chair Geng stated from his vantage point variances should be granted sparingly. Therefore, it may be
more appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to adjust the front yard setback requirement to
accommodate neighborhoods with older houses that were built near or in the setback so property owners
don’t have to apply for a variance.
Commissioner Hasek stated if it were amended the amendment would have to specifically identify what
could be built closer to the street. He noted that he doesn’t want to see structures be built closer to the
street than they have to. He asked if an amendment discussion should preclude the continued discussion
about this variance request.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 5 of 15
Director Nielsen stated there are two ways to handle this. One is to deny the variance and then amend the
ordinance. He explained that in the past variances have been granted in some cases when there was an
assumption more requests of similar nature were going to be asked for and a note was made that when the
similar requests are made the City should consider an amendment. He stated if this variance request were
to be granted because it seems reasonable then it makes sense to address an amendment immediately.
Director Nielsen reiterated the variance request is for the roof over the porch that encroaches into the
setback area and that is not allowable in the ordinance.
Chair Geng clarified he doesn’t think the Planning Commission should ever encourage someone to build
in the setback area. In this neighborhood there are a number of houses that are close to the street. He
stated he thought the property next to the applicants on the south side is even closer to the street than the
applicants. The problem in this neighborhood is not unique. He then stated he thought it would be wise to
limit a front yard setback amendment to the R-1D District and to make it clear that it would not be for a
substantial addition into a setback area.
Commissioner Hasek suggested the Commissioners spend some time in that neighborhood and to get a
good understanding of what the limits of the R-1D District are so they fully understand what needs to be
addressed. Director Nielsen suggested looking at all of the R-1D Districts on the zoning map. Nielsen
stated the amendment would apply to those neighborhoods as well.
Chair Geng suggested the discussion of such an amendment be added to the Planning Commission’s 2012
work program.
Commissioner Hasek stated if a second Planning Commission meeting was to be scheduled for December
th
he asked when it would be. Director Nielsen responded the meeting would be on December 20. Council
Liaison Woodruff noted the City Council traditionally only schedules one regular meeting in December.
Administrator Heck agreed with putting the amendment discussion on the 2012 work program. The
schedule for the remaining two 2011 Planning Commission meetings are already full and items have
already been pushed into 2012.
Chair Geng stated he is not convinced the ordinance needs to be changed. He supports discussing the
possibility of an amendment in 2012 to ensure the Commission has sufficient time to thoroughly assess
the need.
Ms. Gloude stated they were originally told there were two items that needed a variance with one of them
being the concrete stoop. When they received a copy of the material in the meeting packet on October 29,
2011, they learned the stoop was really never an issue. She explained the cutback in the eyebrow roof
leaves lots of snow on the porch.
Mr. Gloude stated from his perspective the City has already established a precedent with the front entry
allowance. That is to say age of home relative to the current ordinance and limited size. The front entry is
a 4-foot by 6-foot allowance in the setback for homes of a certain age.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M.
2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – DYNAMIC SIGNS
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M., again noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. Items acted upon this evening would be placed on a November 28, 2011, Regular City Council
meeting agenda for further review and consideration.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 6 of 15
Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a revised proposed amendment to the City’s
Zoning Code Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 11 addressing dynamic signs. He noted the Planning Commission
has been working on this for several months. There has been consensus that keeping up with technology
is a good thing to do, but it does need to be controlled and regulated.
Nielsen highlighted the changes the Commission discussed during its October 4, 2011, meeting. The
extensive Findings section was replaced with a smaller Purpose section. A provision was added that
prohibits a dynamic display sign from being located closer than 20 feet from a side lot line. A provision
was added stating “Any portion of a dynamic display sign that consists solely of an alpha-numeric
message shall not be counted in the allowable area for the sign, provided the alpha-numeric message
remains static for no less than four hours at a time.” A provision was added for residential zoning
districts, including the R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning district stating “Alpha-numeric institutional
signs shall be limited to 20-square feet in area and shall be timed to remain static for no less than 90
minutes at a time.” He noted those provisions are only for conditional uses in those districts. There were
also a few minor changes made.
Nielsen noted that earlier in the day the City received a request from Mike Cronin, a representative for
Holiday Stationstores (Holiday) who has been part of the previous dynamic display sign discussions,
asking for the opportunity to review changes Holiday would like to have made to the Zoning Code text
amendment.
Mr. Cronin, 8809 West Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, and representing Holiday Stationstores, stated he
thought the proposed ordinance is cautious and safe. He then stated Holiday is requesting three changes
be made to the ordinance. He noted he thinks the changes could be made without compromising what the
City’s intents are with regard to dynamic display signs. From Holiday’s perspective the changes would
make the use of the signs much more effective.
Mr. Cronin explained the first requested change relates to night-time operation. He distributed some
photographs and sections of the ordinance to help illustrate his points. He noted the ordinance states “…
any dynamic display sign located within 500 feet of single- and two-family residential homes must be
programmed to freeze the image between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. ...”. One photo displays
how far back the 500-foot radius reaches from the sign at a Holiday location in the City. In those
instances when the face of the dynamic sign is shielded from single and two family homes by the
orientation of the sign face, intervening structures or other buffers, Holiday is asking that its
representatives be given an opportunity to request to City staff to wave the 10:00 P.M. restriction. A
second photo showed the signs are pointed toward the road, not residential property. A third photo
showed you can’t see any houses. A fourth photo showed there were only two houses from which the
signs could be seen. He commented the City has done a good job of trying to protect residential properties
from commercial properties.
Mr. Cronin then explained the second requested change relates to the size of a sign. He distributed
information supporting the reason for this request. The ordinance states “Dynamic display signs may
occupy no more than 25% percent of the actual copy and graphic area.”. Holiday is requesting that be
increased to 45 percent but no more than 32 square feet of the actual copy and graphic area. That would
allow Holiday to have a 32 square-foot sign. What Holiday is talking about is 12 square feet of sign area.
He is not sure the 12 square feet makes much difference to the City, but it does make a big difference to
Holiday with regard to letter height. It also impacts the geometry of the sign and that is a big issue for
Holiday. Holiday would like to maintain its 1-tall by 2-wide standard for the Holiday station in
Shorewood.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 7 of 15
Mr. Cronin went on to explain the third request relates to message duration. He distributed information
supporting the reason for this request. The ordinance states “A dynamic display sign’s image, or any
portion thereof, may not change more often than once every 10 minutes ... A display of time, date, or
temperature must remain for at least 10 minutes before changing to a different display, but the time,
date, or temperature information itself may change no more often than once every 60 seconds.” Holiday
is asking that the image be able to change not more than once every 10 seconds and deleting the entire
second sentence. If not every 10 seconds, then at least every 20 or 30 seconds. A person wouldn’t see the
sign change if it changed that frequently.He noted some other cities allow signs to change every 10 – 12
seconds and it doesn’t cause any safety issues.
Mr. Cronin stated there is technology for ambient light sensors. He recommended that be made a
requirement in the ordinance so a sign can’t go from 500 nits (candelas per square meter) to 5000 nits at
the crack of dawn or so that it is not as bright on a grey day. He asked the Planning Commission to
consider the changes Holiday has proposed.
Commissioner Garelick expressed concern that there wouldn’t be any standardization if the City were to
grant exceptions to the 10:00 P.M. – 6:00 A.M. restriction. That would make the ordinance too subjective.
He thought making the change would make it too easy for people to ask for an exception. Commissioner
Hasek expressed his agreement with that concern.
Mr. Cronin stated that is not Holiday’s intent and explained that specific request applies only to the
provision that the image be static between those hours. That would be the only provision in the ordinance
where an exception could be granted. If the provision doesn’t add any protection because of things such
as the orientation of the sign then the provision doesn’t need to be applied.
Chair Geng asked if there is anything that would prevent an applicant like Holiday from applying for a
conditional use permit (C.U.P.) or a variance. Director Nielsen explained the City doesn’t have a
conditional use for that. Nielsen noted most cities do not handle dynamic display signs by C.U.P. Geng
clarified that he was asking if the City adopts a standard and an organization or person wants something
different can they apply for a C.U.P. Nielsen stated not unless the ordinance is changed to have criteria
for that. Visibility from houses could be a criterion, but the criteria would have to be pre-established.
Nielsen stated if there is any leaning toward an exception like that, that is how he would suggest handling
it. He noted he is not convinced an exception is in order. Geng noted he is not convinced one is needed
either.
Commissioner Garelick asked how the draft ordinance compares to other surrounding cities’ ordinances.
Mr. Chronic stated he thought it was similar to other ordinances, yet the City’s ordinance deals with
brightness more than many others. Director Nielsen explained after reviewing other ordinances he has
concluded there is a wide range of how dynamic display signs are handled. Staff considered the City’s
character when drafting the ordinance. The City is a residential community. The commercial areas in the
City in general support residential uses. The Waterford Shopping Center has a condition where the lights
have to be dimmed somewhat at 11:00 P.M. because of the neighborhood.
Mr. Cronin stated he thought the Waterford Shopping Center and the CUB Foods light dimming
standards are both 11:00 P.M. He asked if the Planning Commission would consider changing the static
display restriction to 11:00 P.M. That would at least tie the restriction to some standard. Director Nielsen
clarified CUB doesn’t have a restriction at all to lower its lights. Nielsen stated CUB does have a
restriction on the site lighting and he will check out what restrictions there are. Mr. Cronin stated
changing it to 11:00 P.M. would be helpful to the Holiday station. Commissioner Arnst stated she would
support having consistent light dimming standards. Chair Geng and Commissioner Hasek expressed their
support for having consistent standards.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 8 of 15
Commissioner Hutchins noted that sections 1 – 9 in Subd. 11 of the ordinance have titles. He suggested
sections 10 – 11 be given titles also. He stated section 11 addresses two issues. One point is dynamic
display signs cannot be located closer than 100 feet from a residential zoning district. The second is any
dynamic display sign located within 500 feet of single- and two-family residential homes must be
programmed to freeze the image between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. He stated Mr. Cronin’s
proposed change to Section 11 contains language saying “and intervening structures and other buffers”.
Those things can change over time and that language can create too much opportunity for complaints. He
shared other’s concerns that leaving it up to Staff to grant exceptions is not the way to go.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the church across the street from the Holiday station is located in a
residential zoning district, to which Director Nielsen responded yes. Nielsen noted that zoning district is
more than 100 feet away from the Holiday station; therefore, it doesn’t impact Holiday.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:22 P.M.
Commissioner Hutchins stated the word “be” should be inserted between the words “must instantaneous”
in section 4. He thanked Mr. Cronin for his efforts and for his working with the Planning Commission on
this over the last few months. It made the Commission’s job easier. He stated this amendment needs to
apply to the entire City and all applications. He cautioned against focusing it on Holiday.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained in the provision that “a
dynamic display sign’s image, or any portion thereof, may not change more often than once every 10
minutes, except …” the 10 minute restriction is in the range of what other cities’ ordinances have. Hasek
asked if there is any way to control different signs within the same vicinity from changing within the
same period thereby causing a blinking effect. Nielsen thought that would be difficult to do.
Commissioner Arnst recapped what she understood the outcome of this discussion to be. Some minor
changes were proposed by Commissioner Hutchins. There was agreement to change the nighttime static
display restriction start time to be consistent with the start time for the light dimming standards for the
Waterford Shopping Center and for CUB Foods. The remainder of the ordinance will remain as is. She
asked what else needs to be addressed.
Director Nielsen stated Holiday has requested a change to the provision that “Dynamic display signs may
occupy no more than 25% percent of the actual copy and graphic area.” to increase it to 45 percent of the
sign but not more than 32 square feet. He stated a picture submitted this evening by Mr. Cronin confirms
for him that it should remain 25 percent because the majority of the sign was covered with advertising.
The primary reason for the sign is for identification not advertising. He noted that percentage varies a lot
in the ordinances reviewed.
Commissioner Hasek stated the 25 percent or some specific size is appropriate.
Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code text amendment for
Dynamic Display Signs subject to the following changes to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. b(2)(e): in (4)
insert the word “be” between the words “must instantaneous”; in (10) and (11) add a title; and in
(11) change the start time for the static display restriction to be consistent with the light dimming
standards for the shopping centers in the City. Motion passed 6/0.
Commissioner Hasek also thanked Mr. Cronin for all of his hard work on this.
Mr. Cronin reiterated his recommendation for light sensors to be made a requirement in the ordinance so a
sign can’t go from 500 nits (candelas per square meter) to 5000 nits at the crack of dawn or so that it is
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 9 of 15
not as bright on a grey day. Commissioner Hasek suggested Council Liaison Woodruff convey that to
Council. Woodruff stated Council prefers to receive a complete recommendation from the Planning
Commission, although Staff could bring this forward as something Staff thinks is reasonable to consider.
Woodruff suggested Staff do that.
There was consensus for Staff to bring Mr. Cronin’s recommendation forward.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:37 P.M.
3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs)
Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission had been provided with a copy of third draft of
Ordinance Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals. This draft includes the changes discussed by the
Planning Commission during its October 18, 2011, meeting. It does not address dogs because they are
addressed in Chapter 701 of the City Code.
th
He highlighted the changes made during the October 18 meeting. They include the following.
A definition for Nuisance Animal and it somewhat ties into the Nuisance Chapter of the City
Code.
In the definition of wild animal the statement “Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be
vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows” was changed to “Animals that
can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies”.
“All animals - maintenance standards” was changed to “Maintenance standards”.
In 704.06 Subd. 2 the statement “Before commencing an action to enforce compliance with these
standards, enforcement personnel must give an owner notice of a violation and a reasonable
opportunity to comply.” was replaced with “An action to enforce the provisions of this chapter
shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 104 of this Code.”.
In 704.06 Subd., 2(d) was added and it states “All feed kept for animals shall be stored in animal-
proof, galvanized containers.”
In 704.06 Subd. 3 was changed to read “Veterinary clinics with indoor overnight care and indoor
kennels. In addition to the standards established under Subd. 1. above, veterinary clinics with
indoor care and indoor kennels, where allowed by zoning, must comply with Minnesota Rules
Chapter 9100, as may be amended.”
All items under 704.06 Subd. 3 were deleted.
Under 704.09 Subd. 2(a) “An urban farm animal must not be kept or maintained on the front yard
An urban farm animal may
of the property, as defined by the Zoning Code.” was changed to “
only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the property, as defined by the
Zoning Code.”
Item 704.09 Subd. 2(i) Permit issuance; fees was added along with three items
underneath it.
Nielsen noted permit fees have not been discussed yet. He stated he will come up with a fee schedule.
Commissioner Arnst stated she wanted to be certain that a person will place their beehives closer to their
house than their neighbor’s house. She expressed concern that the ordinance language may not ensure
that. Director Nielsen noted the language before the Commission states the location section must be
rewritten to address location, size standards and screening. Nielsen stated he did not think there should be
separate standards for chickens and beehives. Commissioner Davis stated there is a need for separate
standards. Arnst noted there is a resident who puts their beehives in close proximity to someone’s
swimming pool. Nielsen stated that is the special requirement that is yet to be defined.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 10 of 15
Chair Geng questioned if roosters should be added to the definition of rural farm animals. They are
included Section 704.09 Subd. 2(d) and that seems out of place. Director Nielsen stated the ordinance
should be very clear that roosters are not allowed. Geng asked if they should therefore be listed in the
definition of rural farm animals. Commissioner Hasek stated they are a form of a chicken. Geng stated
Commissioner Charbonnet had sent him an email questioning if under nuisance animal should be
amended to say “enjoyment of their property or public property”. Nielsen stated that would be
appropriate.
Geng stated 704.06 Subd. 1(c) references barn yet there is no definition for barn. He asked if barn needs
to be defined. Commissioner Arnst suggested changing barn to shelter. Geng questioned if Section 704.08
Forfeiture of Animal Rights should be changed to Forfeiture of Animal Ownership Rights. Nielsen stated
he thought that would be a good change. He stated Section 704.09 Subd. 2(i)(2) states “…or publicly
owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being
requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant’s property lines are 150 feet or more from any
structure”. He asked if the word “residential” should be inserted in between “any structure”.
Commissioner Hasek stated a swimming pool wouldn’t be classified as a residential structure. Geng
asked if it should be limited to exclude out buildings. Council Liaison Woodruff clarified this section is
about getting written approval from other property owners; it’s not about the location of anything. Geng
stated he is okay with how that is written.
Commissioner Arnst suggested combining item a and item b under the definition of wild animal. She also
suggested combining item e and item g.
Chair Geng suggested if 704.05 Impounding of Animals 1(a) and 1(b) should be reversed.
There was consensus to put people first.
In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained that the word city
is capitalized when it refers to government and it is not when it refers to the geographical area. Woodruff
stated Section 704.07 Subd. 3(i) states “If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited
immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing.” He suggested it be changed to saying if a
wild mammal bites a person because only mammals can get and transmit rabies. Woodruff then stated in
Section 704.09 Subd. 2(a) reference to confinement, he asked if bees should be excluded because they
can’t be confined. Chair Geng suggested it state the “urban farm animal shelter may only be kept”.
Woodruff agreed with that change. Commissioner Hasek expressed concern that the animal could be
fenced in and run in the front yard. Nielsen stated he will add something to specifically address bees.
Commissioner Davis stated Section 704.07 Subd. 3(i) states “If a wild animal bites a person, the animal
must be forfeited immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing.” She questioned why that is
there because wild animals are prohibited. Commissioner Arnst asked why wild animals were defined.
Director Nielsen explained because the City regulates them.
Director Nielsen stated he will update the ordinance to include the changes just discussed. He then stated
th
he wants to put the next draft on the December 6 meeting agenda because he will not be in the office
next week.
4. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE
Director Nielsen noted he has not sent out a draft amendment of the Therapeutic Massage Licensing
Ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed the topic of massage therapist licensing during its
October 18, 2011, meeting. Staff suggests the Commission do the same thing as it did with dog licensing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 11 of 15
That is, to forward a recommendation to Council and if it agrees Council can direct Staff to draft an actual
amendment.
Nielsen reviewed the licensing options the Commission discussed. Under the current Code the City
licenses the individual therapist; not the business. He stated it’s his recollection there was consensus
among the Commissioners that the business should be licensed instead. The owner of the business would
be responsible for the background checks and verifying the qualifications. He asked if the same fee
should be charged independent of the number of therapists. If so, an individual who provides massage
services out of their home would pay the same license fee as a business owner who has, for example, 13
massage therapy beds. He suggested there be a base license fee for a business plus so much per therapist.
That would let the City know how many therapists there are. There is also the option of licensing the
business and the individual therapist. The main fee would be on the business and there would be a
minimal fee for each therapist.
Commissioner Arnst asked if a dentist has to be licensed by the City to operate in the City. Director
Nielsen responded no, noting a dentist is licensed by the State. Nielsen also noted individual massage
therapists are not licensed by the State.
Commissioner Garelick asked if a barber is licensed by the State. Nielsen responded yes, noting he
thought individual barbers have to have their own state license.
Chair Geng stated he did not think any massage therapist is licensed by the State.
Director Nielsen explained this came about because a business owner who has quite a few therapists
providing services at his location expressed concern to the City about what it costs the therapists to get a
license. The fee charged for licensing could possibly be too high. From his vantage point, a business
license plus a small individual therapist license fee makes some sense.
Chair Geng stated he doesn’t understand why it makes sense. The purpose of licensing the business is to
put the onus on the business owner to make sure the people working for them are properly qualified. The
City would no longer be responsible for that. He asked what the rationale would be for charging each
therapist a fee when the business would already have paid a fee. The City wouldn’t be responsible for
verifying the therapist’s qualifications. Director Nielsen stated that implies the City would never verify
that the business is being responsible for having qualified therapists.
Commissioner Arnst stated she thought that would be over kill. Licensing the business only is more than
sufficient. She then stated the City Building Official would know how many massage rooms there are in
the office when he conducts an inspection. She noted she does not personally support over regulating this
because someone at sometime did something inappropriate.
th
Administrator Heck reiterated comments he made during the October 18 meeting. He suggested looking
at massage therapist licensing from the same perspective of alcohol and tobacco licensing. For liquor
sales and tobacco sales the license is for the business and if one of the business’ employees violates the
ordinance by selling to a minor the proprietor is cited for the violation and the individual who made the
sale is also cited. The only reason for licensing the individual therapist is if the therapist is doing
something the proprietor doesn’t know about then the City could go after the therapist. But, the City
would likely go after the proprietor because they should have known what the therapists are doing. He
expressed his support for putting the onus on the business owner. He stated he is not sure inspecting a
business that employs, in some way, multiple therapists is any different than a tobacco or liquor sale
business that employs multiple people. He explained that a therapy business with for example 10 beds
may have more than 10 therapists working for the business. Keeping track of them all would be onerous
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 12 of 15
for the City. He expressed he favors licensing the business/proprietor and making them responsible for
everything.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen stated by licensing the individual
therapist in addition to the business there is a little more enforcement control. Nielsen questioned if it
would be prudent to shut an entire business down when one therapist does something wrong. Nielsen
stated if the therapist does something wrong they don’t get more than one chance. A suspension of a
license would be quite painful.
Commissioner Hasek stated he supports licensing the business/proprietor and making them responsible.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated there are a civil sanction and a criminal sanction. If there were to be an
issue there in all likelihood there would both be a civil violation and a criminal violation. The City has
ways to sanction for criminal activity under State Statute. The City doesn’t have a way to control if a
business exists or not if the City doesn’t license the business. He commented if a business gets a tobacco
license it is obligated to adhere to state law and on a civil level it’s obligated to operate per the City Code.
A tobacco business can have any number of people selling tobacco provided they meet the state
requirements. If tobacco is sold to minors it will result in a criminal violation, and the City prosecutor can
decide to prosecute both the individual who made the sale and the business/proprietor. He supports
licensing the business and if the City wants to make sure the therapists have the appropriate credentials
then the City should require the business owner/proprietor to make sure they have the proper credentials.
Chair Geng asked what the proper credentials would be. Director Nielsen explained the City Code already
addresses that and the business owner/proprietor would have to prove the individual therapist has the
required credentials.
Geng stated he is troubled by having a solo practitioner pay the same business fee as a business with
multiple therapists.
Commissioner Arnst asked what the business license fee would be. Director Nielsen stated that has not
been decided but he thought it could be what the therapist license fee today is.
Administrator Heck explained today there are a $50 license fee to practice and a $100 one-time
investigative fee. If the business were to be licensed similar to tobacco and alcohol licensing then the City
would have a background check conducted on the business owner/proprietor. Heck noted that in most
instances when a massage therapy business has gone awry it’s because the owner/proprietor was acting
inappropriately.
Director Nielsen stated it’s his understanding that the Planning Commission wants to license the business
owner/proprietor only. Commissioner Arnst recommended giving consideration to charging a smaller
license fee for a sole practitioner. Chair Geng agreed with that. Nielsen asked what the rationale for doing
that is. Geng asked why the City would charge the same fee for a one-person massage therapy business as
it does for a business that has a number of therapists.
Commissioner Arnst stated the $50 license fee doesn’t bother her but the $100 investigative fee does.
Administrator Heck asked if the Planning Commission wants to have the opportunity to review the text
amendment to the Therapeutic Massage Licensing Ordinance before it is presented to Council for
consideration. The Commission indicated it wants that opportunity.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 13 of 15
5. SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Director Nielsen noted during its November 15, 2011, meeting the Planning Commission is scheduled to
hold a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment that would incorporate the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) into the Appendix Chapter of the Plan. He stated
th
as of the Commission’s October 18 meeting the City had only received one comment sheet from a
resident who attended the open house on the Study. Since that date the City has received a few more. The
meeting packet contains copies of the returned comment sheets for the Commissions review. He asked if
the Planning Commission wants to hold the hearing on the amendment as the Study stands today or does
it want to discuss whether or not the Study should be revised to incorporate any of the comments
received.
Chair Geng suggested hold the hearing based on the current version of the Study. He recommended
reinforcing the fact that there is no redevelopment plan for that area. He stated the people that attended
the open house didn’t seem to understand that there is no redevelopment plan or proposal, and that the
City is not driving anything.
Commissioner Hasek stated the Study primarily conveys the City prefers the area be redeveloped with a
common vision; not piecemeal. He indicated it’s time to bring the Study project to conclusion.
Commissioner Hutchins stated one of the individuals that sent in comments suggested creating some form
of special buffering between the redevelopment area and the residential area to the west, and possibly a
noise barrier as well. The intent would be to make sure the redevelopment doesn’t negatively impact the
residential property values. He expressed he thought it is a fair thing to consider. When the area is
redevelopment there needs to be consideration given to how it impacts the surrounding area. Chair Geng
stated that’s consistent with what the Planning Commissioners heard at the open house. Commissioner
Hasek stated it’s also consistent with what the Commission has talked about over the last two years.
Commissioner Hasek stated all too frequently people try to put dimensions and specific design on concept
plans. That’s not what concept plans are intended to be. He commented that twin homes could be a way to
transition from commercial to residential.
Director Nielsen stated the Study has tried to emphasize the transition space, noting there is a difference
between transition and buffer. If it would be the right land use the buffer part can be kept to a minimum.
Depending on the redevelopment there may be a desire for a deeper, more extensive buffer.
Administrator Heck asked if the Study report could be summarized into a statement of guiding principles
or something of that nature. It would be a list of ten or so bullet points that the Council and the Planning
Commission would prefer to come about when the area is redeveloped. For example, landscaping,
building materials and things of that nature.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought that is what the Commission has done.
Chair Geng stated people appear to be thinking the City is pushing some type of concrete development.
Commissioner Arnst stated after living in the City for over 30 years that’s the way some residents tend to
think. Arnst encouraged Geng not to be overly concerned about that.
Director Nielsen stated the vision could be reformatted into bullets and renamed to guiding principles.
Commissioner Arnst expressed her support for doing that. Chair Geng stated then it wouldn’t look like a
plan that the City is trying to sell. Geng then stated he has heard residents ask why they are just hearing
about the Study now.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 14 of 15
Director Nielsen stated people have a tendency to focus on what they don’t want to see as part of a
redevelopment effort such as density and height.
Commissioner Arnst stated the information Administrator Heck sent to the Planning Commission
regarding a development opportunity in the City of Plymouth where there was an attempt to educate
residents about what may occur was great.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought a great deal of residents’ discussions during the open house was
very positive. He then stated four of the roughly forty people that came to the open house submitted
written comments and some of the comments are not as supportive. The four did agree they don’t want
the area to be developed piecemeal.
Director Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission wants him to take the information from the vision
statement and create bulleted list of guiding principles and present that at the public hearing.
Chair Geng asked if it would be sufficient to just provide an explanation of why the Planning
Commission did the Study. Director Nielsen stated he thought the introduction in the Study report does
that.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. OLD BUSINESS
None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Chair Geng stated he received a request from the person who is resuming the job of transcribing the
Planning Commission meeting minutes to note who makes motions. He noted that at least for the
foreseeable future she will transcribe the minutes from a recording. He recommended the Commissioners
try to limit side conversations when another person is talking. He asked them to speak into their
microphones when making a point and then turn it off if they want to make a side comment.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there are two public hearings slated for the November 15, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting. One is the continuation of the front yard setback variance for Don and Kiki Gloude.
The other is to consider a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment that would incorporate the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) into the Appendix Chapter of the Plan. Best practices for the
sustainability program will be reviewed. The text amendment to the Therapeutic Message Licensing
Ordinance will be reviewed. There will be a discussion about the capacity on water towers for cellular
antennas.
the right-of-
Commissioner Hasek asked Director Nielsen to send the Commissioners what the width of
way for Fatima Place is.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 15 of 15
10. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 24, 2011,
Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted a Planning
Commissioner was not present at the meeting.
• SLUC
No report was given.
• Other
Chair Geng noted he read in a recent local newspaper article that Shorewood was one of two cities that
have already met the 2015 recycling goals. The City of Minnetonka Beach was the other city. He thanked
Staff and the Council for driving that effort. Administrator Heck stated he thought the City’s move to
single-sort recycling helped with increasing the amount of recyclable material collected.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Arnst moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 1, 2011,
at 9:46 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Zoning Code Amendment - Variances
Title / Subject:
Meeting Date: 14 November 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 14 September 2011
Policy Consideration:
Background: Due to changes this year in the state statutes governing the granting of variances, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on 20 September, and continued to 4 October 2011 to
consider revisions to Shorewood’s Zoning Code that will make it consistent with the statutes. The
attached staff report, dated 14 September, illustrates the changes initially recommended by staff (in red
type) and the subsequent revisions by the Planning Commission (in blue type). It should be noted that a
suggestion was made that the term “practical difficulties” be capitalized when used in the Code. Since
this technique has not been used elsewhere in the Code, it was changed back to lower case.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Options: Adopt the proposed amendment, revise the proposed amendment or leave the Code as
currently written.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends adoption of the Code amendment as drafted.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public service.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
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
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission,Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
14 September 2011
RE:
Zoning Code Text Amendment – Variances (Rev)
FILE NO.
Zoning Code (Chapter 1201.05)
At the last Planning Commission meeting, staff provided background on recent changes to
state statutes relative to the granting of variances. Following are revisions staff had
determined necessary to bring Shorewood’s Zoning Code in line with the statutes:
(Additions are shown in red type, deletions are shown with strikeouts)
Section 1201.02
(Definitions)
HARDSHIP
Delete – definition of “” in its entirety.
Add – following definition:
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
“. A situation in In connection with the request for a
variance from compliance with the requirements of this Code, where a property owner
proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Code in
which the plight of the property owner giving rise to the variance request is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner or a previous
property owner and the variance, if granted, is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the Zoning Code, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Practical difficulties include but are not limited to
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute practical difficulties.”
Memorandum
Re: Zoning Text Amendment – Variances
14 September 2011
Replace – definition of:
VARIANCE
. The waiving by official action of the literal provisions of the zoning
ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because
of physical circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.
with:
VARIANCE.
“ A relaxation of the requirements of this Code where a property owner
proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Code,
such deviation will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Code,
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and will not alter the essential character of the
locality and where, owing to physical conditions unique to the individual property under
consideration and not the result of the actions of the property owner or previous property
owner, compliance with the Code would result in Practical Difficulties as defined herein.”
Section 1201.05
(Administration, Variances and Appeals)
Subd. 1.b. is amended to read:
“b. Variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship Practical Difficulties because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and to grant
the variances only when it is demonstrated that the actions will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of this chapter.”
Subd. 2.b.(3) is hereby amended to read:
“(3) The special conditions and circumstances do are not the result from the of actions
of the applicant by the property owner or previous property owner.”
Subd. 3.f.(2) is hereby amended to read:
“(2) The Council may impose any condition it considers necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare, provided such conditions are directly related to and bear
a rough proportionality to the impact of the variance.”
A public hearing has been scheduled for 20 September to consider the proposed amendments.
Cc: Brian Heck
Tim Keane
-2-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS
TO THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES
Section 1
. City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended as follows:
HARDSHIP
The definition of “” is deleted in its entirety.
The following definition is added:
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
“. In connection with the request for a variance from
compliance with the requirements of this Code, where a property owner proposes to use the
subject property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Code in which the plight of the
property owner giving rise to the variance request is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the property owner or a previous property owner and the variance, if
granted, is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code, is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Practical difficulties include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.”
VARIANCE
The definition of “” is amended to read:
VARIANCE.
“ A relaxation of the requirements of this Code where a property owner
proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Code, such
deviation will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Code, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, and will not alter the essential character of the locality and
where, owing to physical conditions unique to the individual property under consideration
and not the result of the actions of the property owner or previous property owner,
compliance with the Code would result in practical difficulties as defined herein.”
Section 2
.City CodeSection 1201.05 Subd. 1.b. is amended to read:
“b. Variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration and to grant the variances only when
it is demonstrated that the actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
this chapter.”
Section 3
. City Code Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b.(3) is hereby amended to read:
“(3) The special conditions and circumstances are not the result of actions by the
property owner or previous property owner.”
Section 4
. City Code Subd. 3.f.(2) is hereby amended to read:
“(2) The Council may impose any condition it considers necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, provided such conditions are directly related to
and bear a rough proportionality to the impact of the variance.”
Section 5
. 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 14th day of
November 2011.
CHRISTINE LIZÉE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
-2-
#10A
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject:
Certification of Delinquent Utility Bills
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Brian Heck
Attachment: Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City certify delinquent unpaid water and sewer charges to the
County to be collected with the other taxes on the property?
Background: It is our standard practice to certify unpaid, delinquent utility bills to the County to be
levied against the respective properties for collection in one year. State statute and city code allow
delinquent municipal utilities to be certified to the County Auditor. Before the certification, delinquent
accounts and property owners have been notified by mail of the amount due and the fact that the
delinquency will be certified if not paid. The certification will include 8% interest on the unpaid
balance. The delinquent notices are in addition to reminder notices of unpaid balances mailed
throughout the year. This procedure is consistent with prior year actions.
The first attachment is a summary of all charges due by PID. Attachment A is water, B is sanitary sewer,
C is storm sewer, D is recycling, and E is dry hydrants. In accordance with the ordinance, property
owners have an opportunity to address the council to provide information or extenuating circumstances
and request the council remove the property from the certification list.
The total amount of delinquent accounts has increased greatly this year. The total amount outstanding
at this point is $43,616.78. In comparison to prior years, we certified $49,585 in 2010, $42,533 in 2009,
$33,680 in 2008, and $31,668 in 2007. Staff is not sure exactly what to attribute the difference to in the
past several years other than a worsening economy and the fact that our collection methods are gentler
than other creditors.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Other collection methods are more expensive and time consuming. There is no guarantee that staff
phone calls or the use of collection agencies will generate the same amount of revenue as certification.
Options: The City Council may choose to:
1.Accept the staff recommendation and adopt the attached resolution.
2.Remove specific accounts from the certification roll and accept the remainder of the accounts
and adopt the amended resolution.
3.Do not adopt the resolution and direct staff to attempt collection through other methods.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Staff will proceed with the certification process to meet Hennepin County and statutory deadlines.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This process contributes to sound financial management through efficient collection of utility bills.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING DELINQUENT SEWER CHARGES, STORM WATER
UTILITY CHARGES, WATER CHARGES, RECYCLING CHARGES, AND DRY
HYDRANT CHARGES, BE PLACED ON THE 2012 PROPERTY TAX ROLLS
WHEREAS
, Shorewood City Code provides for the City to place delinquent sanitary
sewer charges, water, storm water management utility charges, recycling charges, and dry
hydrant charges, on the succeeding year property tax rolls for the specified properties; and,
WHEREAS
, the City Council has scheduled the consideration of the certification of such
charges and has caused notice of such charges to be mailed to the affected property owners; and,
WHEREAS
, the Council has considered such charges at a regular council meeting and
has made a determination that delinquent sanitary sewer charges, water, storm water
management utility charges, recycling charges, and dry hydrant charges, exist for the specified
properties set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E attached hereto and made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That the Hennepin County Special Assessment Division is hereby authorized to certify the
delinquent sanitary sewer, municipal water, storm water management, recycling, and dry hydrant
charges, on the 2011 property tax rolls, payable in 2011, at eight percent (8 %) interest per
annum, against the specified properties as set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 14 day of
November, 2011.
_________________________________
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
_________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
Delinquent Utility Bills Certified to 2012 Taxes
PIDSW BALWA BALRC BALST BALDH BALAMOUNT
1811918120181211812218123
34-117-23-23-0056 65.07 3.18 31.19 34.92 - 134.36
33-117-23-14-0041 389.59 275.51 - 200.57 - 865.67
34-117-23-24-0026 120.15 4.77 51.35 28.77 - 205.04
34-117-23-24-0033 365.38 202.85 88.68 49.65 - 706.56
32-117-23-44-0015 357.36 659.69 68.93 77.19 - 1,163.17
33-117-23-22-0014 813.33 457.66 150.77 88.49 - 1,510.25
33-117-23-22-0014 -
32-117-23-24-0024 378.88 1,136.79 73.07 106.51 - 1,695.25
32-117-23-43-0058 102.49 27.95 51.82 22.14 - 204.40
32-117-23-43-0037 396.64 3.87 75.50 87.99 - 564.00
31-117-23-43-0015 - - - 345.03 - 345.03
31-117-23-43-0021 - - - 345.03 - 345.03
36-117-23-41-0003 193.87 161.85 74.01 84.52 - 514.25
25-117-23-33-0080 261.15 223.54 50.36 28.22 - 563.27
25-117-23-33-0080
25-117-23-44-0056 412.75 660.63 75.66 89.15 - 1,238.19
25-117-23-44-0045 - - 94.80 62.68 - 157.48
25-117-23-44-0026 411.25 206.34 75.49 88.84 - 781.92
25-117-23-33-0044 27.73 6.36 76.16 90.71 - 200.96
25-117-23-44-0063 404.92 458.03 75.02 87.46 - 1,025.43
34-117-23-42-0067 1,502.89 940.61 - 468.91 - 2,912.41
36-117-23-11-0024 - - - 185.68 - 185.68
33-117-23-12-0017 410.45 - 75.49 88.84 - 574.78
29-117-23-44-0037 357.36 - 68.93 77.19 - 503.48
29-117-23-44-0030 407.79 - 75.58 115.62 - 598.99
34-117-23-44-0023 117.61 - 76.41 88.30 - 282.32
33-117-23-42-0001 413.28 - 75.66 88.17 - 577.11
30-117-23-32-0019 161.70 - 44.39 59.39 - 265.48
30-117-23-33-0003 408.10 - 75.67 88.21 - 571.98
30-117-23-31-0008 357.36 - 68.93 77.19 7.43 510.91
30-117-23-33-0026 412.04 - 75.67 89.16 - 576.87
33-117-23-32-0031 412.24 - 75.67 116.05 - 603.96
25-117-23-34-0025 412.24 - 75.67 116.05 - 603.96
25-117-23-33-0038 470.10 - 90.67 101.54 - 662.31
25-117-23-33-0036 403.81 - 75.02 61.27 - 540.10
26-117-23-11-0012 269.14 - 67.58 58.14 - 394.86
26-117-23-14-0053 - - - 308.20 - 308.20
26-117-23-14-0102 254.87 - 49.16 55.05 - 359.08
34-117-23-42-0019 470.10 - 90.67 101.54 - 662.31
34-117-23-31-0028 680.54 - 106.66 149.69 - 936.89
34-117-23-31-0028
34-117-23-31-0028
32-117-23-12-0008 412.37 - 75.59 115.94 - 603.90
32-117-23-12-0027 - - - 110.40 - 110.40
32-117-23-13-0021 - - 45.78 13.30 - 59.08
32-117-23-13-0008 413.08 - 76.16 90.71 - 579.95
31-117-23-14-0002 415.44 - 75.81 89.74 - 580.99
26-117-23-14-0025 - - 68.93 32.46 - 101.39
34-117-23-33-0037 357.36 - 68.93 77.19 - 503.48
34-117-23-33-0039 412.08 - 75.61 89.10 - 576.79
31-117-23-44-0005 6.93 - 51.49 57.28 - 115.70
35-117-23-34-0034 391.28 - 75.12 86.65 - 553.05
33-117-23-21-0038 206.76 - 62.21 35.35 - 304.32
33-117-23-21-0038
35-117-23-31-0051 460.90 - 90.67 101.54 - 653.11
35-117-23-43-0006 411.25 - 75.49 88.84 - 575.58
26-117-23-11-0050 412.27 - 75.67 89.16 - 577.10
34-117-23-23-0035 190.28 - 75.02 87.46 - 352.76
33-117-23-22-0007 161.70 - 31.19 34.92 - 227.81
34-117-23-34-0024 391.28 - 74.01 84.52 - 549.81
33-117-23-44-0042 404.92 - 75.02 87.46 - 567.40
36-117-23-31-0007 470.10 - 90.67 132.17 - 692.94
26-117-23-14-0011 412.27 - 75.67 89.16 - 577.10
25-117-23-44-0049 412.24 - 75.68 89.22 - 577.14
30-117-23-24-0004 404.92 - 75.02 87.46 7.84 575.24
30-117-23-42-0003 414.67 - 75.81 89.74 - 580.22
36-117-23-21-0009 407.79 - 75.36 88.17 - 571.32
33-117-23-14-0036 161.70 - 42.21 17.47 - 221.38
34-117-23-23-0049 410.11 - 75.67 89.16 - 574.94
33-117-23-24-0006 412.24 - 75.67 116.05 - 603.96
33-117-23-23-0039 357.36 - 68.93 77.19 - 503.48
32-117-23-14-0031 161.70 - 47.33 34.92 - 243.95
32-117-23-14-0024 411.84 - 75.66 89.27 - 576.77
32-117-23-14-0038 137.97 - 31.19 45.47 - 214.63
33-117-23-43-0005 192.08 - 37.04 41.50 - 270.62
34-117-23-23-0043 17.72 - 58.47 32.75 - 108.94
32-117-23-11-0025 411.25 - 75.49 115.62 - 602.36
33-117-23-21-0041 652.64 - 97.25 70.52 - 820.41
33-117-23-21-0041
33-117-23-21-0041
33-117-23-22-0020 412.27 - 75.67 89.16 - 577.10
32-117-23-14-0017 410.18 - 75.59 89.07 - 574.84
32-117-23-11-0002 357.36 - 68.93 77.19 - 503.48
32-117-23-13-0019 161.70 - 31.19 45.47 - 238.36
33-117-23-44-0032 412.24 - 75.67 116.05 - 603.96
33-117-23-43-0003 254.87 - 49.16 55.05 - 359.08
25,527.30 5,429.63 5,082.67 7,561.91 15.27 43,616.78
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18120
EXHIBIT AWATER
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
25-117-23-33-004404-780002-00 6.36
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-02 223.54
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 -
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 206.34
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 660.63
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 458.03
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 1,136.79
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 3.87
32-117-23-43-005803-600207-00 27.95
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 659.69
33-117-23-14-004102-775206-01 275.51
33-117-23-22-001403-260008-02 457.66
33-117-23-22-001403-260009-02
34-117-23-23-005602-775203-01 3.18
34-117-23-24-002602-945011-00 4.77
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 202.85
34-117-23-42-006705-795201-00 940.61
36-117-23-41-000304-190103-00 161.85
TOTALLEVY NO 18120$ 5,429.63
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18119
EXHIBIT BSEWER
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
25-117-23-33-003610-270224-01 403.81
25-117-23-33-003810-270222-00 470.10
25-117-23-33-004404-780002-00 27.73
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-02 261.15
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 -
25-117-23-34-002510-270213-00 412.24
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 411.25
25-117-23-44-004910-705001-00 412.24
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 412.75
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 404.92
26-117-23-11-001210-280004-00 269.14
26-117-23-11-005010-550204-00 412.27
26-117-23-14-001110-685010-00 412.27
26-117-23-14-010210-290206-00 254.87
29-117-23-44-003010-045224-00 407.79
29-117-23-44-003710-045210-01 357.36
30-117-23-24-000410-715004-00 404.92
30-117-23-31-000810-250008-00 357.36
30-117-23-32-001910-245019-00 161.70
30-117-23-33-000310-250006-00 408.10
30-117-23-33-002610-255002-00 412.04
30-117-23-42-000310-725013-00 414.67
31-117-23-14-000210-365032-00 415.44
31-117-23-44-000510-430005-00 6.93
32-117-23-11-000210-930217-00 357.36
32-117-23-11-002510-880001-00 411.25
32-117-23-12-000810-330002-00 412.37
32-117-23-13-000810-330025-00 413.08
32-117-23-13-001910-930233-00 161.70
32-117-23-14-001710-930205-00 410.18
32-117-23-14-002410-775284-00 411.84
32-117-23-14-003110-775273-00 161.70
32-117-23-14-003810-775285-00 137.97
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 378.88
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 396.64
32-117-23-43-005803-600207-00 102.49
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 357.36
33-117-23-12-001710-015205-00 410.45
33-117-23-14-003610-745017-01 161.70
33-117-23-14-004102-775206-01 389.59
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-00 206.76
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-01 -
33-117-23-21-004110-905001-00 652.64
33-117-23-21-004110-905001-98 -
33-117-23-21-004110-905002-98 -
33-117-23-22-000710-585206-00 161.70
33-117-23-22-001403-260008-02 813.33
33-117-23-22-001403-260009-02
33-117-23-22-002010-905010-00 412.27
33-117-23-23-003910-775260-00 357.36
33-117-23-24-000610-775244-00 412.24
33-117-23-32-003110-260032-00 412.24
33-117-23-42-000110-170004-00 413.28
33-117-23-43-000310-940210-00 254.87
33-117-23-43-000510-863002-01 192.08
33-117-23-44-003210-940202-00 412.24
33-117-23-44-004210-660004-00 404.92
34-117-23-23-003510-555006-00 190.28
34-117-23-23-004310-872012-00 17.72
34-117-23-23-004910-775205-00 410.11
34-117-23-23-005602-775203-01 65.07
34-117-23-24-002602-945011-00 120.15
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 365.38
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-00 680.54
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-01 -
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-03 -
34-117-23-33-003710-425003-00 357.36
34-117-23-33-003910-425007-00 412.08
34-117-23-34-002410-607002-01 391.28
34-117-23-42-001910-300006-00 470.10
34-117-23-42-006705-795201-00 1,502.89
34-117-23-44-002310-100001-00 117.61
35-117-23-31-005110-545006-00 460.90
35-117-23-34-003410-450204-00 391.28
35-117-23-43-000610-545023-00 411.25
36-117-23-21-000910-740005-00 407.79
36-117-23-31-000710-675011-00 470.10
36-117-23-41-000304-190103-00 193.87
TOTALLEVY NO 18119$ 25,527.30
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18122
EXHIBIT CSTORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
25-117-23-33-003610-270224-01 61.27
25-117-23-33-003810-270222-00 101.54
25-117-23-33-004404-780002-00 90.71
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-02 28.22
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 -
25-117-23-34-002510-270213-00 116.05
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 88.84
25-117-23-44-004504-705014-00 62.68
25-117-23-44-004910-705001-00 89.22
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 89.15
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 87.46
26-117-23-11-001210-280004-00 58.14
26-117-23-11-005010-550204-00 89.16
26-117-23-14-001110-685010-00 89.16
26-117-23-14-002510-385206-00 32.46
26-117-23-14-005310-285013-00 308.20
26-117-23-14-010210-290206-00 55.05
29-117-23-44-003010-045224-00 115.62
29-117-23-44-003710-045210-01 77.19
30-117-23-24-000410-715004-00 87.46
30-117-23-31-000810-250008-00 77.19
30-117-23-32-001910-245019-00 59.39
30-117-23-33-000310-250006-00 88.21
30-117-23-33-002610-255002-00 89.16
30-117-23-42-000310-725013-00 89.74
31-117-23-14-000210-365032-00 89.74
31-117-23-43-001503-893203-00 345.03
31-117-23-43-002103-893210-00 345.03
31-117-23-44-000510-430005-00 57.28
32-117-23-11-000210-930217-00 77.19
32-117-23-11-002510-880001-00 115.62
32-117-23-12-000810-330002-00 115.94
32-117-23-12-002710-330009-00 110.40
32-117-23-13-000810-330025-00 90.71
32-117-23-13-001910-930233-00 45.47
32-117-23-13-002110-330014-01 13.30
32-117-23-14-001710-930205-00 89.07
32-117-23-14-002410-775284-00 89.27
32-117-23-14-003110-775273-00 34.92
32-117-23-14-003810-775285-00 45.47
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 106.51
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 87.99
32-117-23-43-005803-600207-00 22.14
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 77.19
33-117-23-12-001710-015205-00 88.84
33-117-23-14-003610-745017-01 17.47
33-117-23-14-004102-775206-01 200.57
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-00 35.35
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-01 -
33-117-23-21-004110-905001-00 70.52
33-117-23-21-004110-905001-98 -
33-117-23-21-004110-905002-98 -
33-117-23-22-000710-585206-00 34.92
33-117-23-22-001403-260008-02 88.49
33-117-23-22-001403-260009-02
33-117-23-22-002010-905010-00 89.16
33-117-23-23-003910-775260-00 77.19
33-117-23-24-000610-775244-00 116.05
33-117-23-32-003110-260032-00 116.05
33-117-23-42-000110-170004-00 88.17
33-117-23-43-000310-940210-00 55.05
33-117-23-43-000510-863002-01 41.50
33-117-23-44-003210-940202-00 116.05
33-117-23-44-004210-660004-00 87.46
34-117-23-23-003510-555006-00 87.46
34-117-23-23-004310-872012-00 32.75
34-117-23-23-004910-775205-00 89.16
34-117-23-23-005602-775203-01 34.92
34-117-23-24-002602-945011-00 28.77
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 49.65
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-00 149.69
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-01 -
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-03 -
34-117-23-33-003710-425003-00 77.19
34-117-23-33-003910-425007-00 89.10
34-117-23-34-002410-607002-01 84.52
34-117-23-42-001910-300006-00 101.54
34-117-23-42-006705-795201-00 468.91
34-117-23-44-002310-100001-00 88.30
35-117-23-31-005110-545006-00 101.54
35-117-23-34-003410-450204-00 86.65
35-117-23-43-000610-545023-00 88.84
36-117-23-11-002409-254301-00 185.68
36-117-23-21-000910-740005-00 88.17
36-117-23-31-000710-675011-00 132.17
36-117-23-41-000304-190103-00 84.52
TOTALLEVY NO 18122$ 7,561.91
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18121
EXHIBIT DRECYCLING
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
25-117-23-33-003610-270224-01 75.02
25-117-23-33-003810-270222-00 90.67
25-117-23-33-004404-780002-00 76.16
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-02 50.36
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 -
25-117-23-34-002510-270213-00 75.67
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 75.49
25-117-23-44-004504-705014-00 94.80
25-117-23-44-004910-705001-00 75.68
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 75.66
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 75.02
26-117-23-11-001210-280004-00 67.58
26-117-23-11-005010-550204-00 75.67
26-117-23-14-001110-685010-00 75.67
26-117-23-14-002510-385206-00 68.93
26-117-23-14-010210-290206-00 49.16
29-117-23-44-003010-045224-00 75.58
29-117-23-44-003710-045210-01 68.93
30-117-23-24-000410-715004-00 75.02
30-117-23-31-000810-250008-00 68.93
30-117-23-32-001910-245019-00 44.39
30-117-23-33-000310-250006-00 75.67
30-117-23-33-002610-255002-00 75.67
30-117-23-42-000310-725013-00 75.81
31-117-23-14-000210-365032-00 75.81
31-117-23-44-000510-430005-00 51.49
32-117-23-11-000210-930217-00 68.93
32-117-23-11-002510-880001-00 75.49
32-117-23-12-000810-330002-00 75.59
32-117-23-13-000810-330025-00 76.16
32-117-23-13-001910-930233-00 31.19
32-117-23-13-002110-330014-01 45.78
32-117-23-14-001710-930205-00 75.59
32-117-23-14-002410-775284-00 75.66
32-117-23-14-003110-775273-00 47.33
32-117-23-14-003810-775285-00 31.19
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 73.07
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 75.50
32-117-23-43-005803-600207-00 51.82
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 68.93
33-117-23-12-001710-015205-00 75.49
33-117-23-14-003610-745017-01 42.21
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-00 62.21
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-01 -
33-117-23-21-004110-905001-00 97.25
33-117-23-21-004110-905001-98 -
33-117-23-21-004110-905002-98 -
33-117-23-22-000710-585206-00 31.19
33-117-23-22-001403-260008-02 150.77
33-117-23-22-001403-260009-02
33-117-23-22-002010-905010-00 75.67
33-117-23-23-003910-775260-00 68.93
33-117-23-24-000610-775244-00 75.67
33-117-23-32-003110-260032-00 75.67
33-117-23-42-000110-170004-00 75.66
33-117-23-43-000310-940210-00 49.16
33-117-23-43-000510-863002-01 37.04
33-117-23-44-003210-940202-00 75.67
33-117-23-44-004210-660004-00 75.02
34-117-23-23-003510-555006-00 75.02
34-117-23-23-004310-872012-00 58.47
34-117-23-23-004910-775205-00 75.67
34-117-23-23-005602-775203-01 31.19
34-117-23-24-002602-945011-00 51.35
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 88.68
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-00 106.66
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-01 -
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-03 -
34-117-23-33-003710-425003-00 68.93
34-117-23-33-003910-425007-00 75.61
34-117-23-34-002410-607002-01 74.01
34-117-23-42-001910-300006-00 90.67
34-117-23-44-002310-100001-00 76.41
35-117-23-31-005110-545006-00 90.67
35-117-23-34-003410-450204-00 75.12
35-117-23-43-000610-545023-00 75.49
36-117-23-21-000910-740005-00 75.36
36-117-23-31-000710-675011-00 90.67
36-117-23-41-000304-190103-00 74.01
TOTALLEVY NO 18121$ 5,082.67
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18123
EXHIBIT EDRY HYDRANTS
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
30-117-23-24-000410-715004-00 7.84
30-117-23-31-000810-250008-00 7.43
TOTALLEVY NO 18123$ 15.27
More unpaid utility bills reflect stress
Article by: MARY JANE SMETANKA , Star Tribune
Updated: October 23, 2011 - 7:53 AM
Many western suburbs see more residents falling behind.
Each fall, cities in the west metro collect lists of all the properties that haven't paid their water and
sewer bills. This fall, that routine procedure has become a mirror for the increasing desperation of
residents who are stuck in an economic tailspin.
The amount owed by property owners for delinquent utilities rose in St. Louis Park, Richfield,
Hopkins and Golden Valley. Property owners receive a warning and have a grace period to pay up.
If they don't, the debt will be added to their property taxes, along with a penalty. The exception was
Edina, which saw fewer delinquencies.
In St. Louis Park, 1,631 letters were sent out to people who owed a total of nearly $835,000.
"I think it's a difficult time for residents in St. Louis Park and the state and in the whole country," said
Steven Heintz, the city's finance supervisor.
"We get calls from people who lost their jobs. I just spoke to a resident who had been in a car
accident many years ago and the medical bills are piling up."
Why the amounts are going up -- or down -- is unique to each city. John Wallin, finance director for
the city of Edina, said he isn't sure why the city sent out fewer notices this year. In 2010, 704
properties were cited for owing nearly $504,000 in utility fees; this year that fell to 676 properties
owing $315,000.
"Maybe some of the stresses have been working themselves out over the last couple of years,"
Wallin said.
Foreclosures may play role
Though the number of warning letters sent by St. Louis Park has dropped since 2008, the amount
owed has gone up by nearly $160,000. That could be linked to increased utility rates, Heintz said.
But it may also be linked to foreclosures.
"Most people who are foreclosing on a home would not be too concerned about a utility bill if they
can't pay their mortgage," Heintz said. Richfield's finance manager Chris Regis agreed.
"For two or three years, Richfield has had a high number of foreclosures.," he said. "And the
economy plays a part, with lost jobs, pay cuts and pay freezes."
Richfield sent letters to 981 properties that owe nearly $420,000 in water and sewer costs. In 2009,
the city sent 959 letters to try to recoup nearly $322,000.
"Everybody is hoping the economy gets better," Regis said. "It's no fun to do this to people."
In Hopkins, possible delinquent utility assessments increased from about $73,000 in 2007 to nearly
$112,000 this year. City Finance Director Christine Harkess said the amounts owed by individual
property owners are significant, with many more than $1,000 and one over $8,000.
While Harkess doesn't take most of the pleading calls that come into the office, she said the reasons
for nonpayment are basic. "People are having a hard time just meeting their daily expenses."
Hopkins tries to work with people who want to pay off their debt in nontraditional ways. Some
residents have asked if they can pay a little bit each week or with each paycheck.
"We say, 'Absolutely,'" Harkess said. "We try to be compassionate about this."
Some wait to pay in bulk
The unpaid utility charges seen by city councils this fall will shrink by November, as some people
hurry to pay and beat city deadlines before the charges and penalties are added to property taxes.
Harkess and Wallin said a few property owners actually choose to let their utilities go delinquent,
preferring to pay utility fees all at once at the end of the year or as part of their property taxes.
Very few cities cut off water service to occupied properties even if residents haven't paid their bills.
Doing so could create a health hazard and damage a property. Besides, cities know that they will
eventually be paid because the cost can be tacked on to the property tax.
"It's difficult, because you certainly empathize with them," St. Louis Park's Heintz said. "Our job is to
try to balance their needs with what the city needs. ... We have to make sure we have the resources
to keep our rates reasonable for everyone."
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/132387203.html
#10B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Semi-Annual Town Hall Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 14, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: Should the city council hold two town hall type meetings each year?
Background: Council member Hotvet contacted me and asked how I felt about holding a town hall type
meeting and if the city ever held one. I believe there can be value in holding such a meeting and that I
don’t believe the City has ever held one.
She then indicated a desire to have the city hold two town hall meeting per year. The meeting might be
based partly on the outcome and responses contained in the pending survey, but she also wanted them
to be open.
As stated, I believe a town hall type meeting can be informative. I also believe there needs to be some
structure associated with such a meeting. The biggest obstacle to such a meeting is getting residents
excited and enthusiastic about such an event and having them show up and participate.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The budget does not contemplate potential expenses for this type
of meeting. I would anticipate any expenses to be relatively minor and associated with refreshments
Options: following discussion of the item, the council may wish to hold a couple of town hall meetings
or not.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff has no position on this issue.
Next Steps and Timelines: Should the council decide to hold a town hall meeting or two, staff will begin
to make arrangements to secure the necessary room and begin publicity.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#10C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Appointment
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Attachments: Resolution
Background: Earlier this evening, Council held a special meeting to interview candidates for
consideration of appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District board to fill the seat being
held on an interim basis by Councilmember Siakel.
The two candidates scheduled for interview were Mark Sylvester and David Cross.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is requesting the term of the appointment run for two years.
The appointment would run through January 31, 2014.
Action Options:
1) Adopt a resolution appointing one of the candidates interviewed earlier this evening, and setting the
length of the term of the appointment.
2) Do not appoint one of the candidates interviewed and direct staff to continue to continue to
advertise for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District board.
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 AN APPOINTMENT TO THE LAKE
MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS,
the City of Shorewood appoints a resident to represent the City on
the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District; and
WHEREAS,
the City advertised this volunteer board opportunity for appointment
to said Board;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood to hereby appoint ________________________ to represent the City of
Shorewood on the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District effective November 15, 2011
through January 31, 2014.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 14th day of November, 2011.
_________________________________
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
_________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Draft Ordinance on Domestic Partnership Registry
Meeting Date: Monday, November 14, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy City Clerk; Tim Keane, City Attorney
Attachments: Draft Ordinance and various document samples such as application, termination,
certificate, etc.
Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood adopt an ordinance providing a domestic partner
registry?
Background: The City Council directed staff to develop a draft ordinance creating a Domestic Partner
Registry at the October 10, 2011 meeting and reviewed the draft ordinance developed by staff at the
October 24 meeting. The Council directed staff to make some minor changes to the draft, to provide
examples of documents, and to outline how the process will work. Staff made changes to the draft
ordinance as directed. Attached to this memorandum are sample documents for the certification.
Outlined below is the process staff will use to handle an application.
When a couple comes to city hall to request a certification of their domestic partner relationships, staff
will provide the couple with an application for them to complete. Upon presenting a completed
application and the necessary fee, staff will review the information to ensure it complies with the
conditions of the ordinance, specifically 110.02, subdivision 1. If the application is complete and fees
paid, staff will issue the couple a certificate similar to the one attached to this memorandum. A similar
process will be used by staff for the termination of a relationship, except staff will also send a letter to
the other partner that the registration has been terminated.
Options:
1)Approve the Ordinance amending Title 100, Chapter 110 as provided;
2)Revise and approve the Ordinance amending Title 100, Chapter 110;
3)Do nothing.
Recommendation: staff recommends Council review the draft, make any additional revisions, and take
action to approve or deny adoption of the ordinance.
Next Steps and Timelines: Should the council approve the ordinance, staff will proceed with publication
of the ordinance as required.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 100 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE
CONCERNING DOMESTIC PARTNERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDAINS:
Section 1.
Title 100 of the Shorewood City Code is amended by adding Chapter 110
to provide as follows:
“CHAPTER 110
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REGISTRY
Section
110.01 Purpose
110.02 Definitions
110.03 Registration of Domestic Partnerships
110.04 Amendments to Domestic Partnership Registration
110.05 Termination of Domestic Partnership
110.06 Fees
110.01 PURPOSE
The City of Shorewood authorizes and establishes a voluntary program for the
registration of domestic partners. The domestic partnership registry is a means by which
unmarried, committed couples who reside in Shorewood and who share a life and home together
may document their relationship, thus enabling the registered couple access to employment
benefits, hospital or health care visitation, and other such voluntary benefits.
The adoption of this ordinance does not amend, create, or establish rights, privileges, or
responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law.
110.02 DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases used in this ordinance have the meanings given in this
Section.
Subd. 1. Domestic Partner. Means any two adults meeting all of the following:
1.Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state of
Minnesota.
2.Are not married.
3.Are competent to enter a contract.
4.Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life.
5.Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other.
6.Do not have any other domestic partner(s)
7.Are both at least 18 years of age.
8.Reside in the City of Shorewood.
Subd. 2. Domestic Partnership. The term “Domestic Partnership” shall include, upon production
of a valid government-issued documentation, the following:
1.Any persons currently registered as domestic partners with a governmental body pursuant
to state, local, or other law authorizing such registrations, or
2.Marriages that would be legally recognized as a contract of lawful marriage in another
local, state, or foreign jurisdiction, but for the operation of Minnesota law such as a same
sex marriage in states that recognize and/or authorize them by law.
110.03 REGISTRATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
Subd. 1. The City Clerk shall make available upon request, a city application for the
registration of a domestic partnership.
Subd. 2. The City Clerk shall accept an application to register as domestic partners from
persons who state in the application they meet the definition of domestic partner as
set out in Section 110.02, subd. 1.
Subd. 3 The City Clerk shall provide each domestic partner, following submission of the
application and upon payment of all required fees, a registration certificate that may
be used as evidence of the existence of a domestic partner relationship.
Subd. 4. The City Clerk shall keep a record of each domestic partner certification as well as
amendments thereto and termination thereof. Records pertaining to the registration
shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Minnesota Government
Data Practice Act. Such certificates may be used as evidence of the existence or
termination of a domestic partnership.
110.04 AMENDMENTS
The City Clerk will accept amendments for filing from persons who have domestic
partnership registrations on file with the city, except for amendments that change the identity of
the partners, unless said amendment is accompanied by documentation from the district court
approving a legal name change.
110.05 TERMINATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
The Domestic Partnership registration shall terminate when the earlier of the following
occurs:
a.One of the partners dies; or
b.Forty-five days after one partner: a) sends the other partner written notice, on a form
provided by the city, that he or she is terminating the partnership; and b) files the
notice of termination with an affidavit of service of the notice on the other person,
with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall send notice to the other partner that the
partnership registry has been terminated.
110.06 FEES
The fee to apply, amend, terminate, or obtain certified copies of the registration are
established in accordance with Chapter 1301 of the Shorewood City 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 14th day of
November, 2011.
___________________________
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
____________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS A
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
CITY OF
City Code Chapter 110
$25 Registration Fee payable to City of Shorewood
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
Office Use Only
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
Registration No:_____________________________
(952) 960-7900
Date Effective: ____________________________
Applications will be processed within five business days of date
Receipt No._______________________________
received.
We hereby apply to register as Domestic Partners on this Date:_______________________________
Each applicant initial:
_____ _____ I have read and understand the terms and conditions of Chapter 110 of the Shorewood
City Code attached to this application.
_____ _____ I affirm that we meet the definition of Domestic Partner and are eligible for registration.
APPLICANT INFORMATION
______________________________________ _____________________________________
PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME
_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRINT ADDRESS OF RESIDENCE IN SHOREWOOD, MN ZIP CODE
Upon approval, one certificate will be issued to each applicant; additional certificates are available for $2 each
We request ____ additional certificate(s) at a cost of $2.00 each (applicant must add additional fee to payment)
The Information collected on this document is public and will be available to whoever requests this data
pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ___________________
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this ______ day of _____________, 20____,
By ______________________________________ and ____________________________________
Applicant Name Applicant Name
_________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires on___________________
(Notary Stamp)
AMENDMENT TO REGISTRATION AS A
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
CITY OF
City Code Chapter 110
$25 Amendment Fee payable to City of Shorewood
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
Office Use Only
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
Date Received:_____________________________
(952) 960-7900
Date Effective: ____________________________
Receipt No._______________________________
Date:______________________________
APPLICANT INFORMATION
______________________________________ _____________________________________
PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRINT ADDRESS OF RESIDENCE IN SHOREWOOD, MN ZIP CODE
Telephone Number
__________________________________________
Reason for Amendment of Registration
:______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I hereby certify all the information given is complete and accurate.
________________________________________ ______________________________________
Applicant’s Signature Applicant’s Signature
The Information collected on this document is public and will be available to whoever requests this data
pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ___________________
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this ______ day of _____________, 20____,
By ______________________________________ and ____________________________________
Applicant Name Applicant Name
_________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires on___________________
(Notary Stamp)
TERMINATION OF A
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
CITY OF
City Code Chapter 110
$25 Termination Fee payable to City of Shorewood
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
Office Use Only
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
Date Received:_____________________________
(952) 960-7900
Date Effective: ____________________________
Receipt No._______________________________
I request termination of my domestic partnership. This form must be signed in front of a Notary.
______
I have read and understand the terms and conditions of Chapter 110 of the Shorewood City
Code attached to this termination.
______
I affirm that I have met the termination requirements of Domestic Partners.
______
I have attached the affidavit of service of notice required by Section 110.05 of the City Code.
TERMINATION REQUESTED BY:__________________________________________________
PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRINT ADDRESS (STREET, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE)
DOMESTIC PARTNER:____________________________________________________________
PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRINT ADDRESS (STREET, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE)
I hereby certify all the information given is complete and accurate.
________________________________________ ______________________________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
The Information collected on this document is public and will be available to whoever requests this data
pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ___________________
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this ______ day of _____________, 20____,
By ______________________________________
Applicant Name
_________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires on___________________
(Notary Stamp)
CITY OF
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
(952) 960-7900
TERMINATION REQUESTED BY:__________________________________________________
PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME
DOMESTIC PARTNER:____________________________________________________________
PRINT FIRST, MI, LAST NAME
I, __________________________________________________, BEING SWORN, STATE THAT I AM AT LEAST 18
YEARS OF AGE HAVING BEEN BORN ON ____________________________________________ AND THAT ON
(today’s date)_____________________________________________, I SERVED A COPY OF THE TERMINATION OF A
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP UPON (Name of Domestic Partner):____________________________________________
BY PLACING IN AN ENVELOPE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT ADDRESSED TO
(Name)_____________________________________ (at address):_______________________________________________
IN THE CITY OF _____________________________, STATE OF __________________________, ZIP CODE_________
AND DEPOSITING THE ENVELOPE, WITH SUFFICIENT POSTAGE, IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL AT THE POST
OFFICE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF _____________________________, STATE OF ____________________________.
I hereby certify all the information given is complete and accurate. (This must be signed in front of a Notary)
________________________________________ ______________________________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ___________________
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this ______ day of _____________, 20____,
By ______________________________________
Applicant Name
_________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires on___________________
(Notary Stamp)
Registration No._________________
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
CERTIFICATE OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION OF and dated __________
insert nameinsert name
This certifies that
insert name
and
insert name
are Registered as Domestic Partners
Pursuant to Chapter 110 of the Shorewood City Code
___________________________ ____________________
City Clerk Date
seal
Domestic Partnership Registry
Amendment to Termination of Registration
Registration Registration filed on Termination of Registration Service of Notice Mailed on
NumberDate IssuedPartner 1 NamePartner 2 NameAddress of Residence(date)filed on (date)(date)
#10B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Dog License
Meeting Date: Monday, November 14, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy City Clerk
Attachments: Amended dog license ordinance
Policy Consideration: Review the amended dog licensing ordinance
Background: The council referred the dog licensing review to the planning commission to consider the
issue of number of dogs per home and fee associated with the licensing of dogs.
The planning commission reviewed the dog licensing ordinance at their September 20 meeting. The
Planning Commission felt that obtaining a license should be low cost or free and potentially continue for
as long as the rabies vaccination, up to three years. They also indicated a desire to impose a hefty fine
for those who do not obtain a license as the incentive to get the dog licensed.
As for number of dogs, the Commission felt that limiting the number of dogs per household to four (4) is
reasonable.
The commission was comfortable referencing state statute regarding dangerous dogs and including
provisions regarding the handling of potentially dangerous dogs.
Staff reviewed the ordinance and amended the language in accordance with planning commission
comments.
Staff recommends keeping the current license fee at $10.00 per year, and extending the life of the
license to two years, making the fee for two years $20.00. Staff also recommends eliminating the $5.00
late fee for licenses not purchased by January 31.
There are a couple of issues yet to fully work out regarding the ordinance and one has to do with the
penalty for unlicensed dogs. The planning commission recommendation is to make licensing as easy as
possible and applya hefty penalty for keeping an unlicensed dog. The current penalty for an at-large dog
is $25.00 for the first offense and $50.00 for the second. Staff recommends an unlicensed dog at-large
would cost the owner $25.00 for the at-large fee + $40.00 to license the unlicensed dog (this is double of
the $20 license fee) for a total fee of $65.00. This does not include the boarding fees assessed by the
SLMPD.
The question is if the $65.00 fee for being at-large and unlicensed is “hefty” enough.
Staff is also working on appeal language for dogs designated as potentially dangerous.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Staff does not believe there will be a change in the budget related
to this item. The dog license revenue collected would remain the same, as we currently charge $10 for a
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
one-year license. The expense of purchasing dog tags would be reduced slightly as tags would be
purchased every two years, rather than every year.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the Council review the proposed
amendments and provide feedback. Staff will make necessary changes as provided by council and send
the proposed amendment to the SLMPD for review. Staff will then bring the amendments back to the
November 28 meeting in proper form for adoption.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will prepare ordinance amendments in proper form for council action at
the November 28 Council meeting.
CHAPTER 701
DOGS
Section
701.01 Purpose
701.02 Definitions
701.03 Enforcement
701.04 Registration and licensing requirements
701.05 Limitations on number of dogs
701.06 Running at large
701.07 Dog nuisances
701.08 Confinement of certain dogs
701.09 Impoundment and redemption procedures
701.10 Rabies control
701.11 Destruction of certain dogs
701.12 Prohibited acts and conditions
701.13 Violation
701.01 PURPOSE.
The City Council recognizes and reaffirms that residents have rights to own, harbor, and keep dogs,
and that from time to time these animals behave in ways that constitute a public nuisance. The Council
finds that the present city code addresses the actions of dogs or their owners as criminal in nature, and
enforcement sanctions have not been fully effective in abating these nuisances. The purpose of this
chapter is to state clearly that the public nuisances caused by dogs may also be subject to civil legal
procedures to abate nuisance conditions that exist on a property. It also addresses the conditions under
which noises by the animals may be considered untimely.
(Ord. 398, passed 9-8-2003)
701.02 DEFINITIONS
.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a different meaning.
ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Any law enforcement officer of the city and the person,
firm or corporation charged by the Council with enforcement of this chapter.
AT LARGE. A dog is at large when it is off the property of its owner and not under restraint.
DOG WASTE DEVICE. The person having custody of the dog must have in their possession a
device for removal of dog feces when in or on city parks, trails, sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and
the Southwest Regional LRT Trail.
DANGEROUS DOG. A dangerous dog is defined as aA dog that:
a.Without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public
or private property, or
b.Has killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property,
or
c.Has been found to be potentially dangerous and, after the owner has notice that the
dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the
safety of humans or domestic animals
.
OWNER Any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog or licensee thereof, or the parents or
guardians of the person under 18 years of age, or any person who owns the property on which a dog
is harbored or kept.
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG. A potentially dangerous dog is aA dog that:
a. When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private
property; or
When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon
b.
street, sidewalk, or on any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s
property in an apparent attitude of attack; or
c.Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or
otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
A dog that takes action that was done to defend or protect itself or a human being within its
immediate vicinity from an unjustified attack or assault shall not be considered “potentially dangerous.”
PROVOCATION.
Means aAn act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to
attack or bite.
RESTRAINT. A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises of the person harboring or keeping the
dog, or if the dog is with the person having custody of it and is effectively restrained provided that:
a. While it is on any public trail, sidewalk, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail, or along any
public right-of-way (for example, along roadways and streets), it is on a leash no greater
than six feet in length;
b. While it is in any city park, it is on a leash.
SUBSTANTIAL BODILY HARM.
Means bBodily injury that involves a temporary but
substantial disfigurement, or that causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of
the function of any bodily member or organ, or that causes a fracture of any bodily member
RESTRAINT. A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises of the person harboring or keeping the
dog, or if the dog is with the person having custody of it and is effectively restrained provided that:
a. While it is on any public trail, sidewalk, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail, or along any
public right-of-way (for example, along roadways and streets), it is on a leash no greater
than six feet in length;
b. While it is in any city park, it is on a leash.
OWNER.
Any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog or licensee thereof, or the parents or
guardians of the person under 18 years of age, or any person who owns the property on which a dog
is harbored or kept.
(1987 Code, 701.01) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-74; Am. Ord. 394, passed 4-14-2003; Am. Ord. 398,
'
passed 9-8-2003)
701.03 ENFORCEMENT
.
The Council shall appoint an Animal Enforcement Officer and may enter into a contract with a
person whose duties shall be to enforce this chapter. Any contract so entered shall provide, as the Council
deems fit, certain fees for the keeping and disposal of animals herein governed.
(1987 Code, 701.02)
'
701.04 REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS
.
Subd. 1. Registration and license required. Every person who owns a dog over the age of six months
shall cause the dog to be registered and licensed as hereinafter provided.
Subd. 2. License tag and fees. All dogs kept in this city, including those allowed by special permit, shall
be registered in the office of the Administrator. The owner shall obtain a license and tag for
each dog and pay for each fee as the City Council may, by resolution, adopt. The Council
may provide for higher license fees for female dogs than for males or spayed
females. The license tag shall be securely attached around the dog’s neck and kept there
=
at all times during the license period. If the tag is lost or stolen, the owner shall receive a
duplicate license and tag upon payment to the Administrator a fee as provided in 1301.02
'
of this code.
Subd. 3. Rabies inoculation. No license shall be issued for a dog unless the owner shall show provides
written evidence that the dog has been inoculated for the prevention of rabies within the
past two years.
Subd. 4. Term of license. The license period shall be for the whole or unexpired portion of the whole or
unexpired portion of the year ending on the ensuintwo years ending on g December 31.
Subd. 5. New residents of city. Any person who moves into and becomes a resident of the city and who
owns a dog within the city shall cause the same to be registered and licensed as provided
hereinbefore within a period of not more than 30 days after becoming a resident of the city.
Subd. 6. Denial of license. The city may deny an owner a license and prohibit the keeping of a dog by the
applicant for the following reasons:
been convicted of a third or subsequent violation of section 347.51,
a. The owner has
347.515, or 347.52; (relate to our code or, are these references to State Statutes?)
b. been convicted of a violation under section 609.205, clause (4);
c. been convicted of a gross misdemeanor under section 609.226, subdivision 1;
d. been convicted of a violation under section 609.226, subdivision 2;
e. had a dog ordered destroyed under section 347.56 and been convicted of one or
more violations of section 347.51, 347.515, 347.52, or 609.226, subdivision 2.
Subd. 7. Household Members. If any member of a household is prohibited from owning a
dog in subdivision 6, unless specifically approved with or without
restrictions by an animal control authority, no person in the household is
permitted to own a dog.
Subd. 8. Dog Ownership Review. Beginning three years after a conviction under
subdivision 6 that prohibits a person from owning a dog, and annually
thereafter, the person may request that the animal control authority review
the prohibition. The animal control authority may consider such facts as the
seriousness of the violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any
criminal convictions, or other facts that the animal control authority deems
appropriate. The animal control authority may rescind the prohibition
entirely or rescind it with limitations. The animal control authority also may
establish conditions a person must meet before the prohibition is rescinded,
including, but not limited to, successfully completing dog training or dog
handling courses. If the animal control authority rescinds a person's
prohibition and the person subsequently fails to comply with any limitations
imposed by the animal control authority or the person is convicted of any
animal violation involving unprovoked bites or dog attacks, the animal
control authority may permanently prohibit the person from owning a dog in
this City.
(1987 Code, 701.03) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974; Ord. 173, passed 8-12-1985; Am. Ord. 213, passed
'
3-27-1989; Am. Ord. 263, passed 12-14-1992)
701.05 LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER OF DOGS
.
Subd. 1. Kennel license. Within the limits of the city, no more than two four (4) dogs over the age of six
months shall be allowed in any household. unless the owners shall first obtain a kennel
license. This license shall allow an owner to keep up to four dogs over the age of six
months. Any person desiring a kennel license shall make written application upon a form
prescribed by and containing the information as required by the city. Every owner is
required to keep a valid, individual license tag securely fastened to the dogsdog’s collar
=
or harness. The owner shall pay a fee for the kennel license as provided in 1302 of this
'
code. This license shall be valid for the period of one year, beginning on January 1 and
ending on December 31, and is nontransferable. The application shall contain the following
information:
a. The number of dogs over the age of six months to be maintained on the premises;
b. A description of the real estate property upon which the animals will be kept;
c. Written authorization for the city to inspect the premises which shall be valid for the length of the
license. Application for a renewal license shall be inspected upon receipt of complaints.
The inspection shall be to confirm compliance with the following criteria:
(1) If an outdoor kennel is provided, it must be constructed of suitable material to
maintain and secure the keeping of dogs and to allow for sufficient space for the dogs.
Standards for adequate shelter for dogs is specified in M.S. 343.40 and is adopted
'
by reference, including any amendments to that section. The space must be inspected
and approved by the Animal Enforcement Officer. All surfaces must be constructed of
material to provide for proper cleaning, drainage and maintenance and needs of the
dogs. Kennel structures must be located within the prescribed setback requirements
for the property and shall be located at least ten feet from the property boundary. All
fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner. No boundary
line fence shall be erected closer than three feet to an existing parallel boundary line
fence;
(2) Owners must ensure that dogs kept on a licensed premises do not create a nuisance by
excessive barking or by creating unsanitary conditions.
d. Notification of any prior violations during the previous licensing period.
Subd. 2. Denial of license. The city may deny any license request based upon one or more of the
following:
a. The Animal Enforcement Officer finds the kennel facilities inadequate;
b. Conditions of the license are not met;
c. A nuisance condition is found to be created by the dogs or owner;
d. The kennel creates a public health and safety hazard or has placed the animals in an
unreasonable endangerment. The city shall investigate all complaints and may issue a
citation for violations. After a complaint has been received and found to be valid regarding
a kennel license, the holder of the license shall appear before the City Council to state or
explain their position. The appearance shall be within 30 days of the initial complaint and
after notification of all contiguous property owners. The City Council will then decide the
status of the license.
Subd. 3. Exceptions.
a. An applicant may apply to the City Council for an exception to the maximum number of
dogs allowed per property.
b. This section shall not apply to nonresidents or dogs kept within the city for less than 30
continuous days.
Subd. 4. Revocation of kennel license. In addition to any other sanctions herein provided, violation of
any of the terms of this chapter shall be grounds for termination of the privilege of keeping
up to four dogs, and the license may be revoked. Revocation may occur for a violation
attributable to any dog kept by the owners.
(1987 Code, 701.04) (Ord. 299, passed 6-12-1995)
'
701.06 RUNNING AT LARGE
.
It shall be unlawful for the dog of any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, to run at large. The
finding of any dog running at large shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this section by the owner
of the dog.
(1987 Code, 701.05) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
'
701.07 DOG NUISANCES
.
Subd. 1. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and control of his animals to
prevent them from becoming a public nuisance.
Subd. 2. It shall be considered a nuisance for any animal to bark excessively, continuously or untimely,
to frequent school grounds, parks, or public beaches, to chase vehicles, to molest, annoy or
bite any person if the person is not on the property of the owner or custodian of the animal,
to molest, defile or destroy any property, public or private, or to defecate in or upon public
property or the property of another without being cleaned up immediately by the person in
charge of the animal. The person having custody of the dog is responsible for disposing of
the dog feces in a sanitary manner. Failure on the part of the owner or custodian to prevent
his animals from committing an act of nuisance shall subject the owner or custodian to the
penalty hereinafter provided.
Subd. 3. The phrase TO BARK EXCESSIVELY, CONTINUOUSLY OR UNTIMELY includes, but is
not limited to, the creation of any noise by any single or combination of dogs which can be
heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a
location outside of the building or premises where the dog is being kept and which noise
occurs repeatedly over at least a five minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of
time between each animal noise during the five minute period. UNTIMELY includes, but
is not limited to, the noise which occurs repeatedly over a two-minute period of time with
one-minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the two-minute period
between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
(1987 Code, 701.06) (Ord. 232, passed 9-10-1990; Ord. 334, passed 4-27-1998; Am. Ord. 394, passed
'
4-14-2003; Am. Ord. 398, passed 9-8-2003)
701.08 DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG
The provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 through 347.56 relating to Dangerous Dogs are adopted
Subd. 1.
by reference and govern Dangerous Dogs in the city of Shorewood.
Subd. 2. Potentially Dangerous Dogs.
a. A person who owns, keeps, possesses, or acts as a custodian for a potentially dangerous
dog must do the following:
(1) maintain the animal under restraint by use of a leash not exceeding six feet
in length at all times when the animal is off the owner's premises;
(2) when the animal is on the owner's premises, confine the animal within a
fenced enclosure sufficient to keep the animal from leaving the enclosure, or maintain the
animal on a leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length;
(3) have a microchip identification implanted in the animal as required by
Minn. Stat. §347.515; and
(4) provide notification of the death, change in ownership, or transfer of the
animal in accordance with the requirements in Minn. Stat. §347.52(c) and (f).
b. The notice and hearing requirements provided in Minn. Stat. §347.541 apply to the
determination by authorized animal control authority that a dog is potentially dangerous.
c. Stopping an attack. If authorized animal control authority are witness to an attack by an
animal upon a person or another animal, the personnel may take whatever means the
personnel deems appropriate to bring the attack to an end and prevent further injury to the
victim.
701.08 09 CONFINEMENT OF CERTAIN DOGS
.
Every dog in heat shall be confined in a building or other secure enclosure in the manner that the dog
cannot come into contact with another dog, except for planned breeding.
(1987 Code, 701.07) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
'
701.09 10 IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION PROCEDURES
.
Subd. 1. Authority to impound, citations. The person charged with the enforcement of this chapter shall
have authority to take into custody and impound those dogs found at large within the city.
If the Animal Enforcement Officer is unable to take a dog into custody, he or she may,
where possible, follow the dog to the property of its owner and may issue a citation to the
owner for violation of this chapter. The Officer shall not be authorized to take into custody
a dog once it is upon the property of its owner except where the officer finds no one
present upon the property and custody is necessary to prevent the dog from further running
at large or except in those instances hereinafter prescribed where the custody is required or
permitted for the health and welfare of the public.
Subd. 2. Pound. The city, or agency the city contracts with, shall provide an adequate pound or facilities
where dogs taken into custody by an Animal Enforcement Officer shall be kept and
properly fed until disposed of according to the provisions of this chapter.
Subd. 3. Notice of impoundment. Within 24 hours after taking a dog into custody, the Animal
Enforcement Officer shall, if the animal has on it an official tag, notify the person shown
as owner of the dog that the animal is in his or her custody and will not be disposed of if
redeemed within a stated time, which time shall not be less than five full days after the
animal was taken into custody.
Subd. 4. Redemption by owner. Every owner or person having the custody of a dog may redeem the
same from the Animal Enforcement Officer by paying for board and associated costs for
each day or fraction thereof as the animal is held in custody by the Animal Enforcement
Officer and obtaining a license for the animal in accordance with this chapter if the license
has not hereinbefore been issued for the animal. The associated costs shall include an
impounding fee set by resolution of the City Council from time to time, or established by
the Animal Control Agency. In determining the impounding fee, the Council may establish
a schedule of fees based on the number of times a dog has been impounded. In addition to
the payment of the board, licensing and associated costs set forth in this section, the owner
shall remain subject to all other penalties contained in this chapter.
Subd. 5. Disposition of unclaimed or injured dogs. Upon expiration of the five day period, a dog in the
custody of the Animal Enforcement Officer shall may be euthanized. Nothing in this
chapter shall prevent the Animal Enforcement Officer from causing the dog to be
euthanized in less than five days waiting period as aforesaid where the animal is injured
and, in the opinion of the owner or veterinarian, the only humane act would be one of
disposal.
Subd. 6. Records kept. The Animal Enforcement Officer shall keep an accurate account of all animals
received at the pound and all animals killed and released therefrom.
(1987 Code, 701.08) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974; Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
'
701.1110 RABIES CONTROL
.
Subd. 1. Quarantine of biting dogs.
a. Upon a sworn, written complaint being filed with the City Administrator/Clerk stating that
a dog has bitten a human being and setting forth the name of the dog, if known, and the
name and address of the owner or custodian, if known, the name of the person bitten and
when and where the incident occurred, the Animal Enforcement Officer shall order the dog
quarantined for a period of ten days. During quarantine, the animal shall be securely
confined and kept from contact with any other animal.
b. At the discretion of the Animal Enforcement Officer, the quarantine may be on the
premises of the owner. If the Animal Enforcement Officer so requires, the owner shall, at
his or her own expense, place the animal in a veterinary hospital for the period of
confinement or surrender the animal to the Animal Enforcement Officer for confinement.
The dog shall not be released from confinement until a licensed veterinarian has certified
the animal to be free from rabies and until the owner has paid the costs of any veterinary
tests made upon the animal as well as the costs of any confinement on premises other than
that of the owner.
c. If the costs are not paid by the owner or custodian within ten days following written notice
to the owner or custodian that the dog is available for release, the Animal Enforcement
Officer shall forthwith cause the dog to be euthanized.
d. Any person who shall fail to deliver up to the Animal Enforcement Officer any dog which
has bitten a human being and against which a sworn, written complaint has been filed shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each days neglect or failure to comply with the provisions of
=
this subdivision shall be deemed a separate offense.
Subd. 2. Rabies in city, proclamation.
a. Investigation for presence of rabies. It shall be the duty of the Health Officer to investigate
when a written complaint shall be made to him or her or to the City Administrator/Clerk
that rabies exist in the city and determine whether or not rabies does exist in the city.
b. Proclamation.
(1) If, on the investigation, the Health Officer determines that rabies does exist in the city,
the Health Officer shall thereupon make and file a proclamation setting forth the fact
of the investigation and determination and also in the proclamation prohibit the owner
or custodian of any dog from permitting or allowing the dogs to be at large within the
city unless effectively muzzled so that it cannot bite any other animal or person.
(2) The proclamation, when issued, shall be filed with the Administrator and it shall be
the duty of the Administrator to forthwith publish a copy thereof in the official legal
newspaper of the city and to post a copy of the proclamation in three public places
within the city. The proclamation shall be deemed effective and in full force five days
after publication and posting of copies thereof and shall remain in full force and effect
for a period of time designated in the proclamation but not to exceed six months.
c. Dogs at large to be muzzled. It shall be unlawful for the owner or custodian of any dog to
suffer or permit it to be at large either on the premises of the owner or elsewhere within the
city during the time the proclamation is in force unless the dog shall be effectively muzzled
so that it cannot bite any other animal or person.
d.. Destruction of unmuzzled dogs. It shall be lawful for any police officer or the Animal
Enforcement Officer of this city to destroy any dog running at large on the public streets or
roads of this city in violation of the provisions of the proclamation.
(1987 Code, 701.09) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974; Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989) Penalty, see 104.01
''
701.11 12 DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DOGS
.
Subd. 1. Upon sworn complaint to the Hennepin County District Court that any one of the following
facts exists:
a. That any dog at any time has destroyed property or habitually trespasses in a damaging
manner on property of persons other than the owner;
b. That any dog at any time has attacked or bitten a person outside the ownersowner or
=
custodianscustodian’s premises;
=
701-8
Dogs
701.11 701.13
c. That any dog is vicious or shows vicious habits or molests pedestrians or interferes with
the driving of automobiles on the public streets or highways;
d. That any dog is a public nuisance;
e. That any dog is running at large in violation of this chapter;
Subd. 2. The judge or clerk of the court shall issue a summons directed to the owner of the dog
commanding him or her to appear before the judge to show cause why the dog should not
be seized and euthanized by the Animal Enforcement Officer or otherwise disposed of.
Upon the hearing and finding the facts true as complained of, the judge may either order
the dog euthanized or the owner or custodian to remove it from the city or may order the
owner or custodian to keep it confined to a designated place. If the owner or custodian
disobeys the order, he or she shall be in violation of this chapter and the Animal
Enforcement Officer may, upon disobedience of the order, impound or dispose of the dog
described in the order. The costs of all proceedings described herein shall be assessed
against the owner or custodian of the dog, if the facts in the compliant are found to be true
or to the complainant if the facts are found to be untrue.
(1987 Code, 701.10) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
'
701.12 13 PROHIBITED ACTS AND CONDITIONS
.
Subd. 1. Improper care. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to provide animals with sufficient good
and wholesome food and water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary
care when needed to prevent suffering and with humane care and treatment.
Subd. 2. Cruelty to dogs. It shall be unlawful for any owner to beat, cruelly ill-treat, torment or otherwise
abuse any dog.
Subd 3. Confinement in Motor Vehicle
1. A person must not cause or allow an animal to be placed or confined in a motor vehicle
without adequate ventilation when the atmospheric temperature, humidity, and sun rays can be
reasonably expected to cause suffering, disability or death. Evidence that the animal is suffering
from heat stress is prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.
2. This section does not prohibit the transportation of horses, cattle, sheep, poultry, or other
agricultural livestock in trailers or other vehicles designed and constructed for that purpose.
3. Animal Enforcement Officer who find an animal in a motor vehicle in violation of this
section may break and enter into the vehicle if necessary to remove the animal. Neither the
personnel nor the city will be liable for vehicle damage that results. An animal removed must be
taken immediately to the animal impounding facility to be evaluated by a licensed veterinarian.
The personnel must leave within the vehicle a written notice giving their name and position and
the address where the animal may be redeemed. The owner of the animal is responsible for all
medical and housing expenses incurred.
(1987 Code, 701.11) Penalty, see 104.01
''
701.14 Health and Maintenance Standards.
1. The owner of a dog kept in the city must comply with the following standards.
a. A dog kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with adequate shelter and
bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
b. The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size to allow the
animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so that no part of its body need
touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be made of durable material sufficient to allow
retention of body heat with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance
covered by a flexible windproof material or self-closing swinging door. The structure must be provided
with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets or
the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against cold and dampness and to promote
retention of body heat. The structure must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair.
c. In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a and b, an animal may be provided with access to a
barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection against cold and dampness.
d. If an animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot become
entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must be of a size adequate to
restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The
collar must be large enough to allow free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over
the animal's head. A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the
tip of his nose to the base of his tail.
e. An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water to meet adequate nutritional
requirements.
2. maintenance standards. The owner of a dog kept in the city must comply with the standards
below. Before commencing an action to enforce compliance with these standards, enforcement
personnel must give an owner notice of a violation and a reasonable opportunity to comply.
a. An owner must maintain the dog and the area where it is kept so that no odor that offends the
senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, off the property where the animal is
kept.
b. An owner must maintain the property where the dog is kept so that there is no erosion, and no
drainage of water contaminated by the dog, onto adjacent properties or into public waters or wetlands.
c. The owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the dog in a timely and sanitary
manner that prevents health risks and prevents odors that are prohibited under paragraph (a) above.
701.13 15 VIOLATION
.
Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanorsubject to an
administrative penalty as set forth in Chapter 104 of this code and may be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(1987 Code, 701.12) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974) Penalty, see 104.01
''
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2011 - 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC SIGN -IN SHEET
For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you.
Name Address
�� ��� A' j
3.
3 g3 ( lA (a'dou ) '�Olie
10.