11-28-11 CC Reg Mtg Agenda G. F. E. D. C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 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 Special Meeting Minutes, November 14, 2011 Minutes
B. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 14, 2011 Minutes
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 14, 2011 Minutes
3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the
Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal
from Consent Agenda
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
B. Authorize Participation in Hennepin County 2012 Deer Aerial Survey Planning Director’s
memo
C. Certification of Delinquent Utilities for Properties Served by the City of Finance Director’s
Chanhassen memo, Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) report by Tad Shaw
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
A. Shady Hills Traffic Study Planning Director’s
memo
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – NOVEMBER 28, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
B. Zoning Text Amendment for Dynamic Signs Planning Director’s
memo, Draft
Ordinance
C. Setback Variance Planning Director’s
Applicant: Don and Karen Gloude memo
Location: 4675 Fatima Place
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Silver Lake Storm Water Sediment Trap Improvement Engineer’s memo
B. Petition for City Water Engineer’s memo
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Establishing Fees for the Domestic Partnership Registry Deputy Clerk’s
memo, Ordinance
B. Domestic Partnership Resolution to State Agencies Administrator’s
memo, Resolution
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Tobacco License Ordinance and License Request Administrator’s
memo, Resolution
B. City Border Signs Administrator’s
memo
C. Dog License Ordinance Amendment for Discussion Administrator’s
memo, 2 Draft
Ordinances
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. GreenStep Cities Program Update Administrator’s
memo
B. Mayor and City Council
13. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, 28 November, 2011
7:00 p.m.
A 6:00 p.m. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: This item is approval to participate in the 2012 Aerial Deer Survey
sponsored by the Three Rivers Park District.
Agenda Item #3C: This is certification of delinquent utilities to the 2012 property tax rolls for
Shorewood properties served by the City of Chanhassen.
Agenda Item #6A: The Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) representative, Tad Shaw,
will report on recent MCE activities.
Agenda Item #7: There are no park commission items this evening.
Agenda Item #8A: After considerable study, two sets of traffic counts, and meetings with
neighbors, the Planning Commission has recommended certain revisions to the current
traffic control measures in the Shady Hills neighborhood. The proposed revisions improve
convenience for neighborhood residents while still addressing the issue of cut-through
traffic through the neighborhood.
Agenda Item #8B: The Planning Commission spent several meetings addressing the issue of
“dynamic display signs”, arriving at a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment that
allows, but controls, electronic graphic displays for both commercial and institutional
properties. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend the draft ordinance
contained in your packet.
Agenda Item #8C: Don and Karen Gloude have applied for a setback variance to build a front
porch that would encroach into the front setback of their home at 4675 Fatima Place.
This is the first variance request to come in under the new standard for variances –
practical difficulties. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, then voted 4-2 to
recommend denial of the variance. The majority agreeing that the application did not meet
the criteria for a variance. They followed up the recommendation, however, with
direction to staff to include the study of a possible code amendment that would address
porches for older homes. That study will be included as the first item on the
Commission’s 2012 work program. The Gloude’s project is scheduled for spring
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of November 28, 2011
Page 2 of 2
completion and any changes in the code can be incorporated into their plans. Staff should
be directed to bring back a resolution denying the variance request.
Agenda Item #9A: This item is consideration of awarding a contract for the Silver Lake storm
water improvements sediment trap.
Agenda Item #9B: The city received a petition from residents near Pleasant Avenue for the
extension of public water main. Council is asked to provide direction on this request.
Agenda Item #10A: This is an ordinance setting the fees for the domestic partnership
registration, amendment, termination and certificates.
Agenda Item #10B: This is a resolution supporting statewide domestic partnership registration
legislation for council’s consideration.
Agenda Item #11A: This item is approval of the Tobacco License Application of Mr. Khaled
Aloul for Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. located at 23710 State Highway 7 in the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center (this item was considered at the November 14
meeting) This item also includes discussion on amending the current Tobacco License
ordinance.
Agenda Item #11B: This item is review and consideration of the newly formatted city border
signs.
Agenda Item #11C: The council and planning commission reviewed the dog ordinance.
Suggested amendments to the dog ordinance have been drafted based on the review. Staff
has also consulted with the SLMPD to ensure the draft ordinance fits with their operation
model. Two alternatives of the ordinance are provided for council discussion.
Agenda Item #12A.1: This is an update on the GreenStep Cities program.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CONFERENCE ROOM
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2011 5:35 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; and City
Administrator Heck
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The following candidates were interviewed for the consideration of appointment to the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District.
A. Mark Sylvester, 22020 Stratford Place 5:30 p.m.
B. David Cross, 5305 Shady Island Road 5:45 p.m.
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of November 14, 2011,
at 6:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2011 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:08 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane;
Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of
Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. WATER CONNECTION FEE
Administrator Heck stated Council has discussed the topic of the water connection fee 2 – 3 times over the
last couple years. He explained that recently there was a property owner who was interested in connecting
to the City’s municipal water system but didn’t want to pay the $10,000 water connection fee because he
thought it was too high. The owner asked Council to consider reducing the fee.
Heck explained the meeting packet contains a memo on the City’s water policy. It describes the current
status and options Council may want to consider when looking at the water policy. The packet also
contains a copy of a 2010 memo by Director Nielsen on the history of water connection fees; and, the costs
of the installed water system infrastructure e.g., wells, well houses, filtration plants, water towers and
controls by Brown and Director DeJong. There are also two maps. One shows the watermain connection
fees. The other shows connections to the watermain as well as where access is available but property
owners have not connected to it. Approximately 48 percent of the City has city water. That increases to
about 50 percent if the properties where access is available but not connected are included. A legal opinion
from Attorney Keane was sent out separately.
Heck stated Council wanted to be provided with an updated 20-Year Water Plan. He thought Director
Brown sent that out under separate cover last week. Brown clarified that was only sent internally. What
was sent was the 20-Year Water Plan overlaid on the 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan. The costs will
be worked on over the couple of months.
Heck reviewed a list of questions he wanted Council to address. 1) What is Council’s goal or objective in
discussing and possibly changing the water connection policy? 2) Does Council have a goal of encouraging
property owners who have access to watermain to connect to the water system? 3) Does Council want to
have some type of policy or system that allows for watermain to be extended more efficiently throughout
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 2 of 6
the City? 4) Does Council want to continue with the current cost system which is based on a
fairness/equitable standard?
Mayor Lizée commented it’s of benefit for Councilmembers Hotvet and Siakel to be provided with some
history of the City’s municipal water system being they are about to complete their first year as
Councilmembers. She explained that the Cities of Excelsior, Minnetonka, Tonka Bay, and Victoria have
city-wide municipal water. She recommended the 20-Year Water Plan be updated, noting the current one
was developed in the mid 1990s. That Plan should identify benefits of city-wide water and potential
problems that could be encountered with extension of the water system. Council and Staff need to decide
how to bring the City’s residents in on those discussions.
Lizée stated based on the information provided, the value of the current water system is approximately
$3.359 million. She asked Director Brown and Engineer Landini to estimate the cost of fully extending the
municipal water throughout the City. Having both of those costs will provide a true per-parcel cost of city
water. She suggested doing that before Council discusses revising the water policy or changing the
connection fee. She noted she has a hard time with the word fairness because fairness has different
meanings for people.
Councilmember Zerby stated he was surprised to find out there are 272 properties that have access to
municipal water but are not connected to it. He expressed a desire to try and get those property owners to
connect. He questioned if the connection fee is too high and therefore a deterrent. He stated he thought it
prudent to expand the municipal water system throughout the City so all residents have access to safe
water. He noted there have been numerous reports from residents indicating they have arsenic in their well
water. Having access to safe water is more important than ever. He stated he would like to come up with a
plan to expand the system at a faster rate than it has been expanding at during his 18-year residency in the
City, nine of which he has served on the City Council.
Mayor Lizée stated the current water policy doesn’t require property owners who have access to municipal
water to connect to it, even if they are trying to sell their property or transfer the title of the property. She
then stated the ground water supply is growing more precious as time goes on and more problems are being
found with it. She noted there are two residents in the audience this evening who she met with at her recent
coffee with the mayor session and they have submitted a petition from their neighborhood regarding
municipal water. She commented that one of the sages of Shorewood once said residents don’t water until
their well goes out. She recommended taking a comprehensive look at the cost for the municipal water
system and then discussing how that affects the water policy.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she was a member of the Ad Hoc Trail Committee comprised of
representatives from Council, the Park and Planning Commissions, staff and residents. She suggested
Council consider establishing a similar type of ad hoc committee for municipal water.
Councilmember Siakel stated the water connection fee is just one piece of a larger plan. She expressed a
desire for Staff to prepare a more comprehensive plan and estimate for the cost of city-wide municipal
water. She noted she would like to connect to city water but it’s not available to her. She explained when
her power went out the other day she had no access to her well water. If the City had a reasonable plan to
extend watermain into her neighborhood she would try to entice her neighbors to support it. She noted she
would like watermain to be extended. She stated she also wants the 20-Year Water Plan to be updated and
she wants to be provided with the total cost to extend the municipal water system city wide.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the water policy, including the connection fee, has been discussed a
number of times during his tenure on the Council. From his vantage point there is no good solution for what
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 3 of 6
to do about this. He then stated he is sensitive to the City mandating residents spend money for something
they don’t want and won’t use. Based on past experience watermain extension typically costs property
owners $7,000 – $9,000 in assessments. If a resident has a failing well or if there is arsenic in their well
water they may think extending watermain is a good deal. But, if their well is working properly to pay
$7,000 – $9,000 for something they are not going to use is not such a good deal. Council may want to
discuss delaying assessing the property owner for the watermain extension. He went on to state there are
two issues for discussion: the cost to extend watermain throughout the City and what to charge property
owners for that.
Mayor Lizée asked Council if it has any interest in having a discussion about an updated 20-Year Water
Plan which would include costs and timelines.
In response to a comment from Mayor Lizée, Director Brown explained to cost out 20-Year Water Plan is
not too complicated. Brown then explained cities have tried putting in dry pipes in the past and that failed
from a mechanical perspective. The links and connections have to be put in at the same time. He noted that
since the 20-Year Water Plan was developed years ago some of the links have been constructed. He
explained it will take at least a month to estimate the costs for a city-wide extension of watermain and it
will require assistance from WSB & Associates.
Councilmember Siakel asked what happens when property owners want to be able to connect to city water
but the roadway in front of their property isn’t scheduled for reconstruction for many years. Director
Brown explained that changes as the condition of the roadway changes and as the City’s plans for
reconstructing it change. He cited the example of Arbor Creek Lane near Grant Lorenz Road. It’s a fairly
new roadway. If the residents told the City they would like to connect to city water his first approach would
be to try and negotiate an easement off the roadway to install water main in order to keep its investment in
the roadway. Water still has to be brought to the other side of the roadway. For residents along Wiltsey
Lane or Pleasant Avenue, which are gravel roadways, the challenge would be where to extend the
watermain from.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if 67 percent of the property owners in an area petition for city water
Council would have to entertain their request; it does not have to grant the request. He then stated Council
can decide to extend watermain down a roadway even if the roadway is not scheduled for reconstruction.
Under the current water policy the property owners would have to have to pay the full cost for that
extension. He asked Staff to research how many of the 1420 parcels connected to the city water system
were part of a development where water was put in as part of the development. He stated that would be
different from property owners who connected after watermain was installed as part of a road
reconstruction project.
Councilmember Siakel asked if there has been any discussion at the state level about mandating the
installation of city water. Director Brown stated he didn’t think the State will mandate the installation of
city water.
Attorney Keane explained in the metropolitan area there are two primary aquifers that serve the deep
municipal wells. The Metropolitan Council has been in the process of evaluating the drawdown and
recharge sustainability of them. He did not think the Met Council has reached any conclusions. He then
explained part of what drives the momentum for public services is the safety of the water resource. He
asked Director Brown how deep a customary residential well is. Brown explained most residential wells tap
into aquifers that are 118 – 140 feet deep and municipal wells generally tap into aquifers that are 330 – 640
feet deep. That deeper water is less susceptible to surface contaminations.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 4 of 6
Administrator Heck explained rather than a State agency mandating that cities extend municipal water to
residents State law allows cities from preventing businesses or residential property owners from drilling
wells when municipal water is available. He then explained that this past summer Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners had several meetings to talk about municipal water. He stated the City has the
opportunities to extend watermain from other cities’ municipal systems.
Heck summarized what he believes Council has asked for. The first is what, if anything, can the City
Council do to encourage property owners who have access to city water to connect to it. The other is an
updated 20-Year Water Plan with costs and timetables.
Councilmember Zerby stated there should be a focus on getting those people who could connect to city
water to do so. Being there are 272 properties with access to water but are not connected to it is an
indicator there is something wrong with the water policy or that the connection fee is too high. He
expressed his desire for Staff to prepare a plan for delivering city water to as many properties as possible at
a cost that is as low as possible with a connection fee that attracts property owners to convert from well
water to city water. He explained the City’s roadways are aging; most of them were built in the 1970s and
will need to be replaced in the next 20 years. Twenty five years from now he doesn’t want residents asking
why the City didn’t extend water service when the roadways were replaced. He stated it’s prudent to tie the
extension of the system to the 20-Year Pavement Improvement Program. He then stated it would be helpful
for residents to have a general idea of when the roadway in front of their home will be reconstructed. That
information could help them in making decisions about how much to invest in repair and maintenance of
their wells.
Councilmember Woodruff stated Council needs to discuss whether or not the City should, or can, require
people to connect to City water. Councilmember Zerby clarified he is not suggesting the City require
property owners to do that. Woodruff stated even if the City did not assess property owners for watermain
extension or charge a fee to connect to the water system they still have to pay $2,000 – $4,000 to get the
water to their house. Also, there is a cost of around $1,000 to decommission their well. They also have to
pay for the water. He believes Council needs to discuss that. Zerby stated $2,000 – $4,000 is in line with
what it costs to replace a well, noting he did that in the last year. Zerby then stated his first home was 90
years old and it was hooked up to the Minneapolis water system and he didn’t have to replace the pipe.
Mayor Lizée stated it’s time to review the City’s water policy and bring it up to date with the direction
Council wants to go. But first the 20-Year Water Plan needs to be updated. The Plan should be shared with
the residents and their input should be solicited. She suggested Council take that leadership position. She
stated that once the cost estimates for extending the water system city wide have been identified those costs
can be added to the funds spent to date on the water system infrastructure and the cost per parcel can be
calculated. She asked Director Brown and Engineer Landini if they along with WSB & Associates could
have expansion cost estimates ready for a February 2012 Council work session. Brown responded that
could be done.
Councilmember Siakel stated it may be beneficial to communicate to residents the facts and details behind
how the $10,000 connection fee was arrived at.
Councilmember Woodruff stated Staff went through a lot of work to develop a water brochure. He asked if
the brochure is lacking information. Councilmember Siakel stated she has not seen that brochure.
Mayor Lizée stated it’s her understanding that Council wants to be more proactive when it comes to
extending the water system rather than just reacting to the 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan or
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 5 of 6
petitions that come in. Once the 20-Year Water Plan has been updated Council can discuss policy and
possibly adjusting it.
Councilmember Siakel stated residents should be provided with information about payment options.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that is covered in the water brochure.
Mayor Lizée noted that Ann and Chad Raymond, 6140 Pleasant Avenue, Shorewood, are present this
evening.
Ms. Raymond noted she and her husband spoke with Mayor Lizée on November 12, 2011, at the “coffee
with the mayor” about their desire to have watermain extended so they could have the opportunity to
connect to city water. She explained when their well water was tested in 2009 the level of arsenic was just
below 10; 10 or below is what the State classifies as safe for arsenic levels in municipal systems. Recent
tests of their water show the level of arsenic has increased to 30. The effects from arsenic are not seen for a
long time and include things such as liver cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and skin issues. She
expressed concern that City residents who get their water from wells may not have all of the information
about arsenic health issues. She commented she understood why property owners may not want to pay the
cost for watermain extension or connection when they assume their well water is safe.
Ms. Raymond stated she has spoken with residents in her neighborhood to see if they had any interest in
having a feasibility study done to determine what it would cost to extend watermain into their
neighborhood. She explained she spent two days gathering information and distributing flyers to 40
different homes. Unfortunately, only 8 people petitioned they would be interested in this. She noted she and
her husband want to pursue this in the future.
Mayor Lizée stated the City has published information about testing well water for arsenic in its newsletter
and it has information about it on the City website.
Ms. Raymond explained there are short-term ways to address safety issues with well water. But it can cost
$2,000 a year to improve the safety of the well water through a water purification company. At that rate, it
would take five years to pay for the cost of water connection fee.
Director Brown asked Ms. Raymond if she found the information in the City’s water brochure to be helpful
and complete. Ms. Raymond responded the brochure is very complete. It talks about the approximate cost
being $8,000 – $10,000 and it can be assessed over 10 years or paid at once through a private loan. It talks
about concerns people should have with their well water. There is a section in the brochure that talks about
if a roadway in front of your property is in need of reconstruction it’s more cost effective for the City to
extend watermain when it is reconstructed. Brown asked Ms. Raymond to forward any suggestions she
may have on how to improve the brochure.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is any information about where geographically arsenic levels may
be a more serious problem. Council could then consider making those areas a priority for watermain
extension.
Director Brown explained there is a fine line between data privacy issues and information the City would
seek. Property owners he has spoken with don’t want people to know they have arsenic issues with their
well water. The City does work with water testing companies that collect that type of data. One company
recently told him that it could possibly provide spot profiles across the City of the testing that they have
done of private well water with approximate locations. That would avoid violating any data privacy
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 6 of 6
concerns. He will also conduct research into any broader water testing that has been done in the
metropolitan area.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he appreciates residents concern that their property value may decrease if
people knew about arsenic issues in their well water. But, the City has a public responsibility to look into
such issues on a broader scale. He then stated that maybe the City could have some data modeling done
with data the City could have access to. He went on to state he would be more comfortable telling residents
the City is extending watermain to solve a problem with arsenic.
Councilmember Zerby recommended using the phrase “safe water plan” as a stamp on this project. He
asked if the City has included the elimination of the cost to treat well water and the increase in property
value into the benefits of connecting to city water. The benefit of having access to water when the power is
out is another benefit that should be touted. Another benefit is to live in an area with fire hydrants and to
have the ability to put a sprinkler in the house.
Councilmember Siakel stated it sounds like this will be a grass roots effort. She then stated she likes
Councilmember Zerby’s idea of having a “safe water plan”.
Councilmember Zerby explained that wellhead management should also address contaminants going the
other way; into the water.
Administrator Heck stated Staff will have the 20-Year Water Plan updated for a February 20, 2012,
Council work session. Staff will also research the Met Council water studies.
3. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of November 14,
2011, at 7:00 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 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
Councilmember Woodruff asked that Item 10.D Metro Cities Update be added to the agenda.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Executive Session Minutes, October 24, 2011
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of
October 24, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 24, 2011
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
October 24, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Zerby requested removal of Item 3C – New
tobacco License for discussion.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Extension of Deadline to File Plat – Bill Erickson
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Mayor Lizée noted that Scouts from Troup 424 were present this evening. They are working on a
Citizenship in the Community merit badge. She stated Troop 424 is one of the premier troops in the State
of Minnesota. This Troop has a lot of Scouts of various ages. The Scouts have a lot of civic pride. She
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 2 of 10
explained she works with members of Troop 424 Scouts at Art on the Lake. She also works with them at
the Friends of the Excelsior Library book sales.
Scout Brady Bunkelman stated the Scouts are present to listen to Council discuss issues and to comment
on whether or not they agree with Council’s perspective.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
7. PARKS
No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last Council
meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2011.
8. PLANNING
Commissioner Arnst reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 1, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
A. Draft Variance Amendment
Director Nielsen explained that during its September 20, 2011, and October 4, 2011, meetings the
Planning Commission held public hearings to consider revisions to the Shorewood Zoning Code
regarding granting of variances in order to make the Code consistent with changes in State Statutes. The
meeting packet contains a copy of the text amendment. The amendment moves away from the “test of
hardship” to the standard of “practical difficulty.” The Commission recommends approving the
Ordinance. The change gives the City a little more flexibility in granting variances.
Mayor Lizée stated the words “or previous property owner” were added to the ordinance language and
asked Director Nielsen to explain why that was added. Nielsen explained that in the past the City has had
to explain to the current property owner that something done to the property by a previous property owner
prohibits the current property from getting a variance. Rather than having to explain that each time the
City considers a variance, it was clarified in the Code. He cited a couple of examples of when a previous
owner did something that prohibited the current property from getting a variance.
Councilmember Zerby stated he assumes other cities have had similar issues. He asked Director Nielsen if
he researched if other cities’ ordinances contain the language “or previous property owner.” Nielsen
responded he had not.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 485 “An Ordinance Amending
the Shorewood Zoning Code as it Pertains to the Granting of Variances.” Motion passed 5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
None.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 3 of 10
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Certification of Delinquent Utility Bills
Director DeJong explained it is standard practice for the City to certify unpaid, delinquent utility bills to
Hennepin County to be levied against the respective properties for collection the next year. 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. He noted that “payable in 2011” needs to be changed to “payable
in 2012” in the resolution.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the interest charged on the delinquent accounts is 8 percent per annum.
He asked how that rate was determined, noting the City doesn’t earn anywhere close to that amount on its
investments. Director DeJong explained that rate is the maximum allowable in statute and that is what the
City uses as a standard rate. Woodruff commented that the City may not get reimbursed from the County
through the property tax process until June or December of 2012. Therefore, the average the rate would
be 6 percent or less.
Councilmember Zerby stated he is comfortable with the 8 percent interest rate.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 11-063, “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” subject to changing “payable in
2011” to “payable in 2012”. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Discussion to Consider Conducting Town Hall Meetings
Administrator Heck stated Councilmember Hotvet asked him if the City has ever held town hall type
meetings and if he thought they would be a good idea. Hotvet also asked to put this item on the agenda
for Council to discuss.
Councilmember Hotvet explained she was more curious about whether or not the City had held town hall
meetings and if so how they were received. She stated that type of meeting would provide a good
platform for discussing the results of the resident survey. She commented the atmosphere of that type of
meeting is more casual than a regular Council meeting.
Mayor Lizée expressed her support for creating more informal paths for residents to communicate with
Council. She then stated the response to the survey has been great and there will be a presentation from
the company that conducted the survey early in 2012 and stated that after the presentation and discussion
a session can be scheduled to present the findings to the residents if that is what Council wants.
Councilmember Zerby stated it is important for Council to discuss the format and objectives for that
meeting.
Councilmember Siakel stated she supports having a town hall type meeting if there is something specific
to discuss. They shouldn’t automatically be scheduled.
Administrator Heck explained that after the consultant makes the presentation to Council, they are willing
to come back and facilitate a focus group type meeting on specific issues.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 4 of 10
C. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board Representative Appointment
Mayor Lizée explained the City is one of 14 cities in the Lake Minnetonka area with a representative on
the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board. In January, the Council decided it wanted a
citizen representative for this Board. Earlier in the evening Council held a special meeting to interview
two candidates. The applicants were Mark Sylvester and David Cross.
Councilmember Siakel stated she was impressed with both applicants.
Councilmember Zerby noted Councilmember Siakel did a wonderful job of representing the City and its
residents on an interim basis this year. The City had been seeking residents to apply for the position all
year. He stated he was also impressed with the two applicants.
Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-064, “A Resolution Making the
Appointment of Mark Sylvester to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Effective January 1,
2012, through January 31, 2014.” Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Lizée thanked Mr. Sylvester, who was in the audience, for offering his time and energy to the City
and the LMCD Board.
Councilmember Siakel noted she just recently received noticed that a work session is scheduled for
November 16, 2011, at 6:00 P.M. at Tonka Bay City Hall to discuss the future of aquatic invasive species
management for Lake Minnetonka.
D. Metro Cities Update
Councilmember Woodruff explained Metro Cities and the League of Minnesota Cities will hold their
regional meeting on November 17, 2011. Metro Cities has a short business meeting to vote on the
legislative policies for 2012. He, Administrator Heck, Director DeJong, Director Brown, and Director
Nielsen, served on various committees. He stated he is attending the meeting. He asked for Council’s
direction regarding voting for or against the policies. His intention is to vote for the policies unless
someone objects.
Mayor Lizée asked Councilmember Woodruff to give Council a brief overview. Woodruff stated he is on
the Municipal Revenue and Taxation Committee. Property tax and local government aid are two
significant issues. The Committee is recommending the State spend time discussing how the property tax
is calculated and the fairness of it.
Councilmember Zerby explained he reviewed information about the policies and he thought the policies
are fine. He stated he supports Councilmember Woodruff voting in favor of the policies for the City.
Administrator Heck highlighted some issues that will be coming up, including public pension reform,
property tax and local government aid, and the structure of the Metropolitan Council.
E. New Tobacco License Request
Applicant: Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco
Location: 23710 Highway 7, Shorewood Village Shopping Center
Councilmember Zerby requested removal of this item from the consent agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 5 of 10
Councilmember Zerby stated he has two concerns with this license request. He noted that he recently
graduated from the very first South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Citizens Police
Academy. He explained during one session the attendees reviewed of the robbery of the Lakeshore
Market located in the City of Greenwood. During this session, Greenwood Councilmember Fletcher
stated the store carries a large amount of tobacco paraphernalia some of which has some questionable
uses. There was question about how that should be addressed. He suggested Council review the City’s
tobacco ordinance and decide if it should, or can, be modified to address the sale of paraphernalia in the
City. He noted the City requires a background check on applicants requesting a tobacco license. He
explained he did a Google search on the applicant and he found a couple of things that concern him but he
is not sure they are accurate. He stated he would like to hear about the background information offline.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, continuing the Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc., request for a
tobacco license for the sale of tobacco products to the November 28, 2011, Council meeting. Motion
passed 5/0.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Domestic Partnership Registry Ordinance
Mayor Lizée explained that during its October 10, 2011, and October 24, 2011, meeting Council
th
discussed domestic partnership registry. During the October 24 meeting Council discussed a draft
Domestic Partnership Registry Ordinance. Council made some changes to the draft Ordinance. A copy of
the revised draft Ordinance is included in the meeting packet along with some sample documents. She
asked Council if it had any questions.
Councilmember Woodruff commented the revised Ordinance includes the changes Council
recommended. He stated he is comfortable that the Ordinance will do what Council thinks it wants to do.
He commented that he was pleased to see sample forms.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving Ordinance No. 486, “An Ordinance Amending Title
100 of the Shorewood City Code Concerning Domestic Partners.”
Councilmember Zerby expressed his discomfort with the City taking this role on. He stated he can
support this because the State has not taken this on. He asked Council to adopt a resolution urging the
State of Minnesota to adopt a domestic partnership registry process. This Ordinance can be retired after
the State adopts such a process.
Without objection from the maker or seconder, the motion was amended to include directing Staff
to prepare a resolution urging the State of Minnesota, the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro
Cities to adopt a domestic partnership registry policy for Council to adopt. Motion passed 5/0.
Alison Hawkinson, 20815 Idlewild Path, stated she obtained information from OutFront Minnesota about
domestic partnership registry noting it is the one organizing it. She then stated she wanted people to be
honest about the purpose of the Ordinance. If it is to help people to visit their partner in the hospital or
being eligible for benefits she did not think it would fulfill that purpose. She then stated there hasn’t been
anything about this published in the Shorewood newsletter to date. She explained she brought this topic
up to her neighbor and that individual had no idea what domestic partnership registry is. She asked what
the hurry was in adopting this Ordinance.
th
Ms. Hawkinson then stated during the October 24 Council meeting a representative from OutFront
Minnesota had said this ordinance would send the message that the City was a welcoming community.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 6 of 10
She cited an example of when she and her husband were very welcoming to people that moved into the
neighborhood, and that her home was a safe home. She stated she doesn’t need Council to say she is
friendly.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he appreciated hearing Ms. Hawkinson’s input. He reiterated a comment
thth
made by Mayor Lizée during Council’s October 10 and October 24 meetings that this topic came up
more than a year ago during the candidates forum. A participant asked the candidates what they knew
about domestic partner registry. He noted that he did not understand it very well at that time. He noted all
Councilmembers with the exception of Councilmember Zerby were present at the forum. He explained
the question was submitted from a resident in the audience during the forum; OutFront Minnesota had
nothing to do with getting the question asked. He noted he is aware of who asked the question. He stated
that since the forum OutFront has become aware of cities considering this Ordinance and submitted
information in support of these Ordinances. He clarified the Ordinance does whatever someone can make
out of it. The City doesn’t do anything as a result of approving the Ordinance except to provide a
certificate stating the partners have registered and provide information that the partners have registered,
and if the partners elect to terminate their relationship there is a termination process to follow. The City is
not doing or advocating anything. The partnership can be between couples of the opposite sex, same sex
or something else.
Mayor Lizée thanked Councilmember Woodruff for his comments and noted they were well said.
B. Review Draft Dog License Ordinance Amendment
Administrator Heck explained the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to provide input about
amending the City Code regarding the licensing of dogs, particularly as it relates to the number of dogs
allowed per home and the license fee. He clarified Staff is not asking Council to adopt a draft ordinance
this evening. He noted that he has spoken with South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD)
Community Service Supervisor (CSS) Hohertz about this and Hohertz likes what Staff and the Planning
Commission have prepared. Hohertz suggested including an appeal process to the ordinance for when a
dog has been designated as potentially dangerous. Hohertz informed him that there is one dog in the City
designated as dangerous and a couple of others designated as potentially dangerous. He stated
communications between the SLMPD and the City has to be worked out.
Heck highlighted the amendment. Provisions have been added for dangerous dogs and potentially
dangerous dogs. Additional information has been added about the care of dogs. A provision has been
added regarding denying a license to someone who violates certain conditions of the State law. A
provision was added to address confinement in a motor vehicle giving an Animal Enforcement Officer the
right to enter a vehicle if necessary to remove an animal.
Heck explained the Planning Commission recommends that obtaining a license should be easy and low
cost or even free, and that the license potentially be in effect as long as the dog’s rabies vaccination is
active which can be up to three years. The Commission also recommends the City impose a hefty fine for
those residents who do not obtain a license as an incentive to get their dogs licensed. Staff recommends a
$65 fine for a dog being at-large, impounded, and unlicensed.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission also recommended doing away with the kennel license
and limiting the number of dogs in a home to four.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he doesn’t recollect the Planning Commission reviewing the entire
ordinance. It did discuss some pieces of it. He then stated he agrees with a $10 license fee for a one year
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 7 of 10
license and $20 for a two year license, and with the fine being $65. He suggested the term of the license
be a 12-month or 24-month period from the date it is issued.
Woodruff highlighted a number of other comments he had about the language in the draft ordinance.
They are as follows.
Section 701.02 Provocation – It doesn’t address very long leashes if another person is in
the vicinity of the dog and he thought that should be considered.
Section 701.04 Subd. 6 Denial of license – It should explain that the items referenced are
State Statutes. He suggested making it more general because State Statutes change.
Section 701.04 Subd. 8 Dog Ownership Review – It refers to the animal control
authority. A definition needs to be added for that authority. And, if it is the SLMPD then
the three words should be capitalized throughout the Ordinance.
Section 701.10 Subd. 4 Redemption by Owner– It refers to Animal Control Agency. If
that is the same as the animal control authority it should say that. He noted he brings this
up because in the past few years the City has been burned by not including words.
Section 701.11 Subd. 2(a) and 2(b)(1) Rabies in City – It refers to the Health Officer. He
asked who that is.
Section 701.11 Subd. 2(b)(2) Rabies in City – It refers to the Administrator. He asked if
that should be the City Clerk.
Councilmember Zerby asked if Councilmember Woodruff had any other policy comments.
Councilmember Hotvet requested the Section 701.11 Destruction of Certain Dogs be clarified.
A Scout stated he thought he heard someone say that having your dog in a car is illegal and that animal
control can break a window to get the dog out. He asked how a person would get their dog from one place
to another. Attorney Keane explained that provision is qualified where there is excessive heat and the
vehicle is not properly ventilated. Keane stated for example if the windows were closed and it was a hot
day and the animal was in threat of danger to its health or life. Those are additional conditions.
A second Scout asked if the $65 fine will apply to stray dogs. Administrator Heck explained if the City
doesn’t know who owns the dog and no one comes to retrieve it from the impound area then the
ordinance addresses what to do with the dog. The Scout asked if the dog would have to be licensed before
it was taken away. Heck stated the owner would have to do that.
Attorney Keane read Section 701.13 Subd. 3(1) Confinement in Motor Vehicle which states “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.”
Councilmember Zerby explained there are quite a few cities nearby (Plymouth, Minnetonka, Brooklyn
Center, New Brighton, Falcon Heights and Northfield) that no longer charge a license fee. He stated there
is an encumbrance to the City to prepare and issue the licenses. He questioned what value a license adds.
He explained the cities noted do require animals to have proper identification so they can be reunited with
their owner should they get lost. He clarified he is not suggesting dropping impound fees. They are
appropriate because there are costs associated with impounding an animal. The impound fees should be in
line with what it costs the SLMPD and the City. He stated he is not sure what percent of dog owners in
the City license their dogs regularly.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 8 of 10
Councilmember Woodruff stated it’s his recollection that earlier this year Council discussed dog licensing
and concluded that the City should continue to license dogs with a primary reason being to ensure
residents had their dogs vaccinated for rabies. As part of the license application, the dog owner has to
provide proof that their dog has been vaccinated. He asked why there is any discussion about wanting to
license dogs.
Mayor Lizée noted the SLMPD provides animal control services to the City and the other three member
cities in the SLMPD joint powers organization. She commented that animal licensing will most likely
come up annually.
Administrator Heck explained the cities Councilmember Zerby mentioned don’t charge a license fee
because they eliminated their dog license provision in their ordinances. He noted the City of Golden
Valley considered eliminating its provision but chose not to because a dog has to be licensed to be in a
particular dog park located in the City of Minneapolis. He explained the City’s cost associated with
licensing of dogs is to prepare the paper work and purchase license tags. He noted that the dog tag the
City has now has an expiration date stamped on it. A decision could be made to have a tag that doesn’t
have the date on it. He stated the $20 fee may be more than the City needs to recover for issuing a license.
If the City were to raise the fee, it could potentially discourage even more residents from licensing their
dog. He noted that it isn’t any more work for Staff to issue a two-year license than it does a one-year
license. He stated Staff will come back with a revised document and a recommendation on what the
license fee should be.
Councilmember Zerby stated the City of Minnetrista’s Ordinance states dogs have to be properly licensed
but it does not say a dog has to have a City issued license tag. He apologized to Councilmember
Woodruff for bringing up the topic of licensing again. He explained he continually tries to find ways to
get government out of people’s hair. If Council can eliminate one less burden on residents without
affecting the City then he wants to do that. He stated he is fine with leaving this alone.
Councilmember Woodruff stated there is inexpensive equipment the City could purchase to stamp the
expiration date on the license tag. Councilmember Zerby stated they could be color coded by month
similar to license tabs.
Administrator Heck stated this will be placed on Council’s December 12, 2011, meeting agenda for
consideration.
A third Scout asked what branch of government is in charge of dog rules for example. Administrator
Heck explained cities and counties can license animals such as dogs. For things such as pet stores and
kennels the State licenses them. Attorney Keane explained there is a set of State regulations for dangerous
animals that require registration. If any animal has caused great bodily harm to a human being then under
State law that animal may be designated as dangerous and that carries a great deal of additional
responsibility for its owner.
A fourth Scout how much it costs to have a RFID chip implanted. Mayor Lizée stated that is done by a
veterinarian and the chip is inserted under the animal’s skin. Attorney Keane stated he recently had that
done for one of his animals and it cost $34 plus registration. Councilmember Woodruff commented the
chip stays with the animal and it can be read by animal control authorities, noting there is no legal
requirement for an owner to have a chip implanted in their animal. Heck clarified a dangerous dog must
have a chip.
A fifth Scout asked what branch of local government would hold a town hall meeting. Mayor Lizée
responded City Council would discuss the reason for having a meeting and then select a date for holding
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 9 of 10
it. She explained Council meetings are video recorded for future viewing on television or the internet, and
minutes of the meeting are written and they can be found on the City’s website. If Council wants to hold a
town hall meeting it would be published in the City’s newsletter, it would be noticed on the City’s
website, it would be talked about during Council meetings, and paper notices would be put up at City
Hall.
Councilmember Woodruff explained the City doesn’t have branches of government like the state and
federal governments do. The City has a Council and a staff. He reviewed the organization structure of the
City. That information can be found on the City’s website. He explained the City contracts for public
safety services. He stated the City Administrator actually calls the meeting.
Mayor Lizée stated people can come to City Hall and ask to get in touch with Councilmembers or that can
be done through the City’s website.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck explained the Excelsior Fire Department (EFD) is going to conduct a live-burn
th
training exercise at the City-owned property located at 24620 Smithtown Road on November 26. The
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie Fire Departments will also participate in that training exercise. The
Departments are very grateful to the Council for having the opportunity to conduct such valuable training.
Councilmember Zerby noted he spoke with South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Chief
Litsey about this house and Litsey indicated that the SLMPD could also potentially do some training there
before the live-burn event.
Heck then explained the City has received over 500 survey responses back from the residents and that
amounts to an approximate 45 percent response rate. The cutoff date for returning surveys is November
thth
18. He attended the first CityCampMN unconference session on November 12. Some of the breakout
sessions he attended were not that valuable. One session he attended was excellent. As a result of that
session, he is going to meet with representatives from StepFirm which is based out of the United
th
Kingdom. The meeting is scheduled for November 15. That company has been working with local
governments in the UK for the last 10 – 15 years on web based applications. He noted he will be
th
attending an EFD Board meeting on November 16, the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities
th
Annual Meeting scheduled for November 17, and that he and Mayor Lizée will be meeting with the
th
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on November 16.
Heck noted he received an email from a City resident complaining that the new City identification signs
are too large. He explained there are requirements for the size of lettering. The size of the lettering on the
new signs is significantly larger than what is required. The required size is 6 inches for capital letters; the
capital letters on the new signs are 11 inches. The required size for lower case letters is at least 4.5 inches.
There is also more spacing between the phrases than there needs to be. The size of the new sign is 4 feet
by 6 feet. The size of the existing signs along Highway 7 is 2 feet by 6.5 feet.
He also noted the State of Minnesota considers the words “A South Lake Community” on the signs
advertising. Therefore, it is not allowed on signs along Highway 7. The only thing allowed on those signs
is the name of the city and the population. He stated the City could make an appeal to the Department of
Transportation for having the tag line on the signs. Staff is going to design a sign that fits on a 3-foot tall
frame.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2011
Page 10 of 10
Heck explained the eight new signs cost approximately $1,800. He related that Director Brown told him
that the Public Works Department has a large amount of scrap metal that it will recycle and get paid for.
The amount it will receive should pay for the cost of new signs. He stated that for the next Council
meeting Staff will have life size mockups for Council to look at. He then stated he, Director Brown,
Director Nielsen and Engineer Landini met earlier in the day to discuss the various options.
Director Nielsen stated this past weekend was the third weekend of the 2011 deer harvesting effort. The
bow hunters took eight more deer bringing the year-to-date harvested total to 27. That is more than in past
years. He noted there is at least one more weekend this year.
Director Brown explained during a previous Council meeting there was discussion about the intersection
at the Yellowstone Trail and Glencoe Road. Staff has received a draft report but it does not address the
driveway sight distance issue. It did address the intersection and traffic calming aspects. The report has
th
been sent back to WSB & Associates with comments. That should be available for the November 28
Council meeting. Mayor Lizée thanked Brown for doing that.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Hotvet stated Wal-Mart proposed to build a Super Wal-Mart in Chanhassen at the corner
of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. As of today, 1094 residents expressed their opposition to this
th
project. The Chanhassen City Council will vote on this during its November 28 meeting.
Councilmember Zerby expressed his pleasure with how the sign size issue will be resolved. The new sign
was much larger than he expected. He thanked Staff for finding a solution, noting things like this happen.
nd
He stated he attended an Excelsior Fire District Board work session on November 2. The purpose of that
work session was to discuss the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) pension program
funding. He explained one of the issues discussed was how to minimize the funding impact of mandatory
contributions to the EFRA fund for pensions. He noted when the second station was built; the fund had to
absorb the increased firefighters without a contribution from the EFD member cities. Prior to the severe
downturn in the financial markets, the EFRA was able to sustain the liability through its investments. He
th
stated he attended the CityCampMN unconference seminar on November 12.
Mayor Lizée stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District annual heroes’ banquet will be held on
th
November 17. She then stated she will be attending an annual luncheon for Senior Community Services
th
on November 18. She noted the South Shore Senior Partners put on a wonderful Veterans Day program
th
and luncheon on November 11.
13. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 14,
2011, at 8:37 P.M. Motion passed P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Finance November 28, 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 52363 through
52405 totaling $307,636.67.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
11/22/2011 12:01 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 1
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE:11/15/2011 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 11/22/2011 000000 12,015.49
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 11/22/2011 000000 2,194.03
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 11/22/2011 000000 1,092.39
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 11/22/2011 052363 1,580.54
00052 PERA R 11/22/2011 052364 7,032.89
01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 11/28/2011 052366 182.67
1 BOLLIG & SONS INC R 11/28/2011 052367 550.00
03550 BROWN, LAWRENCE R 11/28/2011 052368 215.00
04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 11/28/2011 052369 45.23
26100 CENTURY LINK R 11/28/2011 052370 121.93
29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 11/28/2011 052371 847.47
29415 CUB FOODS MINNETONKA R 11/28/2011 052372 30.96
07383 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN R 11/28/2011 052373 150.00
12125 FEDEX KINKO'S R 11/28/2011 052374 19.29
08500 FRONTIER PRECISION, INC. R 11/28/2011 052375 811.98
29414 GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, INC. R 11/28/2011 052376 511.12
27400 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. R 11/28/2011 052377 431.16
29265 JEFFREY W. LAMBERT, P.A. R 11/28/2011 052378 337.50
11650 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED R 11/28/2011 052379 10.72
21340 LOCAL LINK R 11/28/2011 052380 69.95
15403 MAMA R 11/28/2011 052381 20.00
15050 MEDIACOM R 11/28/2011 052382 101.90
11/22/2011 12:01 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE:11/15/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
00079 MEDICA R 11/28/2011 052383 14,591.28
15176 MENARDS R 11/28/2011 052384 74.72
15800 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. R 11/28/2011 052385 28,392.00
00085 MINNESOTA LIFE R 11/28/2011 052386 222.47
19750 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT COUN R 11/28/2011 052387 214.53
15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 11/28/2011 052388 279.42
29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 11/28/2011 052389 685.10
20283 PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. R 11/28/2011 052390 153.36
1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 11/28/2011 052391 781.26
1 RONS MECHANICAL INC R 11/28/2011 052392 71.40
22347 RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. R 11/28/2011 052393 78.00
22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 11/28/2011 052394 201.50
23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 11/28/2011 052395 82,642.00
29294 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY C R 11/28/2011 052396 115.51
29142 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT R 11/28/2011 052397 180.00
25050 TOWER, TERRY R 11/28/2011 052398 145.01
25452 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC R 11/28/2011 052399 100.00
70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 11/28/2011 052400 71.37
27190 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY R 11/28/2011 052401 47.54
29269 WARNER CONNECT R 11/28/2011 052402 2,800.00
28350 WOODRUFF, RICHARD R 11/28/2011 052403 42.90
19800 XCEL ENERGY R 11/28/2011 052404 6,405.80
11/22/2011 12:01 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE:11/15/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN E 11/28/2011 999999 408.00
15500 METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER E 11/28/2011 999999 59,486.26
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. E 11/28/2011 999999 500.00
19435 SPRINT E 11/28/2011 999999 118.47
20950 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. E 11/28/2011 999999 300.00
28451 WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. E 11/28/2011 999999 26,731.50
29232 HECK, BRIAN E 11/28/2011 999999 29.70
* * T O T A L S * * NO INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNTS CHECK AMOUNT
REGULAR CHECKS: 41 151,365.48 0.00 151,365.48
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 3 15,301.91 0.00 15,301.91
EFT: 7 87,573.93 0.00 87,573.93
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: 51 254,241.32 0.00 254,241.32
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 51 254,241.32 0.00 254,241.32
REPORT TOTALS: 51 254,241.32 0.00 254,241.32
11-22-2011 11:57 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 28, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 11/28/11 CHARLIES DAVIS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00
11/28/11 GREG FASCHING General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00
11/28/11 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00
11/28/11 BRADLEY MASON General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00
11/28/11 CHRISTOPHER POUNDER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00
11/28/11 DANIEL RANDALL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00
11/28/11 BRUCE STARK General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00
11/28/11 TERRY TOWER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00_
TOTAL: 408.00
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 11/28/11 GEN EXP REIM Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 182.67_
TOTAL: 182.67
BROWN, LAWRENCE 11/28/11 PRMT FEE EXCAV IN CTY RD-W Water Utility Water 215.00_
TOTAL: 215.00
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 11/28/11 SWAY BAR RETURN General Fund Public Works 12.77-
11/28/11 HYD HOSE-CRIMPS-FITTING General Fund Public Works 58.00_
TOTAL: 45.23
CENTURY LINK 11/28/11 SVC-11/13-12/12 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 121.93_
TOTAL: 121.93
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 11/28/11 C.H. SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 531.01
11/28/11 P.W. SVC General Fund Public Works 316.46_
TOTAL: 847.47
CUB FOODS MINNETONKA 11/28/11 OCTOBERFEST SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 30.96_
TOTAL: 30.96
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 11/22/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,198.95
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,152.58
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 743.16
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80.60
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18.87
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 279.32
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 65.32
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 381.26
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 89.17
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 299.70
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 70.08
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 288.32
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 67.42
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 194.85
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 45.57
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 166.85
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 39.03
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 513.73
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 120.15
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 187.72
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 43.90
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 13.99
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 3.27
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 41.99
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 9.82
11/22/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 171.90
11-22-2011 11:57 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 28, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 40.20
11/22/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 9.40
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 2.19
11/22/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 239.61
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 56.05
11/22/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 184.53
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 43.16
11/22/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 4.69
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 1.10
11/22/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 119.18
11/22/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 27.86_
TOTAL: 12,015.49
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE 11/28/11 RELAMP @ VINE HILL-NB OH G General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 150.00_
TOTAL: 150.00
FEDEX KINKO'S 11/28/11 COPY HOUSE PLANS General Fund Protective Inspections 19.29_
TOTAL: 19.29
FRONTIER PRECISION, INC. 11/28/11 CRAIN /TRIPOD/NIKON General Fund City Engineer 580.00
11/28/11 CRAIN /TRIPOD/NIKON General Fund City Engineer 231.98_
TOTAL: 811.98
GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, INC. 11/28/11 ORGANIC DEICER General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 511.12_
TOTAL: 511.12
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 11/28/11 "G" VALVE BOX IMP Water Utility Water 431.16_
TOTAL: 431.16
HECK, BRIAN 11/28/11 NOV MILEAGE REIM General Fund Administration 29.70_
TOTAL: 29.70
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,435.96
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 144.58_
TOTAL: 1,580.54
JEFFREY W. LAMBERT, P.A. 11/28/11 LEE ALLEN BERGLUND General Fund Professional Svcs 337.50_
TOTAL: 337.50
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 11/28/11 RON JOHNSON LITIGATION General Fund Professional Svcs 10.72_
TOTAL: 10.72
KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. 11/28/11 EVERETT FORFEITURE-1993 HO General Fund Professional Svcs 300.00_
TOTAL: 300.00
LOCAL LINK 11/28/11 DEC -ADSL General Fund Municipal Buildings 69.95_
TOTAL: 69.95
MAMA 11/28/11 10/13 MEETING-RAMADA PLAZA General Fund Administration 20.00_
TOTAL: 20.00
MEDIACOM 11/28/11 DEC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 50.95
11/28/11 NOV SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 50.95_
TOTAL: 101.90
MEDICA 11/28/11 MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 14,591.28
11-22-2011 11:57 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 28, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 14,591.28
MENARDS 11/28/11 LUMBER BADGER RINKS General Fund Public Works 74.72_
TOTAL: 74.72
METRO COUNCIL ENVMT(WASTEWATER) 11/28/11 WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 59,486.26_
TOTAL: 59,486.26
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. 11/28/11 HAUL SWEEPINGS DISPOSAL General Fund Streets & Roadways 10,000.00
11/28/11 HAUL SWEEPINGS DISPOSAL Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 18,392.00_
TOTAL: 28,392.00
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 11/28/11 DEC POSTAGE General Fund General Government 500.00_
TOTAL: 500.00
MINNESOTA LIFE 11/28/11 LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 222.47_
TOTAL: 222.47
MISC. VENDOR BOLLIG & SONS INC 11/28/11 BOLLIG & SONS INC:INV#7389 Community Infrastr Community Infrastructu 550.00
RONS MECHANICAL INC 11/28/11 4976 DEVONSHIRE CIRCLE-CAN General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 70.00
RONS MECHANICAL INC 11/28/11 4976 DEVONSHIRE CIRCLE-CAN General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1.40_
TOTAL: 621.40
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 11/22/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,194.03_
TOTAL: 2,194.03
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT COUNT 11/28/11 SNOWPLOWER LIGHT KITS General Fund Public Works 214.53_
TOTAL: 214.53
OFFICE DEPOT 11/28/11 GEN OFFICE SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 228.14
11/28/11 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 51.28_
TOTAL: 279.42
ON SITE SANITATION INC 11/28/11 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/28/11 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/28/11 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13
11/28/11 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/28/11 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96
11/28/11 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13_
TOTAL: 685.10
PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 11/28/11 CABLE TIES-FLASHLIGHTS General Fund Public Works 153.36_
TOTAL: 153.36
PERA 11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,255.97
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 336.74
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 446.89
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 361.17
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 370.74
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 254.56
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 195.75
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 639.98
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 222.21
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 17.00
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 49.10
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 211.85
11-22-2011 11:57 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 28, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 10.98
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 290.34
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 220.40
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 5.49
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 143.72_
TOTAL: 7,032.89
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 11/28/11 LIFE INSURANCE General Fund Unallocated Expenses 781.26_
TOTAL: 781.26
RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. 11/28/11 BRUSH DISPOSAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 78.00_
TOTAL: 78.00
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 11/28/11 CLEANING SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 201.50_
TOTAL: 201.50
SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 11/28/11 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE General Fund Police Protection 82,642.00_
TOTAL: 82,642.00
SPRINT 11/28/11 SVC 08/13-09/12 Water Utility Water 59.23
11/28/11 SVC 08/13-09/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 59.24_
TOTAL: 118.47
STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATI 11/28/11 CLEANING SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 115.51_
TOTAL: 115.51
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT 11/28/11 SNOWSHOEING-FREEMAN PK 12/ General Fund Parks & Recreation 180.00_
TOTAL: 180.00
TOWER, TERRY 11/28/11 GAS DUE TO LOCKED OUT GAS General Fund Public Works 145.01_
TOTAL: 145.01
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 11/28/11 COLIFORM BACTERIAS Water Utility Water 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/28/11 BRAD CEL --SVC 10/13-11/12 General Fund Planning 71.37_
TOTAL: 71.37
WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 11/28/11 OIL FOR CHAINSAWS General Fund Tree Maintenance 47.54_
TOTAL: 47.54
WARNER CONNECT 11/28/11 MAINT SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 2,800.00_
TOTAL: 2,800.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 803.94
11/22/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 1,092.39
WOODRUFF, RICHARD 11/28/11 LMC REGIONAL MTG-EAGAN CTR General Fund Council 42.90_
TOTAL: 42.90
WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 11/28/11 SMITHTOWN WAY-ROAD CIP Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 6,669.00
11/28/11 AUG- 2011 MILL & OVERLAY Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 4,914.00
11/28/11 AUG-GIS & CAD SUPPORT Water Utility Water 982.33
11/28/11 AUG-GIS & CAD SUPPORT Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 982.33
11/28/11 AUG-GIS & CAD SUPPORT Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 982.34
11-22-2011 11:57 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR-NOVEMBER 28, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
11/28/11 6180 MURRAY HILL DRAINAGE Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 12,201.50_
TOTAL: 26,731.50
XCEL ENERGY 11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 General Fund Municipal Buildings 466.66
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 General Fund Police Protection 0.35
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 General Fund Public Works 453.25
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 27.20
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 392.10
11/28/11 5655 MERRY LN-SVC 10/27-11 General Fund Parks & Recreation 12.56
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 General Fund Parks & Recreation 421.17
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 Water Utility Water 683.06
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 Water Utility Water 1,302.20
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 Water Utility Water 2,226.93
11/28/11 SVC 09/21-10/25 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 420.32_
TOTAL: 6,405.80
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 11/21/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300.00
General Fund Administration 4,644.67
General Fund General Government 6,163.94
General Fund Finance 4,981.78
General Fund Planning 5,113.69
General Fund Protective Inspections 3,511.19
General Fund City Engineer 2,699.90
General Fund Public Works 8,827.32
General Fund Streets & Roadways 3,064.77
General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 234.46
General Fund Tree Maintenance 677.30
General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,922.00
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 151.44
Water Utility Water 4,004.73
Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 3,040.03
Recycling Utility Recycling 75.72
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,982.41_
TOTAL: 53,395.35
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 185,612.27
404 Street Capital Improvemen 11,583.00
450 Community Infrastructure 550.00
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 928.48
601 Water Utility 10,590.64
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 64,436.27
621 Recycling Utility 87.00
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 33,849.01
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 307,636.67
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 5
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: 2012 Aerial Deer Survey
Meeting Date: 28 November 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: Should Shorewood participate in the 2012 Aerial Deer Survey, sponsored by
Three Rivers Park District?
Background: As part of Shorewood’s Deer Management Program, the City has participated in an annual
aerial survey in which the numbers of deer in the community are counted. It is the only measurement
tool we have beyond resident input. Three Rivers Park District has asked if we wish to participate in the
survey for 2012. The estimated cost for the survey is the same as last year, with a $10/hour fuel
surcharge added if fuel prices increase.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The City has budgeted $1000 for 2012. The cost of the survey,
even with the potential surcharge, should not exceed the budgeted amount.
Options: Participate in the program or forego the count.
Recommendation / Action Requested: As mentioned above, the survey is our best tool for determining
the effectiveness of the deer management program. Participation in the survey is recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will advise Three Rivers Park District of the Council’s decision on
Monday night. The survey is conducted in early winter as soon as adequate snow is present to facilitate
the counting.
Connection to Vision / Mission: The deer management program contributes to a healthy environment.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#3C
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject:
Certification of Delinquent Utility Bills
Meeting Date: November 28, 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. This procedure is consistent with
prior year actions.
Staff is performing this second certification at the request of the City of Chanhassen. Similar to last year,
there are two properties that receive service from Chanhassen, but are physically located in Shorewood.
These properties received the full notification and opportunity to discuss the situation with the
Chanhassen City Council, but have chosen the route of certification. We will certify these items to the
property taxes and remit payments to Chanhassen next year as they are received.
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.
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.
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, 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 utility charges exist for the specified
properties set forth below,
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 2012, for properties at:
PID Amount
35-117-23-34-0034 $191.08
35-117-23-43-0006 $76.56
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 28 day of
November, 2011.
_________________________________
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
_________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Shady Hills Traffic Control Petition
Meeting Date: 28 November 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Attachments: A – Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 13 January 2011
B – May/July Traffic Count Summaries
C – Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 11 August 2011
D – Resident Correspondence
E – September Traffic Count Summary
F – September Traffic Count Details
Policy Consideration: Should traffic control measures currently existing in the Shady Hills neighborhood
be modified per a resident petition.
Background: The majority of the background for this item can be found in Attachment A. Having
received a petition from Shady Hills residents for certain revisions to the current traffic controls in their
neighborhood, staff conducted a cursory traffic volume and speed count using the speed cart operated
by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. Counts/speeds were recorded during the school year
and during the summer months when school was not in session. The results were reported back to the
neighborhood at a meeting in August. Questions arose about the possibility of “speed buggy
intimidation” and staff agreed to redo the counts in a more discreet manner (simple traffic counters).
The results are summarized in Attachment E, the details of which are provided in Attachment F.
After considerable review of the data and input from residents, the Planning Commission forwarded the
following recommendation to the City Council (see Planning Commission minutes from 4 October 2011
for detailed discussion):
“Geng moved, Hasek seconded, to recommend that the vegetation be cut back at the corner of
Shady Hills Road and Brom's Blvd., install a no-right turn effective from 7:00 to 8:00 A.M.
sign from eastbound Brom's Blvd. onto Shady Hills Road year-round, and remove the no-left
turn sign from Shady Hills Road onto Brom's Blvd. Motion passed 5/0.”
Financial or Budget Considerations: Removal of vegetation can be done as part of routine road
maintenance. The one additional sign recommended by the Commission will cost approximately $125.
Options: Approve the improvements suggested by the Planning Commission; leave existing traffic
control measures in place; or establish different control measures.
Recommendation / Action Requested: There appeared to be a consensus of residents involved in the
discussions over several months that the solution recommended by the Planning Commission will
improve convenience for neighborhood residents while at the same time controlling cut-through traffic
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
in the neighborhood. It is suggested that staff be directed to prepare a resolution establishing the
revised turning restrictions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff can bring back a resolution for the 12 December consent agenda, by
which time the vegetation in question can be trimmed back.
Connection to Vision / Mission: The Planning Commission’s recommendation provides residents with
quality public services and a healthy (safe) environment.
#8B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Zoning Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs
Meeting Date: 28 November 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Planning Commission
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 27 October 2011
Draft Ordinance – Dynamic Display Signs
Alternate draft language
Policy Consideration: Should the City adopt an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code, allowing for
electronically changed signage (dynamic display signs) in Shorewood?
Background: For the past several months the Planning Commission has studied the issue of whether or
not to allow electronically changeable message signs in Shorewood. These signs range in type from the
alpha-numeric signs such as installed for the Community Center to digital display advertising signs such
as those that the Holiday gas station is interested in installing. The Commission considered the
approach taken by a number of communities, some of which simply do not allow the type of sign in
question to cities that have no apparent standards for dynamic signs. The Commission agreed that the
Zoning Code should be amended to cautiously provide for the technology that is available to commercial
property owners as well as to institutional users (schools, churches, city, etc.).
The attached memorandum, dated 27 October 2011 contains the draft language of an amendment that
has been considered by the Planning Commission. Black lettering is from the original draft, with red
lettering showing subsequent changes and blue lettering illustrating the last round of changes. After
holding a public hearing to consider the text amendment, the Commission recommended that the
amendment be forwarded to the Council for approval, with some minor revisions (which have been
included in the draft amendment attached). The Commission also recommended that the hours during
which the signs must remain static should be tied to light dimming standards for the Waterford and
Shorewood shopping centers. The hours presented in paragraph (11) are consistent with the Zoning
Code which provides that businesses must turn off lighting not reasonably required for security
purposes at 10:00 P.M.
One additional item was discussed – the requirement for ambient light sensors to be installed with the
dynamic display signs. An alternate draft to that effect is included for your consideration.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Enforcement of the code amendment falls within normal code
enforcement activities.
Options: Approve the amendment; approve the amendment with the alternate language; revise the
amendment; or reject the amendment.
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: It is recommended that the draft ordinance with the alternate
language relative to ambient light sensors be adopted.
Next Steps and Timelines: The ordinance will be published in the official newspaper, after which it
becomes effective.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sign regulation contributes to a healthy environment.
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:
27 October 2011
RE:
Zoning Code Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs 3
FILE NO.
Zoning Code (Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 11.)
Following are the revisions to previous drafts of the proposed amendments addressing
dynamic signs. The original revisions from the 14 September staff report are shown in red
type with deletions shown with strikeouts. Revisions suggested in the 28 September staff
report are shown in blue type and blue strikeouts.
Section 1201.02
Add definition:
SIGN – DYNAMIC DISPLAY
“. A sign or characteristics of a sign that appear to have
movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically
removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or
change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign.
This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face
to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face
or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking,
or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights
manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any other method or technology that
allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays.”
Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.
Amend 1201.03 Subd. 11. b.(2)(c) to read:
“(c) Any sign which moves, rotates, has any moving parts or gives the illusion of
motion, except for time and temperature information and dynamic display signs as
regulated in section e. of this subdivision; Moving message type signs may be
Memorandum
Re: Zoning Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs
27 October 2011
permitted as an exception when their messages consist primarily of news, public
announcements and the like of a nonadvertising nature;”
Add new paragraph e. (existing paragraphs e. and f. change to f. and g. respectively):
“e.. Dynamic Display Signs.
(1)Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic
displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can
lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing
message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message.
Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur.
Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change
the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Time and temperature signs
appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are
short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without frequent changes.
Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new
technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or
federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these
technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to
minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in
residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character.
The City finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with
significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential
threats to public safety.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to allow new technologies in
commercial signage that allow messages to be easily updated, while at the
same time preventing distraction to motorists and minimizing visual
impacts of electronic signage on residential properties. The City finds that
dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with significant controls
to minimize their proliferation and their potential threat to public safety.
(2)Permitted Sign Type and Locations. Dynamic display signs are permitted
solely as free-standing signs and only in the C-1, General Commercial and
C-2, Commercial Service zoning districts. Dynamic display signs shall be
located no closer than 20 feet from a side lot line. The dynamic display
portion of a freestanding sign shall be located at the bottom of the sign
face. 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
dynamic display sign, provided the alpha-numeric message remains static
for no less than four hours at a time.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Zoning Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs
27 October 2011
To the extent that signage is allowed in the residential zoning districts,
including the R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning district, dynamic display
signs shall be restricted to conditional uses in those districts, and shall be
limited to alpha-numeric signs only. 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.
(3) Duration of Image. A dynamic display sign’s image, or any portion
thereof, may not change more often than once every ten (10) 10 minutes,
except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute,
date, or temperature information and except as provided in (2) above. A
display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least ten (10) 10
minutes before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or
temperature information itself may change no more often than once every
three (3) 60 seconds.
(4) Transition. If a dynamic display sign’s image or any portion thereof
changes, the change sequence must instantaneous without any special
effects.
(5) Prohibition on Video Display. No portion of a dynamic display sign may
change any part of its sign face by a method of display characterized by
motion or pictorial imagery, or depict action or a special effect to imitate
movement, or display pictorials or graphics in a progression of frames that
gives the illusion of motion of any kind.
(6) Prohibition on Fluctuating or Flashing Illumination. No portion of a
dynamic display sign image may fluctuate in light intensity or use
intermittent, strobe or moving light, or light that changes in intensity in
sudden transitory bursts, streams, zooms, twinkles, sparkles or in any other
manner that creates the illusion of movement.
(7) Audio. Dynamic display signs shall not be equipped with audio speakers.
(8) Malfunctions. Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to
freeze the sign face in one position if a malfunction occurs. Dynamic
display signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately
discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator
must immediately turn off the display when notified by the City that it is not
complying with the standards of this Subdivision.
(9) Brightness. All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness
standards:
(a)No dynamic display sign may exceed a maximum illumination of
5,000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a
maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter)
-3-
Memorandum
Re: Zoning Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs
27 October 2011
between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign’s face at
maximum brightness.
(b)All dynamic display signs having illumination by means other than
natural light must be equipped with a dimmer control or other
mechanism that automatically controls the sign’s brightness to
comply with the requirements of this Subdivision.
(c)No dynamic display sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that
it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device
or signal.
(d)The owner or controller of the dynamic display sign must adjust the
sign to meet these brightness standards in accordance with the
City's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon
notice of non-compliance from the City.
(e)A written certification from the sign manufacturer that light
intensity has been preset to conform to the brightness levels
established by code and that the preset level is protected from end
user manipulation by password protected software or other method.
This would offer the advantage of ensuring that electronic signs at a
minimum cannot exceed the standards.
(10) Dynamic display signs are allowed only on free standing signs in the
permitted districts. Dynamic display signs may occupy no more than 25%
percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign
must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used.
Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face.
(11) Dynamic display signs shall be located not closer than 100 feet from a
residential zoning district and 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.
This draft will be presented at the public hearing on 1 November, after which it will be
forwarded to the City Council with any further revisions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Cc: Brian Heck
Tim Keane
-4-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS
TO DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGNS
Section 1
. City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended to include:
SIGN – DYNAMIC DISPLAY
“. A sign or characteristics of a sign that appear to have
movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing
and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the
display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display
that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without
having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also
includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display and any
display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input,
"digital ink" or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of
images or displays.”
Section 2
.City CodeSection 1201.03 Subd. 11.b.(2)(c) is amended to read:
“(c) Any sign which moves, rotates, has any moving parts or gives the illusion of motion,
except for time and temperature information and dynamic display signs as regulated in
section e. of this subdivision;”
Section 3
. City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. is hereby amended to include:
“e.. Dynamic Display Signs.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to allow new technologies in
commercial signage that allow messages to be easily updated, while at the same
time preventing distraction to motorists and minimizing visual impacts of
electronic signage on residential properties. The City finds that dynamic
displays should be allowed on signs but with significant controls to minimize
their proliferation and their potential threat to public safety.
(2) Permitted Sign Type and Locations. Dynamic display signs are permitted solely
as free-standing signs and only in the C-1, General Commercial and C-2,
Commercial Service zoning districts. Dynamic display signs shall be located no
closer than 20 feet from a side lot line. The dynamic display portion of a
freestanding sign shall be located at the bottom of the sign face. 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 dynamic display sign, provided the
alpha-numeric message remains static for no less than four hours at a time.
To the extent that signage is allowed in the residential zoning districts, including
the R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning district, dynamic display signs shall be
restricted to conditional uses in those districts, and shall be limited to alpha-
numeric signs only. 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.
(3) Duration of Image. A dynamic display sign’s image, or any portion thereof,
may not change more often than once every ten (10) 10 minutes, except one for
which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute, date, or temperature
information and except as provided in (2) above. A display of time, date, or
temperature must remain for at least ten (10) 10 minutes before changing to a
different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself may
change no more often than once every three (3) 60 seconds.
(4) Transition. If a dynamic display sign’s image or any portion thereof changes,
the change sequence must be instantaneous without any special effects.
(5) Prohibition on Video Display. No portion of a dynamic display sign may change
any part of its sign face by a method of display characterized by motion or
pictorial imagery, or depict action or a special effect to imitate movement, or
display pictorials or graphics in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of
motion of any kind.
(6) Prohibition on Fluctuating or Flashing Illumination. No portion of a dynamic
display sign image may fluctuate in light intensity or use intermittent, strobe or
moving light, or light that changes in intensity in sudden transitory bursts,
streams, zooms, twinkles, sparkles or in any other manner that creates the
illusion of movement.
(7) Audio. Dynamic display signs shall not be equipped with audio speakers.
(8) Malfunctions. Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze
the sign face in one position if a malfunction occurs. Dynamic display signs
must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it
malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the
display when notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards of
this Subdivision.
(9) Brightness. All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness
standards:
(a)No dynamic display sign may exceed a maximum illumination of 5,000
nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum
illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn
as measured from the sign’s face at maximum brightness.
(b)All dynamic display signs having illumination by means other than natural
light must be equipped with a dimmer control or other mechanism that
automatically controls the sign’s brightness to comply with the
requirements of this subdivision.
-2-
(c)No dynamic display sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it
interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
(d)The owner or controller of the dynamic display sign must adjust the sign
to meet these brightness standards in accordance with the City's
instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of
non-compliance from the City.
(e)A written certification from the sign manufacturer that light intensity has
been preset to conform to the brightness levels established by code and
that the preset level is protected from end user manipulation by password
protected software or other method. This would offer the advantage of
ensuring that electronic signs at a minimum cannot exceed the standards.
(10) Sign Area Limitation. Dynamic display signs are allowed only on free standing
signs in the permitted districts. Dynamic display signs may occupy no more
than 25% percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the
sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used.
Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face.
(11) Distance From Residential/Hours. Dynamic display signs shall be located not
closer than 100 feet from a residential zoning district and 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.
Section 4
. 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 28th day of
November 2011.
CHRISTINE LIZÉE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
-3-
Alternate language – Paragraph (9) (a) and (b):
“(9) Brightness. All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness standards:
(a)No dynamic display sign may exceed a maximum illumination of 5,000 nits
(candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of
500 nits (candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn sunrise to sunset as
measured from the sign’s face at maximum brightness.
(b)All dynamic display signs having illumination by means other than natural light
must be equipped with an ambient light sensor and a dimmer control or other
mechanism to continuously adjust the sign’s brightness to assure at any time the
sign’s intensity does not exceed 0.3 foot candles above ambient light levels as
measured from 100 feet from the sign’s face and that automatically controls the
sign’s brightness to comply with the requirements of this subdivision.”
(Additions shown underlined. Deletions shown with strikeouts)
#8C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Gloude Setback Variance
Meeting Date: 28 November 2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 26 October 2011
Policy Consideration: Should a setback variance be granted to Don and Karen Gloude, allowing them to
build a porch on the front of their home.
Background: See attached memorandum for detailed background. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this matter, continuing it once in order for Commissioners to visit both the specific site
and the neighborhood in which it is located. While there was some consensus that the type of structure
should be accommodated, the majority of the Commission found that the request does not meet the
criteria for granting a variance, even under the relaxed “practical difficulties” standard. They voted 4-2
to deny the variance. They followed up with direction to staff to include a zoning study to examine this
issue on the first Planning Commission agenda for 2012. There appears to be consensus that the matter
should be addressed as a code amendment that would apply to other similarly situated properties.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None.
Options: Accept the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the variance request; approve the
variance request; or approve the variance request with conditions.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The Planning Commission’s recommendation is correct in that a
variance is not the correct zoning tool to use to resolve this type of matter. Staff should be directed to
draft a resolution denying the variance. There appears to be consensus that some accommodation
should be included in the Code and that the provision should be applied evenly to all similar properties.
Next Steps and Timelines: The Commission will consider a code amendment beginning in January of
2012. The Applicant’s remodeling project will not be completed until spring of next year, allowing ample
time to finish or revise their project depending on the outcome of the zoning study.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Zoning and the enforcement thereof contributes to a healthy
environment and sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
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:
26 October 2011
RE:
Gloude, Don and Kiki – Setback Variance
FILE NO.:
405 (11.12)
BACKGROUND
Don and Kiki Gloude have begun a substantial remodeling and expansion of their home at 4675
Fatima Place (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached). As part of the project they propose
a new entry and covered porch at the front of the house. While the entry feature is considered an
allowable encroachment in the residential districts, the porch is specifically precluded. For this
they have requested a four–foot front yard setback variance.
The property is zoned R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains the Gloude’s
home, attached garage, swimming pool and two small accessory buildings in the rear yard as
shown on Exhibit B. At present the house is situated at 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
enclosed entry extends 4.5 feet into the front setback area, which is allowed under our zoning
regulations. The covered porch to the left of the entry also extends 4.5 feet into the front
setback, but is specifically prohibited by the Zoning Code.
The lot contains 26,866 square feet of area and has a hardcover percentage of 16.4. The
proposed additions to the property will bring the hardcover to 20.8 percent. The proposed floor
plan is shown on Exhibit C, attached. Exhibits D-1 through D-5 contain the applicants’ request
letter and related exhibits.
Memorandum
Re: Gloude Variance
26 October 2011
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A.What is Allowed. The required front setback for the R-1D zoning district is 30 feet, the
smallest front setback of all of the four single-family residential districts. Section 1201.03
Subd. 3.c.(2) of the Shorewood Zoning Code states:
“A one story enclosed entrance for a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse
dwelling, existing prior to adoption of this chapter, may extend into the front yard setback
not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width.”
This provision was originally intended as an energy conservation measure for older homes to
be able to add on an enclosed entry that would serve as an air lock for cold air entering the
house. The Gloude house was built in 1959 according to Hennepin County Assessor’s
records and qualifies for this encroachment into the front setback area.
Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(3) of the Code states:
“Terraces, steps, stoops or similar features, but not including porches or balconies in front
or rear yards, provided they don’t extend above the entrance floor level of the building or
more than four and one-half feet into the required yard.”
What this allows is the concrete stoop illustrated as a solid line on Exhibit D-3. It should be
noted that the applicants’ sketch of a 3’ x 3’ stoop, step and sidewalk is an accurate depiction
of what they were told by staff. Upon closer scrutiny, the Code does allow the wider
“terrace” as long as it is not covered. Consequently, the concrete terrace does not require a
variance.
B.What is Not Allowed. While certain ground-level features as described in A. above are
allowable encroachments in front yard areas, the Code specifically precludes porches (see
underlined phrase) from the list of allowable encroachments into front yards.
C.Variance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amendments to the
Zoning Code that would address changes in state law relative to the granting of variances.
Simply put, a variance is an exception to the law - in this case, zoning requirements – that
allows a property owner to conform to a lesser standard than other similarly situated owners.
Although the standard has changed from “hardship” to “practical difficulties” the Code still
suggests that variances be granted sparingly and when in “keeping with the spirit and intent”
of the Code and Comprehensive Plan. The amendment recommended by the Planning
Commission has been scheduled for consideration by the City Council at its 14 November
meeting. The criteria for considering variances that has been recommended by the Planning
Commission is based on suggestions set forth by the League of Minnesota Cities. Following
is how the applicants’ request conforms to those criteria:
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Gloude Variance
26 October 2011
1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
While it is difficult to say that a covered porch is not reasonable to want, the question is –
should it be allowed to encroach into what is already a minimal front yard setback?
2.The ordinance prohibits this manner of use.
Shorewood’s zoning regulations do not prohibit porches, it simply requires that they
comply with setback requirements.
3.The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive
Plan.
Despite the relatively small size of the proposed porch, its encroachment into what is
already minimal open space could be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
4.The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use.
Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met:
a)reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the
landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area.
a.Addressed in 1. above.
b.The applicants’ circumstances are not unique to the property. Many homes in the
surrounding neighborhood have the same type of entry conditions as the applicants.
With respect to the circumstances not being created by the owner, the house was built
very near the minimal setback, not allowing for additions to the front of the building.
The homes in the neighborhood that have front porches were built farther back,
allowing for expansion. While the applicants may not have built the original house,
they have inherited what the previous owner has done.
c.Homes in the neighborhood east of Lake William generally comply with zoning
requirements. As mentioned, many of them have the same entry condition as the
applicants. The arguments set forth by the applicants could apply throughout that
neighborhood. It would be difficult to refuse the same exception to anyone else with a
similar entry, in which case the character of the neighborhood would be affected.
D.The Applicants’ Case. The applicants cite four reasons for granting the variance: 1) safety;
2) handicap access; 3) use of land; and 4) aesthetics/property value. In consideration of these
the following should be considered:
-3-
Memorandum
Re: Gloude Variance
26 October 2011
1.Safety. It must be realized that with a two-foot allowable eave overhang, the actual
dimension this house is allowed is 3.7 feet. This is nearly double what many of the
houses in the neighborhood have. In driving around on Fatima, Lakeway Terrace and
Garden Road, many of the homes of the same vintage as the applicants’ have similar
entry conditions – a front entry stoop with an 18”-24” eave above. While there have been
some homes that were built back farther on the lot that have larger covered porch areas,
none of them were done by variance. In most instances similarly constructed homes have
addressed the ice melt issue through the use of gutters and diverters.
2.Handicap Access. In light of the discussion in A., above, the ability of the applicants to
construct the larger concrete terrace appears to resolve this issue.
3.Use of Land. Again, the discussion in A. resolves this issue.
4.Aesthetics/Property Value. These factors were not part of the criteria for granting
variances under the hardship standard, nor are they factors in the practical difficulties
test. They are simply too subjective to use as reasons for exempting one property from
the rules that others have to follow. It is worth noting that other homes in the
neighborhood have addressed entry design in various ways that do not require
encroachment into the required setback. For example, an “eyebrow” design where the
entry is covered by a gable facing the street, directing drainage away from the doorway is
not uncommon and does not contribute to a “chopped up” appearance.
With respect to value, Shorewood has historically placed considerable value on the open
space afforded by reasonable setback areas. As mentioned earlier, the R-1D zoning
district already has the smallest front yard setback of all the residential districts.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicants’ request falls well short of the criteria for variances, even under the relaxed
‘practical difficulties” test. The arguments set forth by the applicants could apply to any number
of homes in the neighborhood. That being the case, an ordinance amendment would be a more
appropriate way to address the request. That way it would apply to all similar properties. Any
discussion of an amendment would have to include what size limitations and other conditions
might apply.
Cc: Brian Heck
Tim Keane
Kiki Gloude
-4-
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject:
Silver Lake Storm Water Improvements – Sediment Trap
Meeting Date: 11/28/11
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek letter
Policy Consideration:
Background:
The storm sewer outlet located near 5750 Covington Rd disperses the sediment collected by
the storm sewer on Covington Rd and Old Market Rd into Silver Lake. To capture the sediment
before it enters Silver Lake, staff prepared plans and specifications to receive quotes for the
project. Staff received three quotes for the project. Machtemes Construction quoted
$102,090.50, G. F. Jedkicki Inc. quoted $96,472.00 and the low quoter is Parrott Contracting,
Inc. for $93,290.50.
Parrott Contracting, Inc. was the contractor that performed the sediment cleanout last winter.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The Storm water Management Fund CIP has $40,000 for the Silver Lake Outlet and $75,000 for
the Covington Rd Storm Sewer. The Silver Lake Outlet cleaning cost $25,510.50, the land cost
$23,000, and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District pledged a $40,000 grant
contribution towards the project. In the end it appears to fit within the budget.
Options:
1.Direct staff to contract with Parrott Contracting Inc. for this project.
2.Direct staff to utilize a different quoter.
3.Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends awarding the contract for the Silver Lake storm water improvements be
awarded to Parrott Contracting, Inc. not to exceed $93,290.50.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Miley
Purgatory
Bluff Creek
James Landini
City Engineer
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
September 8, 2011
Re: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
Comments Dated November 21, 2008
Dear Mr. Landini,
Board of Managers
Michael Casanova
Jill Crafton
Ferry Forster
Philip Kirkegaard
Kenneth Wend
E
S E P ? f } .
z r
The Managers of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District appreciate
your efforts to enhance and protect water resources and are pleased to notify you of
approval of a $40,000 grant pursuant to the Low Impact Development Program for
Municipal Roadway Grants. Congratulations. Please apprise the Engineer as work
progresses.
Thank you for your support and participation.
Cc. Board of Managers
Engineer
Sincerely,
Engineer - CH2M HILL, 1295 Northland Drive, Suite 200, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 tel 651 688 -8100
Coordinator- Krebsbach and Hai k, 100 South Fifth Street, 19th Floor, Minneapolis, MN 55402 tel 612 333 -7400
#9B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Water Extension Petition
Meeting Date: 11/28/11
Prepared by: James Landini
Reviewed by:
Attachments: map, petition
Policy Consideration: Water main Extension Policy
Background:
At the 11/14/11, Work Session the City of Shorewood received a petition from residents near
Pleasant Avenue for the extension of public water main. Eight residents from the area signed
the petition. The petition process is governed by Minnesota Statutes 429 and City of
Shorewood Code of Ordinances.
The petition does not contain enough signatures along any conceivable water main extension
route to meet City Code or MN Statutes.
Attached is a map displaying the petitioner’s locations in red and the potential water main
extension routes in yellow.
Some of the route roads are on the schedule for a 2012 mill and overlay (Pleasant Ave, Tee
Trail, Wood Drive). If Council has any desire to extend the water main, the mill and overlay
schedule should be amended to other roads.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Depends on the chosen option.
Options:
1.Defer consideration of the petition until enough signatures are obtained along the water
main extension route. Offer a free room rental at the Southshore Center for a
neighborhood meeting, offer mailing assistance for information distribution/invitations.
2.Order the feasibility study to be completed by order of the Council with consideration of
a water system improvement.
3.Deny the petition.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Please provide direction on which option Council would like to pursue and provide direction on
the mill and overlay schedule.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Fee Schedule for Domestic Partnership Ordinance
Meeting Date: November 28, 2011
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Attachments: Ordinance
Background: At its meeting on November 12, 2011, Council adopted an Ordinance establishing a
Domestic Partnership Registry.
The fees to complete the registration, amendment or termination, as well as additional certificates,
need to be established in the fee schedule. Staff is proposing the fees be set as follows:
Initial Registration $25.00
Amendment to Registration $25.00
Termination of Registration $25.00
Certificates, additional certified copy $2.00
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Approval of an Ordinance establishing the fees as proposed or setting another fee amount for the Domestic
Partnership Registry fees.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon approval, the Ordinance will be published in the upcoming legal
papers. Domestic Partner Registrations will begin on December 15, 2011.
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 TITLED
“LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES”
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1301.02 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
Schedule A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES
AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Section 1. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses, add the following Domestic Partnership Registry
fees:
Type of Charge/ FeeCity Code ReferenceAmount of Charge/Fee
Domestic Partnership Registry 110.06
Registration $25.00
Amendment $25.00
Termination $25.00
Certificate, certified $ 2.00
Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota
this 26th day of November, 2011.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#10B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution Supporting State Wide Domestic Partnership Registration
Meeting Date: November 28, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Attachments: Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the Council approve a resolution supporting statewide domestic
partnership registration legislation?
Background: The City Council adopted an amendment to Shorewood City Code creating a domestic
partner registry for committed domestic partners residing in the city at their November 14, 2011
meeting. During the discussion, it was the desire of Council to consider a resolution to be forwarded to
the city’s legislative delegation, the Governor, League of Minnesota Cities, and MetroCities requesting
consideration and support for legislation creating a domestic partner registry so that such relationships
receive and enjoy similar legal benefits such as visitation rights at hospitals, health care decision making,
participation in partner benefits programs, etc.
Financial or Budget Considerations: There is no financial impact, save for mailing costs.
Options:
1)Approve the resolution as drafted;
2)Revise the resolution and approve;
3)Defer to December 12, meeting;
4)Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will, upon approval of the resolution, draft a letter and forward a copy
of the resolution to the City’s legislative delegation, the Governor’s office, the League of Minnesota
Cities, and MetroCities.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 11-065
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
REGISTRATIONS
WHEREAS,
the City of Shorewood City Council supports and believes
committed domestic partners should have equal access to employer provided benefits,
hospital visitation rights, etc; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council adopted an Ordinance providing for the
registration of committed domestic partners, and;
WHEREAS,
many cities have adopted similar Ordinances over the past 20 years;
and
WHEREAS,
the City Council believes this is an issue of statewide significance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood that the State of Minnesota move to pass legislation allowing committed
domestic partners to have their relationship legally recognized.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th day of November, 2011.
________________________
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Tobacco License
Meeting Date: November 28, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk
Attachments: Tobacco Ordinance, Minutes from Greenwood Council
Policy Consideration: Should the Council consider amending the current Tobacco License Ordinance
Background: The council considered the license application from Mr. Khaled Aloul who proposes to
open a cigar and tobacco shop in the City. As part of the application, Mr. Aloul indicated the store would
sell tobacco, cigars, and tobacco related devices such as pipes and rolling papers.
Council member Zerby expressed concern that some of the devices sold might be similar to items sold at
the gas station / market in Greenwood on Highway 7 that was robbed earlier this year. He raised this
concern after going through the Citizens Police Academy where the class reviewed this incident and the
possibility that these devices may have played in the robbery. Council member Zerby also raised a
concern regarding the background check conducted.
Staff reviewed the additional information Council member Zerby found on the applicant as well the
League of Minnesota Cities model ordinance and State Statute on tobacco and Paraphernalia. Staff also
obtained minutes from the November 11, 2011 Greenwood Council meeting where the Greenwood
Council discussed this issue.
Background Check. Staff provides the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) with the full
name and date of birth of the applicant(s) and the SLMPD runs the information through the States
criminal justice system and court system. This review provides information on criminal convictions. This
review does not include administrative citations issued by a city for violations. The information that
Council member Zerby found was the applicants appeal to a citation. The administrative law judge ruled
in the applicants favor. Considering administrative citations are not included in the background
investigation, the city may want to expand its review to include possible administrative actions. The
background check did reveal two citations 10 years ago for sale of tobacco to minors. There are no other
citations since those two.
Paraphernalia. State statute (MS 152.01,subd. 18) defines drug paraphernalia as “(a) Except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (b), "drug paraphernalia" means all equipment, products, and
materials of any kind, except those items used in conjunction with permitted uses of controlled
substances under this chapter or the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, which are knowingly or
intentionally used primarily in (1) manufacturing a controlled substance, (2) injecting, ingesting,
inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, (3) testing the
strength, effectiveness, or purity of a controlled substance, or (4) enhancing the effect of a
controlled substance.
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
(b) "Drug paraphernalia" does not include the possession, manufacture, delivery, or sale of
hypodermic needles or syringes in accordance with section 151.40, subdivision 2.”
There is no reference to specific items or devices used to introduce a controlled substance into
the human body.
Our Tobacco Ordinance and the LMC Model Ordinance allows the sale of “tobacco related
devices.” The ordinance defines this as “Any tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling paper or other
device intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, snuffing or
smoking of tobacco or tobacco products.”
The sale or possession of drug paraphernalia is illegal under MS 152.092-152.095. The question then
becomes, does the city need to mirror or further define what type of device is used for consumption of
controlled substances and if so, how does the city prove a specific device is used primarily in
consumption of controlled substances.
I am not sure the city could identify items that are designed primarily for the ingestion of controlled
substances and prohibit their sale in the city.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Options: There are two questions to consider on this item.
1)To approve or deny the license request; and
2)Amend the existing tobacco ordinance to include restrictions on drug paraphernalia.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the Council approve the tobacco license as
there is not, at this time, adequate grounds for a denial. Staff recommends the Council not seek to
amend the current ordinance to include restrictions on drug paraphernalia as this is already addressed
in State Statute.
Next Steps and Timelines: Notify the applicant of the action by the Council.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-062
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE 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 28, 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 28th day of November,
2011.
___________________________
ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor
___________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
Excerpt of Minutes – City of Greenwood
Regular Council Meeting of November 1, 2011
7.E Options Related to the Selling of Drug Paraphernalia
Mayor Kind explained that during its October 4, 2011, meeting Council expressed interest in the
possibility of prohibiting the sale of drug paraphernalia within City limits. The meeting packet includes a
copy of a memorandum authored by Attorney Kelly which suggests that liquor and/or tobacco licenses
could prohibit the sale of drug paraphernalia. Another option would be the outright prohibition of the
possession or sale of drug paraphernalia. The meeting packet also includes a copy of a draft Ordinance.
The definition in the ordinance mirrors the definition found in State Statutes § 152.01.
Councilmember Quam asked why it should be tied to liquor licenses. It should either be allowed or not
allowed. Councilmember Rose noted that the business that sells it also sells liquor. Councilmember Page
stated he thought the intent was if a business that has a liquor license and sells liquor also sells drug
paraphernalia then the City could discontinue its liquor license.
Zoning Administrator/Clerk Karpas explained he drafted the Ordinance and he intentionally chose not to
tie it to liquor or tobacco licenses because a business that doesn’t sell either could still sell drug
paraphernalia. The draft ordinance adds a definition of drug paraphernalia to City Code Section 1205
Definitions. The definition is a State Statutes definition. The Ordinance also amends City Code Section
900.10. Public Nuisances Affecting Morals and Decency to include drug paraphernalia is the list of public
nuisances.
Attorney Kelly explained that State Statutes defines drug paraphernalia. It is a petty misdemeanor most
often issued in conjunction with a charge of possession of marijuana or a pipe. Drug paraphernalia is not a
primary reason patrol officers stop vehicles. It’s an incidental charge. He then explained it is his
understanding this matter came up because a liquor licensee is offering this type of thing for sale and
public safety personnel thought that is attracting the wrong type of people into the community. He stated
this is in the eye of the beholder. The question is what constitutes drug paraphernalia. He noted the
meeting packet includes a copy of the City of Minneapolis’ ordinance regarding the definition of drug
paraphernalia and it goes beyond what State Statutes includes. He explained the South Lake Minnetonka
Police Department (SLMPD) has the statutory authority to enforce the laws of the State of Minnesota. It
doesn’t need Council to adopt the State Statutes into the City Code.
Mayor Kind asked Attorney Kelly if Council can direct Zoning Administrator/Clerk Karpas to inform the
business owner that they can no longer sell the drug paraphernalia per State Statutes. Kelly explained the
City Clerk has no legal authority to do that. It’s up to the SLMPD officers to decide if what the business
owner is selling violates State law for which they can issue citations. It appears the officers consider the
stuff in the store serves no particular value or purpose other than in the use of drugs yet they did not issue
a citation when they were there. They apparently feel it is too amorphous for them to act as is. Council
could decide to include something similar to Minneapolis’ ordinance in the City Code. The City could
then tell the business owner it has a liquor license and if the City receives a report from the SLMPD that
you are selling what appears to be drug paraphernalia the City could have an inquiry and suspend or
invoke their license. He commented that would be politics. He explained the City could go to a
suspension hearing and start to conduct it, but there would be some expense associated with that and there
would have to be due process conducted. He noted the City has only one liquor license and there isn’t
likely much revenue coming in from it.
Councilmember Fletcher asked if it makes sense to approach the business owner and tell them if they get
rid of what is believed to be drug paraphernalia the City will drop the matter.
City of Greenwood
Regular City Council Meeting
November 1, 2011 Page 2 of 3
Councilmember Rose stated many stores located in Minneapolis have merchandise included on the list of
prohibited drug paraphernalia found in State Statutes. He asked if that type of merchandise is illegal or
not illegal. He indicated he could support saying selling that merchandise is illegal in the City provided
the State agrees with it being illegal to sell it.
Attorney Kelly explained the reason the State law is enforced incidental to an arrest is, for example, the
pipe has residue in it. The merchandise in the store doesn’t have residue in it. Minneapolis has allowed
head shops to stay in business. He stated the City can tell the business owner it doesn’t have to authorize
the sale of 3.2 beer in the City, and it can ask the owner if it wants to continue to do so or not.
Councilmember Page explained he went into the store a couple of times. During his second visit he saw
there were two items that he considers drug paraphernalia. In a glass cabinet close to the register there
were approximately 50 of what he clearly considers “pot pipes”. Councilmember Quam asked if a person
could smoke tobacco in them. Page stated he thought the pipes could be used for that, but he questioned
who would do that. Page explained on a shelf there were what he considers to be water pipes and those
pipes are associated with a variety of types of tobacco. He did not consider the water pipes to be drug
paraphernalia. He noted he met with the wife of the owner and she explained to him how the different
devices were used as well as their cultural significance. He explained in his view on a cabinet there were
fishing sinkers which he considers roach clips. He noted he told them this issue was on the radar and that
the public safety personnel were concerned about it. He explained to them this topic was on an upcoming
City Council meeting agenda. He told them the City doesn’t want to have anyone in the business of
selling drug paraphernalia. He suggested they get rid of the pot pipes. The owner was not receptive to
doing that. The owner reminded him that he started to sell the merchandise in question when the City
refused to allow him to sell hot sandwiches. The owner noted that he doesn’t sell adult magazines; he
chooses what he’s going to sell for adult items. The owner noted that in Amsterdam people are always
walking around with those pipes. The owner intends to continue to sell the merchandise in the store.
Mayor Kind stated from her vantage point, with freedom come the sale of things Council may not like.
Councilmember Fletcher related a member of the Southwest Drug Task Force had asked him if he wants
people to come to the community to purchase that type of merchandise.
Mayor Kind responded of course not, but philosophically it’s a core value of hers that with freedom
comes things she doesn’t like.
Councilmember Quam asked if there is a problem that needs to be addressed regarding the sale of the
merchandise in that store. He stated he hasn’t heard of any.
Councilmember Page explained with the exception of the 50 what he calls pot pipes in the store
everything else in the store is basically a non issue. He stated from his vantage point it is not a pervasive
item they are selling in the store. Between his first and second visit to the store in the last ten days it
didn’t appear as if a lot of that merchandise had been sold. He then stated he is not overly excited or
overly worried about the sale of that merchandise. He noted he would not like to see an expanded amount
of merchandise. He stated this is not worth Council spending any more effort on an ordinance. He
commented that if other Councilmembers can convey their displeasure by not buying anything in the
store. He also commented the owner doesn’t sell a lot of 3.2 beer so tying it to a liquor license means
nothing. To make an impact it would have to be tied to tobacco licensing.
City of Greenwood
Regular City Council Meeting
November 1, 2011 Page 3 of 3
Councilmember Quam stated there is a State law regarding this. Therefore, there is no need to spend any
more time on a City Ordinance. He then stated the SLMPD is charged with enforcing laws so if the
SLMPD thinks it’s a problem they should enforce the laws.
Quam moved, Page seconded, moving to stop consideration of adopting an ordinance regarding to
the sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. Motion passed 3/2 with Fletcher and Page
dissenting.
It was noted the State law is suffice.
#11B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Border Signs
Meeting Date: November 28, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: None
Policy Consideration: Accept the newly formatted border sign
Background: The City Council settled on a new border sign that included the name of the city, the 2010 population,
and the caption “…a south lake community.” Following council approval, staff ordered and installed the new sign.
Unfortunately, staff didn’t communicate clearly and the sign delivered was significantly larger than council or the
community anticipated.
Staff met and rehashed the dimensions and reviewed signage requirements. Staff then sent information to WSB
and they prepared three design options and included dimensions. Staff reviewed these options and agreed these
were more in-line with what we believed Council expected and had WSB print the signs as they would look in final
form.
For signs on roads with a speed limit of 25 mph or greater, upper case lettering must be at least 6” tall and lower
case lettering must be at least 4.5.” The revised sign meets this requirement for the City name. The population
figure is 3.5” tall and the caption is 1.5” tall.
Border signs on the state highway system can only be 24” tall and can only contain the city name and population.
The city can appeal to the Commissioner of Transportation to allow a sign with the caption.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The eight (8) signs purchased cost the city $1,800. Public works indicates they
have a large amount of scrap iron and metal and the funds received for delivery to a recovery facility should cover
the cost of replacement signs.
Options:
1)Authorize the purchase of signs as presented;
2)Revised the design and authorize purchase;
3)Come up with a new design;
4)Do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends council authorize the purchase of the 24” x 42” border
sign to replace the current 48” x 72” signs to be placed on local streets with high volume traffic such as County
Road 19 and Smithtown road. Staff also recommends council authorize the purchase of two signs for placement on
Highway 7 that meet MNDot requirements. Staff finally recommends that, as signs need replacing around the
community, the new design be used with the smaller 18”x 42” sign used on local streets.
Next Steps and Timelines: upon approval by the council, staff will order the necessary number of signs.
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
#11C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Dog License
Meeting Date: Monday, November 28, 2011
Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy City Clerk
Attachments: dog licensing ordinance; dog registration ordinance
Policy Consideration: Review the amended dog licensing ordinance
Background: The council and planning commission reviewed the dog ordinance and based on review,
suggested various amendments. Staff made the amendments to the ordinance and consulted with the
SLMPD to ensure the draft ordinance fits with their operational model.
The revised ordinance retains the license provision and keeps the license fee at $10.00 for the 24 month
license. Staff did have concerns regarding the 24 month period as the current license includes the
expiration date. However, it is possible to obtain licenses without a date stamped.
As an alternative, staff discussed the idea of eliminating the license and replacing the license with a
registration. The registration of the animal would be free and require the owner to provide animal
name, address of the animal, microchip number, and rabies vaccination number. Dogs classified as
potentially dangerous or dangerous would require licensing by the city as well as other requirements
outlined in the ordinance. The presumption is that most dog owners are responsible and will keep and
care for their dog and penalize the poor dog owners. A draft of the alternative is also attached.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Depending on what direction the Council wants to go with this
issue, there will be a small impact related to revenue.
Options: Staff presented two possible routes for the Council to take. One is continuing with licensing
dogs. If this is the desire of council, staff will finalize the amendments for council consideration at the
December 12, 2011 meeting along with the appropriate fee schedule changes and other suggested
changes to the ordinance. Should the Council desire the registration process, staff will make necessary
revisions as directed by Council and bring back a final version for council consideration at the December
12 meeting.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is again looking for feedback from Council on the revision. If
the council is interested in pursuing the registration process, council may wish to refer to the Planning
Commission for input and feedback.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will put the ordinance in final format as well as an ordinance amending
the fee schedule.
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
TITLE 700
ANIMAL REGULATIONS
Subject Chapter
Dogs 701
Horses and Ponies 702
Hunting and Trapping Animals 703
1 | Page
Shorewood - Animal Regulations
CHAPER 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 Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs
701.09 Confinement of certain dogs
701.0910 Impoundment and redemption procedures
701.1011 Rabies control
701.1112 Destruction of certain dogs
701.1213 Prohibited acts and conditions
701.14 Health and Maintenance Standards
701.1315 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.
2 | Page
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
HEALTH OFFICER.
Is an official of the Minnesota Department of Health or County Health
Office charged with monitoring and notifying local jurisdictions of rabies or other outbreaks of
contagious disease.
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
b.When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon
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
3 | Page
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 Bodily 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
(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.
4 | Page
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:
The owner has (relate to our code or, are these references to State Statutes?)b.
Conviction for negligently allowing a known vicious animal with a propensity to
cause, or which has caused, bodily harm in the past to run uncontrolled off the
owners premises (reference MS 609.205(4))
c. Conviction of a gross misdemeanor offense for allowing their dog to run
uncontrolled off the owners premises and said animal causes great bodily harm to
someone other than the owner (reference 609.226, subdivision 1);
d. Owned a dangerous dog that subsequently causes great bodily harm as provided in
MS 609.226, subdivision 2;
e. Had a dog ordered destroyed by the Animal Enforcement Officer due to repeated
cases the owner allowed the animal to cause bodily harm to another person or
animal.
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 enforcement officer, 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 enforcement officer review the prohibition. The animal
enforcement officer 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 enforcement officer deems appropriate. The animal enforcement officer
may rescind the prohibition entirely or rescind it with limitations. The animal
enforcement officer 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 enforcement officer rescinds a
person's prohibition and the person subsequently fails to comply with any
limitations imposed by the animal enforcement officer or the person is convicted of
any animal violation involving unprovoked bites or dog attacks, the animal
enforcement officer 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
5 | Page
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
6 | Page
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.
TO BARK EXCESSIVELY, CONTINUOUSLY OR UNTIMELY
Subd. 3. The phrase 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
officerAnimal Enforcement Officer, from a location outside of the building or premises
7 | Page
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
UNTIMELY
five minute period. 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
Subd. 1. The provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 through 347.56 relating to Dangerous Dogs are
adopted 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. an owner who’s dog has been designated potentially dangerous by the Animal Enforcement
Officer shall have the right to appeal the designation by submitting a notice of appeal under the
provisions of title 104 of the Shorewood code.
c. Stopping an attack. If authorized animal enforcement officer 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.
8 | Page
(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 Enforcement Officer. 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.
9 | Page
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 day’s 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.
10 | Page
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
. – I’m questioning this whole section, as it
seems that the addition of the dangerous and potentially dangerous section that was added is adequate.
Some of the items in this list, like a dog that has trespassed or a public nuisance or running at large
should not be going to HC District court to keep it from being euthanized! Could this section be
removed?
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;
=
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)
'
11 | Page
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.
12 | Page
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. mMaintenance 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
''
13 | Page
ALTERNATIVE – DOG REGISTRATION ORDINANCE
TITLE 700
ANIMAL REGULATIONS
Subject Chapter
Dogs 701
Horses and Ponies 702
Hunting and Trapping Animals 703
1 | Page
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 Dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs
701.09 Confinement of certain dogs
701.0910 Impoundment and redemption procedures
701.1011 Rabies control
701.1112 Destruction of certain dogs
701.1213 Prohibited acts and conditions
701.14 Health and Maintenance Standards
701.1315 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.
2 | Page
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 A 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
HEALTH OFFICER.
Is an official of the Minnesota Department of Health or County Health
Office charged with monitoring and notifying local jurisdictions of rabies or other outbreaks of
contagious disease.
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 A dog that:
a.When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private
property; or
b.When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon
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 An 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:
3 | Page
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 Bodily 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
(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 providedregister the dog
with the city by providing the following information on a form and in the manner
determined by the City.
a)The name and address of the owner;
b)The name and breed of the dog;
c)The rabies tag number and date the vaccination expires;
d)The microchip number;
e)Other information determined by the city.
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
701-2
4 | Page
Dogs
701.04 701.05
females. The license tag shall be securely attached around the dogs 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 written
evidence that the dog has been inoculated for the prevention of rabies within the past two
years.
Subd. 42. Term of license. The license registration period shall be for the whole or unexpired
portion of the year ending on the ensuing December 31life of the dog.
Subd. 53. 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.
(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 dogs 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:
701-3
5 | Page
Shorewood - Animal Regulations
701.05 701.05
(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.
701-4
6 | Page
Dogs
701.05 701.07
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.
TO BARK EXCESSIVELY, CONTINUOUSLY OR UNTIMELY
Subd. 3. The phrase 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
enforcement 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
UNTIMELY
period. includes, but is not limited to, the noise whichnoise, 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)
7 | Page
701.08 DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG
Subd. 1. The provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 through 347.56 relating to Dangerous Dogs are
adopted 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. an owner who’s dog has been designated potentially dangerous by the Animal Enforcement
Officer shall have the right to appeal the designation by submitting a notice of appeal under the
provisions of title 104 of the Shorewood code.
c. Stopping an attack. If authorized animal enforcement officer 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.
Subd. 3 License Required. Any dog designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous shall be licensed.
The City may issue a license upon proof all the requirements regarding keeping a dangerous or
potentially dangerous dog in the City have been met and upon payment of the license fee. The license
shall expire on December 31 of each year.
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)
'
8 | Page
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 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 registering 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. 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.
9 | Page
(1987 Code, 701.08) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974; Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
'
701.10 11 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.
10 | Page
(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 owners or
=
custodians premises;
=
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
11 | Page
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
12 | Page
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 misdemeanor.
(1987 Code, 701.12) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974) Penalty, see 104.01
''
13 | Page
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator
DATE: November 22, 2011
SUBJECT: GreenStep Cities Update
Staff continues to plug away on the various action items outlined in the GreenStep Cities
program.
To date we provided our resolution of participation to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency so
we are now officially one of the thirty-one (31) official GreenStep Cities. Interested residents can
visit the GreenStep Cities website and see the completed action items. We have added the link
to our city website.
Staff is working to complete the entry of baseline data on energy consumption and we are in the
process of arranging an energy audit of City Hall, Public Works, and Southshore Community
Center. These two actions are required under the first best practice. The goal is to complete the
baseline entry by the end of November and the energy audit(s) by the end of the year.
Looking ahead into 2012, staff will develop a plan to improve buildings energy efficiency based
on the results of the energy audit and we will continue to input energy usage information. We
are also investigating solar powered lighting for parking lots, street lights, and other possible
applications.