Loading...
12-12-11 CC Regular Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2011 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 28, 2011 Attachments Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 28, 2011 Minutes C. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, December 5, 2011 Minutes D. City Council Executive Session Minutes, December 5, 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. Setting the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Meeting Date Engineer's memo C. Shady Hills Traffic Study Planning Director's memo, Resolution 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission activities report by Representative Ken Hendrickson 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Hotvet Siakel Woodruff Zerby CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — DECEMBER 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. C.U.P. for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards Applicant: Robert and Joan Bauman Location: 26640 Smithtown Road 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Traffic Study for Glencoe Road at Yellowstone Trail B. Draintile Replacements for Strawberry Lane 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Adoption of the 2012 -2021 Capital Improvement Plan, 2012 Enterprise Budgets and Southshore Community Center Budget B. 2011 Audit Services C. Adopting the Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54 Fund Designations 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. October 2011 Budget Report 2. GreenStep Cities Program Update B. Mayor and City Council 13. ADJOURN Attachments Planning Director's memo, Resolution Director of Public Works memo Engineer's memo Finance Director's Memo, Resolution Finance Director's memo Finance Director's memo, Resolution Finance Director's memo 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, 12 December, 2011 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #313: As part of the federal Clean Water Act, the City of Shorewood is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit was originally obtained in March, 2003. The public education and outreach requirement of the permit requires an annual public meeting be held to discuss the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Staff is recommending that this meeting be held January 23, 2012, at 7 PM, as part of the regular City Council meeting. Staff recommends that Council set this date and time for the Public Informational meeting. Agenda Item #3C: A resolution authorizing relaxation of turning movements at the intersection of Shady Hills Road and Brom's Boulevard is attached for your review. Agenda Item #6A: Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) representative Ken Hendrickson will report on recent LMCC activities. Agenda Item #7: There are no park items this evening Agenda Item #8A: Robert and Joan Bauman were issued a grading permit to place up to 100 cubic yards of fill on their property at 26640 Smithtown Road. Due to a miscommunication with the provider of the material, they deposited nearly 900 cubic yards of fill. They were given the option of applying for an after - the -fact conditional use permit or removing the fill. The Planning Commission considered their request for a C.U.P. and recommended approval, subject to conditions recommended by staff. A resolution approving the C.U.P. is attached for your consideration. Agenda Item #9A: WSB and Associates has prepared a traffic study for the Glencoe Road — Yellowstone Trail intersection. Agenda Item #913: Consideration of accepting the low quote for draintile replacement on Strawberry Lane. Agenda Item #I OA: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the 2012 -2021 Capital Improvement Plan, the 2012 Enterprise Budgets and the Southshore Community Center Budget Executive Summary — City Council Meeting of December 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #IOB: Staff recommends the City Council accept the proposal for Audit Services from Abdo Eick & Meyers, LLP, for the next three years as submitted. Agenda Item #IOC: Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution Adopting the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 requirements. Agenda Item #11: There are no items under Old Business this evening. Agenda Item #12A.1: The October 2011 Monthly Budget Report is provided. Agenda Item #12A.2: A verbal update will be provide on the GreenStep Cities Program CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2011 MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, W Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Niel and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as 2. SIGN INVENTORY UPDATE Engineer Landini explained the Federal Highway A retroreflectivity) language to the Manual of Unifor Department of Transportation (MnDOT) adopted identified specific milestone due dates which are: control signs by January 22, 2012; bring most signs by January 22, 2105; and, bring all suns into coml Federal Hu4hwav Administration (FHWA) Dropos' 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. ; Administrator Heck; 3ublic Works Brown; ion passed 510. rustration added -minim nighttime visibility (i.e., raffic Control Devices ( MUTCD). The Minnesota language in the MUTCD in 2008. The MUTCD A a policy on the maintenance method for traffic ) compliance with the minimum visibility standards Lee by January 22, 2108. On August 31, 2011, the o revise most of the milestone dates. All of the Landini then explained the City contracted with WSB & Associates to do a traffic control sign inventory and nighttime visibility inspection early in 2011. The City has 1,379 signs in inventory. Of those 851 failed the nighttime visibility inspection. The meeting packet contains a copy of a map showing where all of the poor visibility signs are installed in the City. Of the 851 poor visibility signs: 307 are speed limit signs; 43 are stop signs; 79 are weight restriction signs; and, 133 are no parking signs. The FHWA mandate does exclude no parking signs, but some of the City's no parking signs aren't very visible during the day and they should be replaced. There is an opportunity to reduce the inventory of signs. State Statute does have a 30 miles - per -hour (mph) speed limit for urban district or town roads in a rural residential district. The 30 mph speed limit doesn't have to be marked; only roads that aren't 30 mph have to be marked. Quite a few speed limit signs could be removed. Landini went on to explain the cost to purchase replacement signs for the poorly visible signs is approximately $34,400. It would cost about $60,000 just to purchase the entire inventory. That does not include shipping, labor or hardware. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocates $6,000 annually for sign maintenance. The CIP budgeted amount would purchase the failing signs within a 6 -year period. The rule of thumb for replacing a sign (including all of the hardware) is about $200 per sign. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Landini asked Council if it wants to wait until MnDOT accepts the FHWA's date changes before asking Staff to develop a draft policy for the maintenance method for traffic control signs or does it want Staff to work on that policy now. Mayor Lizee stated she thought it prudent to be prepared because the City can't count on when the compliance dates will be confirmed. She noted she thought replacing the stop signs is most important. She asked Council if it wanted Staff to prioritize the signs that must be replaced. She asked Engineer Landini what he thought the repercussions would be if the City didn't comply with the retroreflectivity standards by the mandated dates. Landini responded that federal officers or police officers will not be checking to see if signs are in compliance. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) could decide whether or not it would want to ensure the City or the LMC could increase the City's insurance rate if it doesn't comply. Director Brown stated he agreed that the stop signs are the most critical signs to replace. No parking signs that aren't distinguishable should also be a priority. If signs are that poor the City should be proactive in replacing them. This law will be enforced by litigation. People can sue over traffic accidents. Councilmember Woodruff commented that the retroreflectivity standard is his least favorite unfunded mandate. He stated he is aware of more than one city that is putting this on hold until the FWHA decides what the rules are. He noted that he didn't want to purchase signs that may not meet the standards. He suggested putting this on hold for now. He recommended replacing signs that can't be read now. Councilmember Siakel agreed with putting this on hold for now. She stated if there is a public safety issues with signs they should be replaced right away. The City can wait to address the retroreflectivity standard until there is more clarity. Councilmember Zerby suggested the City have a replacement sign policy independent of the retroreflectivity standard mandate. He asked Engineer Landini if it was possible to estimate the age of each sign when the inventory was conducted;. Landini responded the majority of the signs are over 10 years old. Landini explained the new sign inventory database will include a purchase date for each sign. In response to a second question from Zerby, Landini explained there is a way to measure the retroreflectivity of each sign. The CarteGraph software does have a way to estimate the remaining life of a sign using a degradation curve. The 851 signs that failed the nighttime' visibility inspections will show up as failed in the software. Landini noted the visibility of the current signs was rated by a 60 -year old person driving around. Zerby asked if there are obsolete signs up in the City. Engineer Landini responded watch for children and deaf child signs are more than likely obsolete because children have grown up and moved away. Director Nielsen noted that in the 1970s the City took down all slow children type signs. If there are any up they were not put up by the City. Zerby stated based on his experience signs are put up and left there even if there is no longer a need. Zerby agreed that traffic control signs are a priority. He noted he does not support taking the 30 mph speed limit signs down unless they are obsolete. Residents convey they want more speed signs not less. He suggested any sign policy should factor in age replacement criteria as well as retroreflectivity criteria. Director Brown clarified that any reference made to signs that are no long distinguishable is about no parking signs. He noted that he receives around 6 requests per month for additional speed signs. Mayor Lizee stated it's her understanding Council wants to prioritize the signs for replacement and to wait on developing a draft policy for the maintenance method for traffic control signs until the FHWA has finalized its mandates. She recommended keeping the $6000 annual budget for sign maintenance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Administrator Heck noted Staff knows enough to be able to draft a policy on short notice. He also noted the replacement signs will have a 10 -year warranty. He expressed his agreement with waiting until the FHWA has finalized its mandates. 3. 2012 — 2021 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Director DeJong highlighted the draft 2012 — 2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A copy was included in the meeting packet. The highlights are as follows. ➢ Fund 402 Park Improvements — The focus on this has changed based on previous discussions. The Park Commission merged its separate project lists (the CIP projects, maintenance items and wish list items) into this CIP. It includes everything the Commission has contemplated over the last several years. The projects beyond 2012 are very speculative in nature. The Commission needs to prioritize the park projects. The 2013 budget includes many projects related to Badger Park for a total cost of $462,000. One of those items is $245,000 for resurfacing the Badger Park tennis courts. If those were removed and the Financial Management Plan (FMP) was updated accordingly there would be approximately $200,000 above the existing funding for park improvements. ➢ Fund 403 Equipment Replacement — It now includes the previous Municipal Buildings and Technology Funds. The next 10 years of equipment purchases averages about $185,000 per year. The FMP for this Fund reflects that the transfer into the Equipment Replacement Fund is increased by $15,000 annually starting in 2012 and out through 2018 to fully fund the equipment needs. ➢ Fund 404 Street Reconstruction Fund and Fund 405 Minnesota State Aid (MSA) Road Reconstruction Fund — The City has become fully eligible for MSA construction allocations starting in 2012. All MSA designated roads must connect to another MSA road in order to be eligible. Eureka Road South is already designated an MSA road. Engineer Landim calculated that the City has sufficient MSA mileage available to adjust the City's MSA routes to eliminate Grant Lorenz from the MSA program and add Birch Bluff Road and Eureka Road North down to Smithtown Road. Doing this allows the Street Reconstruction Fund to remain solvent with an annual $700,000 transfer into the fund with a 2 percent inflationary increase starting in 2013. It will allow the City to fully fund the reconstruction of Eureka Road North and it will only require the City to borrow less than 2 years of its MSA allocation (all of 2020's and little of 2021's) in order to cover that entire project. It allows the City to fund the general road maintenance items with the existing fund including the 2 percent inflationary increase. MSA funding can only be used for full reconstruction; not maintenance. ➢ Fund 406 Trails - This is a new CIP. The Trail Plan recently adopted included a minimal direct construction cost based on approximately $16 per lineal foot for a 6- foot -wide trail. After reviewing trail cost projections for neighboring communities they are in the $50 — $60 per lineal foot range. The CIP reflects that increase. The total trail costs have been increase from $477,000 to approximately $1.8 million. The Trail FMP reflects an annual transfer in from the Community Infrastructure Fund starting in 2012. By the end of the 10 years the Community Infrastructure Fund would be in a deficit state. With the exception of $54,000 in 2012, grants have not been factored into this CIP. That grant is to help fund the $72,000 cost of constructing 1200 linear feet of paved trail from the LRT Trail on County Road 19 Tonka Bay /Shorewood border to Smithtown Road. ➢ Fund 601 Water — The Water Fund is tied to the reconstruction of roads to some extent. The meeting packet contains a copy of a map depicting where all of the watermain in the City is as well as those roads that are planned for reconstruction over the 10 years. There are 1420 households connected to City water. There are 272 that could connect to City CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 4 of 6 water. For roads scheduled to be reconstructed that are close to watermain the CIP includes the costs for extending watermain. The roads scheduled for reconstruction early in the 10 -year period abut the existing water system. If Council wants to extend watermain into other areas the Water FMP indicates there will be quite a bit of money available to do that. The FMP shows there should be approximately $5 million in the Fund in 2021. ➢ Fund 611 Sanitary Sewer — The sewer related projects are pretty basic. ➢ Fund 631 Stormwater Management — The projects included in the CIP are those identified in the Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas Report produced by WSB & Associates in 2006 as well as projects associated with road reconstruction. Councilmember Woodruff commented that the last time Council discussed the CIP he asked for additional information about equipment replacement needs. Council has not been provided with that information. He stated from a philosophical perspective Council needs to decide if it wants to approve the 2012 CIP this evening. With regard to equipment replacement, he explained Staff is advocating that projects included in the CIP at the time of adoption with an estimated cost of less than $100,000 be approved for Staff to complete as long as the total cost is at or below the amount budgeted for in the CIP. He noted he is a little troubled by that but is willing to go along with that recommendation. The only replacement item in the 2012 CIP that is above that threshold is the dump truck. He asked Council what it thinks about not seeing an expense authorization for anything other than the dump truck. He stated he doesn't know why any of the items in that CIP are recommended for replacement, including the dump truck. He then stated he supports the MSA reclassification recommendations made by Staff. Woodruff stated he is astounded by the $1.8 million dollar figure for trails. He then stated that spending $72,000 for a 400 linear feet of trail in 2012 blows him away. If the City does get a $54,000 grant to help fund part of the $72,000 cost he is willing to move forward with it. He expressed his unwillingness to accept anything other that some future discussion about trails. Councilmember Siakel stated the original discussion about trails was about prioritizing the trail projects. Her assumption is there would be a lot of discussion about trails projects in the future. She then stated if the City can get grants to help fund trail projects she thought it important to seriously consider the projects. Administrator Heck explained the City was going to apply for a grant to help fund the cost of constructing 9500 linear feet of paved trail along Smithtown Road from the city borders of Shorewood and Victoria to the LRT Trail but that grant opportunity was only for greater Minnesota. He anticipates the City will hear about its grant application to help fund the $72,000 cost of constructing 1200 linear feet of paved trail from the LRT Trail on County' Road 19 Tonka Bay /Shorewood border to Smithtown Road in January 2012. Councilmember Siakel asked how Staff decided on a $100,000 threshold for CIP approved projects so they would not require additional Council authorization. Director DeJong explained the State Statutes bid limit is $100,000. If a purchase doesn't require a bid Staff would not necessarily have to get further authorization from Council. DeJong stated if Council wants Staff to come back for authorization for each item approved in the CIP he questioned what the purpose of approving the CIP is. He explained that if Council approves the CIP and the cost is at or below the amount budgeted for in the CIP Staff would expect that Council delegated some authority with the approval of the CIP for Staff to move forward with a project or make a purchase. Staff's intent is to have Council set policy and have Staff implement the policy. That would minimize the amount of detail Council needs to be involved in. Bringing every thing back for additional authorization generates more work for Staff. He stated Council can lower the threshold if it wants. He then stated Council can be provided additional detail on why certain equipment needs to be replaced, noting most of the equipment has CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 5 of 6 reached the end of its useful life. He noted the City's loader replacement was pushed out a few years because it was in serviceable condition and it broke beyond repair this summer. More of that type of thing will begin to happen in the future. Mayor Lizee stated she thought Staff has submitted a responsible CIP. She noted Council has heard about the dump truck replacement for a number of years in earlier CIPs. The items in the CIP are not new. She expressed hope that Council did not want to micromanage the quality Staff the City has. She stated the purchases are needed to continue to provide the level of service residents expect. With regard to the $1.8 million figure for trails, she stated it's good to have that included in the CIP to show the City is committed to it. She explained it would be prudent to pursue a safe routes to school grant as well as grants with the Minnetonka and Westonka School Districts. The results of the recent resident survey should help Council determine what is important to City's residents and how high of a priority trails /safe sidewalks are to them. She recommended the money remain as a placeholder in the CIP. Councilmember Zerby stated that he thought it important to leaA especially because Council created an Ad Hock Committee to develc adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan. With regard to the $ 10( discomfort with that threshold amount. He clarified he doesn't want reducing the threshold amount to possibly $50,000 or establishing requiring further Council authorization. Zerby then stated the City jointly owns the Southshore Community Any capital improvements should be funded by all five cities. He cc has always concerned him a little. It's basically costing the City questioned if there are enough residents in the City who use the tenni Mayor Lizee stated the for the Park that need discuss the Parks Mast Administrator Heck exph equipment and its'remaim equipment. The dump truck si to be replaced a few years a consider Council to be micro_ wants to lower the threshold itemize and prioritize: Bader Director DeJong sta 2012, meeting along 4. 2012 BUDGET the trails placeholder in the CIP a trail plan for the City which was 000 threshold, he stated he has some to micromanage Staff. He suggested an over- budget percent amount for `enter (SSCC) with four other cities. rnented that resurfacing tennis courts )out' $20,000 a year to do that. He ,ourts to warrant that expense. Badger Park tennis courts is just one component of a larger plan She recommended Council meet with the Park Commission to s been past practice for Staff to evaluate the maintenance history of �cted useful life when equipment is scheduled to be replaced before it's en appropriate, Staff considers the purchase of used replacement sled for replacement in 2012 was purchased in 1988 and it was scheduled taff does its due diligence. He stated from his vantage point he doesn't ,ging if it wants to authorize a purchase. He has no problem if Council unt. He then stated he supports the need for the Park Commission to will bring the 2012 CIP back for Council approval during its December 12, itional supporting detail. Director DeJong reviewed the major changes made to the preliminary 2012 General Fund Operating Budget adopted during Council's August 22, 2011, meeting. The part-time web coordinator position was eliminated. The contract with Community Rec Resources for managing recreation programs will not be renewed starting 2012. There was a $5000 reduction in the contribution required for the police public CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 6 of 6 safety facility bonds. Those changes save over $78,000. Unfortunately, it still leaves the General Fund with a budget deficit of approximately $87,400. DeJong explained during the pre adoption preliminary budget discussion Council and Staff discussed that with the general under - spending of individual line items it will be entirely possible that the City will end 2012 with a close to balanced budget. The role of the Southshore Community Center coordinator is undergoing changes. Preliminary changes have been made to allow for higher compensation for the coordinator due to increased rentals and more hours of compensation. Based on estimates provided by Administrator Heck he raised the amount from $35,000 to about $60,000. Revenues were increased to offset that. The SSCC budget includes a transfer in to the SSCC Enterprise Fund from the General Fund of $13,600 to subsidize SSCC operations. He clarified that is an estimate. DeJong then explained the Recycling Budget reflects an increase of $0.50 p€ order to try and balance this budget. With regard to the Water Enterprise B assessment and hookup fees is estimated to be approximately $36,000, unrealistic. DeJong stated Staff has tried to put tools in place to lay the foul 2013 budget process. Councilmember Woodruff stated Director DeJong and Staff ha-, picture he has ever been provided during his tenure as a council proposed 2012 budgets. He noted he is not prepared to agree to the SSCC. He suggested Council needs to have a detailed disc okay having that as a placeholder. Councilmember Zerby job preparing the budg revenues are proposed Director DeJong asked Council meeting that 1 Councilmember Woodi to comment on it. 5. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Wood 2011, at 7:00 P.M. M RESPECTFULLY St Christine Freeman, R ATTEST: priority for the the most comprehensive budget e then stated he can support the ,000 on contractual services for it what that means, noting he's le also appreciates Director DeJong's'' efforts. He and Staff have done a good ith regard to the SSCC budget, he thought it was detailed nicely. Increased I the increase in costs for the SSCC coordinator contractual costs. -il to adopt the changes to the 2012 budget on a preliminary basis during the this meeting. Mayor Lizee stated it will be placed on the consent agenda. ;gested it be placed further down on agenda to allow Council an opportunity 1, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of November 28, 5/0. Christine Lizee, Mayor for recycling rates in revenues from water hat amount may be Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2011 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, City Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJ of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landim Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Mayor Lizee stated that Director DeJong asked that Item 10.0 2012 General Fund Operating Budget be added to the agenda. Councilmember Woodruff asked that Item 10.1) City Administra the agenda. Mayor Lizee stated she will address that under Item I Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as amen 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ; Attorney Keane; r Nielsen; Director of the Modified Preliminary s Performance Appraisal be added to 3 Mayor and City Council Reports. Motion passed 510. A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, November 14, 2011 Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 510. B. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 14, 2011 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of November 14, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 510. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 14, 2011 Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2011, as amended in Item 11.13, Page 7, Paragraph 2, Bullet 1 change "It doesn't address very long leashes" to "It doesn't address retractable leashes ". Motion passed 510. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 2 of 17 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolution Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Authorize Participation in Hennepin County 2012 Deer Aerial Survey C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11 -065 "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." Motion passed 510. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this 5. PUBLIC HEARING None. 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATI A. Minnetonka Community l Mayor Lizee stated Tad Shaw, the City's re] Advisory Council, is present this evening to Mr. Shaw noted MCE publishes a every household in the Minnetonk, is now a total subsidiary of the Mil liability for MCE; Anyone can tal Report by Tad Shaw the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) e of programs it offers three times each year. It is mailed to District. He explained MCE was founded 40 years ago and it School District. The City's residents don't have any financial from MCE; there are no borders for community education Mr. Shaw explained there were 4140 toddlers living within the Minnetonka School District area in 2001. In 2011 there are 2415. The levy MCE receives from the State is based on the number of children living in the District. It gets $5.42 for each child. He noted the State has not adjusted upward the levy for Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) for years. Because of the reduction in levy money MCE has to change the fee schedule for ECFE. He explained MCE gives out a lot of scholarships to students. He stated there has also been a reduction in the number of high school age and college age young adults living in the District. There has been in 20 percent decrease in the population residing in the District over 10 years. In 2001 there were approximately 50,000 residents and in 2011 there are 39,984. The amount of levy money the MCE receives has decreased about $56,000 since 2001. Mr. Shaw then explained the MCE's audited budget for last year was $8.5 million. Of that 87.5 percent was user fees. The remaining 12.5 percent came from levy money from the State. The MCE program is one of the best community education organizations in the State of Minnesota when it comes to generating user fees to cover expenses. He stated he thought the residents living in the District have been fortunate to have had the leadership for the District and MCE they have had. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 3 of 17 Mayor Lizee noted that Ms. Shaw has been the City's representative on the Advisory Council for a very long time. She also noted that MCE's budget last years was twice as much as the City's budget. She stated MCE, like the City, is cognizant of the impact the shift in population and demographics have on funding. The need for creative funding is continually increasing. Mr. Shaw stated the District currently has an initiative for innovation to identify ways of doing what it does better. He noted that more than 30 percent of the students attending schools in the District live outside of the District. That is how the District has been able to survive a 20 percent loss in population. The District was the first school district in the area to start promoting public education to children living in other school districts. MCE has started doing an innovation exercise to identify ways to serve the public better. 7. PARKS No report was given on the November 15, 2011, Park 8. PLANNING Commissioner Arnst reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 15, 2011, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Zerby stated at the open house abo comment sheets were available for attendees. He aske public to review. Commissioner Arnst noted the City Nielsen stated they were tabulated and provided to the added to the to the Study information on the City's w residents indicating they would like to see a recap e submitted on comment sheets. the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study f they have been tabulated and published for the Iv received four'' comment sheets back. Director lanning Commission. Nielsen stated that could be site. Zerby stated he has received feedback from the comments made during the open house and A. Shady Director Nielsen explained the City received a petition from residents living in the Shady Hills neighborhood asking for certain revisions to the traffic controls in their neighborhood. The Shady Hills residents believe they are being inconvenienced more than the traffic controls are worth. The Planning the Nielsen stated traffic controls were looked into several years ago when the Vine Hill Road intersection was redone. There were certain traffic controls put in place at the request of the residents in that neighborhood at that time to attempt to minimize drivers taking a short cut through the neighborhood on their way to and from the Minnetonka High School. Nielsen explained staff "'`conducted a cursory traffic volume and speed count using the speed buggy operated by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. That speed test was done once during the school year and once during the summer months when school was not in session. The results were reported back to the neighborhood residents during an August Planning Commission meeting. The residents expressed concern that there may have been "speed buggy intimidation" so staff agreed to redo the counts using simple traffic counters that go across the road. The concern was drivers may have slowed down when they saw the speed buggy. The findings were presented during a subsequent Commission meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 4 of 17 Nielsen stated the Planning Commission made a motion recommending the vegetation at the southeast quadrant where Shady Hills Road meets Brom's Boulevard be cleared back to provide better visibility at the intersection, installing a no -right turn effective from 7:00 to 8:00 A.M. sign from eastbound Brom's Boulevard onto Shady Hills Road year round, and removing the no -left turn sign from Shady Hills Road onto Brom's Boulevard. The Commission also recommended placing the resolution on the consent agenda for the December 12, 2011, Council meeting. The petition requested physical improvements be made to Shady Hills Road roadway. The City Engineer recommended assessing for the improvements if they are made in advance of other improvements planned for that roadway. The consensus of the residents in the neighborhood was they didn't want to pay for that. Mayor Lizee stated this issue has been around for quite a while. She noted the meeting packet contains a great deal of information about this. The Planning Commission has been discussing it for quite some time and it has solicited a great deal of resident input. Councilmember Zerby stated he was pleased to have residents take on initiatives like this and he was also pleased with the work the Planning Commission and Staff did with regard to this issue. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution establishing the revised turning restrictions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion passed 510. B. Zoning Text Amendment for Dynamic Signs Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has spent a fair amount of time this past year discussing whether or not it thought the City should allow electronically changeable message signs typically referred to as dynamic display signs. The new sign that was purchased for the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) falls into this category. The SSCC's sign is an alpha- numeric dynamic display sign; there are no graphics on it. The Holiday gas station, is interested in installing a digital display advertising signs. Nielsen explained the Planning Commission first identifiedd it didn't want to allow graphic displays that change rapidly. The Commission considered what a lot of other cities' ordinances allow. Some cities don't allow dynamic display signs. The Commission and Staff have developed a relatively cautious draft ordinance that would allow that technology to be used while controlling the effects the signs may have on traffic and neighborhoods. Nielsen then explained the draft Ordinance included in the meeting packet is the result of the Planning Commission's study. The Commission held a public hearing on the draft Ordinance during its November 1, 2011, meeting. The Commission recommended Council approve the Ordinance. Towards the end of the public hearing Mike Cronin, representing the Holiday Stationstores, recommended the Ordinance include a provision requiring an ambient light sensor. Because that was not included in the Planning Commission's original motion the Commission made a follow -up motion asking the Council to consider adding that provision. He noted he provided Council with revised alternative language for including the provision this evening. The revision changed "sunrise to sunset" to "sunset to sunrise ". Mayor Lizee thanked the Planning Commission for its efforts. Mr. Cronin, who was present in the audience, stated he endorsed the Ordinance. Councilmember Siakel stated the Planning Commission and Staff did a good job. She then stated she supports the revised alternate language for Section 9(a) and Section 9(b) which includes the provision for an ambient light sensor. Councilmember Zerby concurred with Siakel's comments. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 5 of 17 Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 487 "An Ordinance Amending the Shorewood Zoning Code as it Pertains to Dynamic Display Signs" subject to it including the alternate language for a provision for an ambient light sensor. Motion passed 510. C. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Don and Kiki Gloude Location: 4675 Fatima Place Mayor Lizee explained Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place, have requested a front yard setback variance. The applicants have met with the Planning Director and the Planning Commission. The Commission held a public hearing on their request during its November 1, 2011, meeting and it continued the hearing to its November 15, 2011, meeting. The Commission has recommended the request be denied on a 4/2 vote. She noted the Commission discussed the request in great detail. Lizee noted the City put off considering variances for about one year because of changes in State Statutes. Council approved an ordinance amending the Shorewood Zoning Code as it pertains to the granting of variances during its November 14, 2011, meeting in order to make the Code consistent those changes. Lizee asked the Gloudes if they would like to withdraw their request. She explained her reasons for asking that question. The Planning Commission recommended denying the request because it doesn't satisfy the criteria for granting a variance. The Commission has made a decision to discuss potential changes to the Code to address issues as they relate to front yard setback restrictions for residential districts in January 2012 to assess if the setbacks are still appropriate. There are many older homes in the City and residents want to update them to satisfy, new needs they have. `If the applicants are willing to withdraw their application the City will refund their escrow money. Director Nielsen stated restrictions, especially f Mr. Gloude stated Director Niels( there are many older homes in th( yard setback area. He explained a and he told them it would be abou mean it would have six to the front yard setback project. fission will discuss potential changes to front yard setback its first meeting in January. up the idea of considering an ordinance amendment because :)rhood and other residential areas that encroach into the front commissioner had asked him how long their build schedule is the long. He expressed concern that the Planning Commission the to assess the Code and decide if it should recommend ctions. He clarified the six months is to the completion of the Mr. Gloude explained there is a'' logical sequence of events in building a structure. They have two stories of structure framing up and roofing material on. They want to tie the framing and roofing material into the siding. They would prefer not to have to come back in six months to try and piecemeal the roof over the stoop into the rest of the structure if the Code is amended in a way that would allow them to do that. He then explained they have received mixed information from the Planning Department. For example, over one year ago they were told they could build the entry way but it had to be a side entrance. During the November 15 Planning Commission meeting, Director Nielsen stated that it could be a front entrance. They designed the entrance to satisfy what they were originally told. Ms. Gloude explained she has notes from three conversations she had with the Planning Director going back as far as fourteen months. Her notes say they had to have a side entrance. During the November 15 meeting they were told it didn't have to be a side entrance. During the November 1S Planning CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 6 of 17 Commission meeting they found out they didn't need the variance for the stoop they had been told they needed after months of working on it. She stated they would like a continuous roof and maybe they will be told they don't need a variance for that now. She then stated they are really confused on how the City has flip flopped on this. She distributed a sketch of how they would like their roofline to look as well as what the City says it will allow. If the roof is constructed the way the City will allow people are going to ask why there is a notch in the roof. She noted they will abide by whatever decision the City decides to make. She reiterated the two restrictions they had been told were set in stone are now not an issue at all. She stated they are asking not to have to have a notch in their roofline in order to protect stoop in front of the entry into their home from snow and ice. It would amount to about two feet of additional roof. She commented she doesn't know how to respond to the suggestion that they withdraw their variance request. She stated she doesn't know what it means. Mr. Gloude stated over the last year they have hired someone to design their reconstruction plans based on information they received from Brad. He noted the Code states that covered porches are not allowed to encroach into the front yard setback. He stated their home is over 50 years old, with a 30 -foot setback with no entry and no ability to recess it. They are able to build an entry onto their home. They are making the entry into their home handicap accessible for family friends who use a wheelchair. A roof over the stoop in front of the entry would make it safer. Councilmember Siakel stated she went to look at the Gloudes' property. She commented that she can understand why they want to have a continuous roof. The question for Council is how to work with them to make that happen. She explained she agreed with Mayor Lizee that the Planning Commission has to take the next step by assessing if the Code needs to be amended to allow things similar to what the applicants are asking. She stated she likes the suggestion to withdraw the variance application allowing the Commission the opportunity to decide if a Code amendment should be recommended for consideration by Council. She asked the Gloudes' if they could wait until spring to finish the roof. Mr. Gloude responded it would cost more to have a builder tie the additional roof into the rest of the roofline, to redo some siding and so forth. Siakel stated she didn't think Council could make an exception and allow this variance request. Councilmember Woodruff stated he appreciates what the Gloudes want to do. He apologized on behalf of the City for any confusion the City may have created. He noted he was the council liaison to the November ISt and November 15 Planning Commission meetings and heard the discussion about this variance request. He expressed his support for opening up the Code for review, noting the City should be doing that on a regular basis. Woodruff asked Attorney Keane and Director Nielsen to explain what benefits there would be to the applicants for withdrawing their variance application. Director Nielsen explained they would get all of their escrow money back if they withdraw their request. Attorney Keane noted it's the prerogative of the Council to refund the application fee with a request for withdrawal. Keane then explained if the variance request is denied they could not reapply for a similar request until six months has elapsed from the time of denial. Councilmember Zerby stated from his vantage point it is silly that the Gloudes can't do what they want without having a variance request approved. Variance requests come before Council so it can interject some sensibility into the process. He thought their request is very sensible. He noted the footprint of the home isn't going to be changed by having a continuous roofline. He also noted that it sounds as if there have been some communication issues on the part of the City. He stated to him it sounds like Council is interested in changing the Code to allow this and similar things in the future. He expressed a willingness CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 7 of 17 to approve their variance request and then amend the Code. He did not think there would be a backlash from residents. Councilmember Hotvet stated she agreed with approving the variance request and then amending the Code. She stated the notched roof will be more dangerous when entering the house. Councilmember Siakel stated from her vantage point this is about fairness and not making an exception for one person and then not another. She stated she thought the most effective way to make sure the Gloudes can do what they are asking is to make sure the Code is updated. She agrees the restriction is silly. Councilmember Zerby stated during his 9 -year tenure as a Council where Council had to exercise caution in order to not establish a pre that had been established. The Gloudes request is trivial from his var. Councilmember Woodruff explained the Code is law. What the or the criteria for a variance established under state law and potentially violating the City's law and state law. The City is a point it is really dangerous to do that especially when Counci expressed a desire to assess the Code and find a way to t accommodated. Council is not considering awrovin4 a varianca variance request to allow a roof to encroacl people may want to put a roof on that en( Council be careful as to how it would allow reasons for why granting this variance makes sen considering this request. Director Nielsen stated he didn't think the Planning C Code amendment should be recommended to addres could hold a public hearing on an amendment during considered by Council during its second meeting in F would be that complicated. Vlember he has considered requests -dent or violate previous precedents Ige point. ies want to do doesn't meet the law City's code. Council is .discussing sd to do that. But, from his vantage babty doesn't need to. Council has it so this sort of thing can be ;t for a porch; it is considering a area. He asked how many other setback area. He recommended ,tated there are a lot of emotional needs to be very careful when front yard setbac nto the front yar does allow it. He sion intends to take six months to decide if a He then stated he thought the Commission t meeting in February 2012. It could then be v. He noted he did not think the amendment Mayor Liz& stated there is a great deal of interest in getting this done. She noted that financial impacts cannot factor into the variance 'request decision making process. She noted this request doesn't fit the City's practical difficulty standard for granting a variance. She stated it makes sense for the Gloudes to want that part of their sidewalk covered by the roof. She again recommended the Gloudes withdraw their variance application and allow the Planning Commission and Council to work together on this. She noted she doesn't want to set the precedent of granting a variance just because it makes sense. She commented that most variance requests make sense. She stated Council has to play by the rules. Director Nielsen noted if Council doesn't take action on this during this meeting the City will have to notify the applicants that it is going to take longer than 60 days to complete the consideration of this application. Mr. Gloude stated if the Code were to be amended he asked if there would be any cost to them to modify their permit to include the continuous roof. Director Nielsen stated the permit would be amended at no cost. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 8 of 17 In response to a question from Ms. Gloude, Councilmember Woodruff stated there are two things the applicant will get if they withdraw their variance application. The first is they will be refunded their escrow. If the Planning Commission and Council decide to take some type of action on amending the Code and the applicants are not satisfied with the amendment they could apply for another variance right away. Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, directing Staff to draft a resolution approving the front yard setback variance for Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place. Attorney Keane noted that if the motion on the table fails it does not mean the Gloudes' variance application has been denied. They can still decide to withdraw their application. Councilmember Zerby commented that if he were a betting person he would bet the Code will be amended in a few months which would negate the need for a variance. Motion failed 2/3 with Liz&, Siakel and Woodruff dissenting. Mr. Gloude withdrew their variance application. Councilmember Siakel asked if Staff has created a 2012 draft work program for the Planning Commission. She stated she thought there is consensus to have a draft plan prepared by the end of the year. She then stated she wants to make sure the Planning Commission addresses this right away in January. She asked if any action can be taking by the Planning Commission this month. She then asked what can be done now to start the process to make sure this is addressed. Director Nielsen stated the 2012 draft Planning Commission work program will be on its December 6, 2011, meeting agenda. He noted the Commission has directed' Staff to come prepared to discuss a potential amendment during the Commission's first meeting in January 2012. He stated he did not think an ordinance amendment' would be a cdmblicated thincr. Councilmember Zerby Siakel 9. WORKS on this. Staff to have the City refund the Gloudes' escrow it to withdraw their variance application. Motion A. Silver Lake Storm Water Sediment Trap Improvement Engineer Landini explained the storm water outlet located near 5750 Covington Road disperses the sediment collected by the storm sewer on Covington Road and Old Market Road into Silver Lake. The project is located across from Silverwood Park. Staff proposes a box culvert with baffles inside be built underneath the soil there to make the water still so the sediments settle to the bottom before they reach Silver Lake. Eventually the sediment will have to be vacuumed out as part of routine maintenance. Landini reviewed other sediment removal devices Staff discussed during the design but ruled out and why they were ruled out. They are as follows. ➢ A priority vortex device because it wasn't large enough to handle the volume of stormwater. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 9 of 17 ➢ Infiltration due to the volume of stormwater. ➢ Surface ponding at the site due to neighborhood aesthetics and it would scour the bottom. ➢ An ADS storm water treatment device (a plastic underground tank) due to volume of stormwater (the largest pipe it can handle is 15 inch and the stormwater management pipe is 30 inch). ➢ Rain gardens due to the volume of stormwater. ➢ Iron sands filter due to the volume of stormwater. ➢ Redirecting the storm sewer through Silverwood Park to an adjacent wetland located to the southeast due to it requiring a flood insurance study to be done first. ➢ Heating Covington Road and Old Market Road to reduce winter sanding sediment due to the project scope and expense. ➢ Cistern or reuse storage due to lack of irrigation possibilities. ➢ A screen filter due to volume of water and clogging. Landini explained the City received three quotes for the project - Machtemes Construction quoted $102,090.50; G. F. Jedkicki Inc. quoted $96.472; and, the low quoter Parrott Contracting Inc. quoted $93,290.50. The Stormwater Management Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $40,000 for the Silver Lake Outlet project and $75,000 for the Covington Road Storm Sewer. The Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District has pledged a $40,000 grant contribution towards the project to help minimize the sediment that flows into Silver Lake. Mayor Lizee stated it's nice to have a partner on this project. She noted this problem has been plaguing the City for quite a few years. She thanked Staff for soliciting a lot of resident input. In response to a question from Councilmember Associates worked on the design. In response to anc catch basis will be removed and two will be installed the curb line. They should be able to handle the vol as a spillway will be installed to catch water that mi from Woodruff, Landini explained the surface above be a few manhole covers. Councilmember Zerby stated he lik+ Silver Lake area residents and they likes the fact that Parrott Contractin the sediment,cleanout last winter. Zerby moved, Woodruff improvements to Parrott C , odruff, Engineer " Landini explained WSB & question from Woodruff, Landini explained one two new ones will have a very large opening in of stormwater. Concrete curb and gutter formed the catch basins. In response to a third question pox culvert will be vegetation and there will also keep it simple design. He noted he has spoken with many of the ,cited about the effort that has gone into this. He then stated he low quoter, has some actual experience at the site. It performed awarding the contract for the Silver Lake stormwater Inc. for an amount not to exceed $93,290.50. Councilmember Hotvet asked how often the box culvert will have to be vacuumed out and if the City has the equipment to do that. Engineer Landini explained the City has the necessary equipment, but he doesn't know how often it will have to be cleaned out. Director Brown explained that based on what he has seen for sediment load he assumes it will have to be vacuumed out once or twice a year. Hotvet asked if the residents will be notified of the project. Landini responded he will let them know who the project has been awarded to tomorrow. Motion passed 510. B. Petition for City Water CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 10 of 17 Engineer Landini explained that at the November 14, 2011, Council work session the City received a petition from residents near Pleasant Avenue for the extension of watermain. Eight residents from the area signed the petition. He noted the petition process is governed by Minnesota Statutes § 499 and the City of Shorewood Code of Ordinances. The petition does not contain enough signatures along any conceivable watermain extension route to meet the City Code or State Statutes. He explained a loop could be made out of several different routes to improve the City's water system so if there were a watermain break there would be another path for water to get to the rest of the City. Landini reviewed the three options for Council consideration this evening. They are as follows. 1) Defer consideration of the petition until enough signatures are obtained along the watermain extension routes. Offer a free room rental at the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) for a neighborhood meeting, and offer mailing assistance for information distribution and 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. Councilmember Zerby stated he is excited to hear that residents v stated he supports pursuing this request further. He then stated he roots movement in any way it can. He expressed his support for room at the SSCC to discuss this and having City staff present to a: Councilmember Hotvet stated she supports educating residents at beginning of the feasibility study and finding out what residents open to anyone in the City. Mayor Lizee asked if she is hearing a motion ti together and offer assistance with mailings and a Councilmember Siakel aske( extension of city water to th( about city water. Engineer l distributed by a resident to th Councilmember Woodruff st along the routes where waters city water. Once that is don( identified on the map includ extending city water in their petition. Councilmember Sial about extending city to be able to access city water. He its the City to encourage this grass iniz the residents in the area a free the process. She also supports the . She stated the meeting would be people who put the petition if anyone knew how many property owners in the area said no to the neighborhood. She stated she supports having a town hall type meeting ndini stated he wasn't sure how the information about city water was - esidents. ed he can support the City facilitating a meeting of the residents living yin could be extended asking if they are interested in signing a petition for Staff could determine if there is enough interest along any of the routes I' in the meeting packet. The City could explain the City is considering rea' but the City wants to solicit your input and that they need to sign a could be prefaced by explaining residents recently petitioned the City Director DeJong noted that Mann Lane and Seamans Drive are scheduled for reconstruction in 2018 and 2020 respectively. As part of those efforts it would be possible to get watermain close to Pleasant Avenue properties. Administrator Heck stated it's prudent to clearly explain this is a resident driven request. The City's involvement will be to answer questions and facilitate the meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 11 of 17 Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, directing Staff to offer a free room at the Southshore Community Center for a neighborhood meeting to talk about expanding the City's water system, to offer mailing assistance for information and distribution of invitations, and to have Staff present at the meeting to provide information and answer questions. Motion passed 510. 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Establishing Fees for the Domestic Partnership Registry Administrator Heck explained that during its November 14, 2011, meeting Co establishing a Domestic Partnership Registry. The fees for initial registration registration ($25), termination of registration ($25) and certificates and 'additi need to be established in the fee schedule. The meeting packet contains a'copy the fee schedule. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 488 `License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous." Motion passed 510. B. Domestic Partnership Resolution to uncil adopted an ordinance ($25), amendment to the tonal certified copies ($2) of an ordinance amending "An Ordinance Titled Administrator Heck explained that during its November 14, 2011, meeting Council directed Staff to draft a resolution for Council's consideration that would be forwarded to the City's legislative delegation, the Governor of Minnesota, the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and Metro Cities requesting their consideration and support for legislation creating a domestic partner registry. Councilmember Zerby noted this is something Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11 -066 "A Resolution Supporting Domestic Partnership Registrations" subject to changing "many cities have adopted" to "many Minnesota cities have adopted ". Councilmember Woodruff stated that he understood`' Council to ask Staff to draft a resolution requesting the LMC and the State adopt a similar registry. From his vantage point the language in the resolution goes beyond that. Therefore, he can't support adopting the resolution. His concerns are as follows. The statement `the City of Shorewood City Council supports and believes committed domestic partners should have equal access to employer provided benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc." may or may not be what the Councilmembers believe. What Council did say is domestic partners should have the ability to register their partnership. That statement doesn't say that and it goes beyond that. With regard to the statement "... the City council' of the City of Shorewood that the State of Minnesota move to pass legislation allowing committee domestic partners to have their relationship legally recognized" he stated the City's Domestic partnership Registry doesn't say the City is having their relationships legally recognized. The City is simply registering them and recording the registration. He then stated he doesn't want the resolution to be sent out with that language in it. Administrator Heck stated he was assigned the task of drafting a resolution that would essentially convey to the State that this type of activity belongs at the state level and not at the city level. He then stated he put in the language "equal access" because Council discussed the registry could provide access similar to that which married couples have access to. He explained the City's Ordinance as well as many other cities' ordinances don't make it a legal recognition similar to a civil union. He is not sure it was the intent of the Council to have the State legally recognize the partnerships. He stated he wanted to sensitive to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 12 of 17 different points of view particularly because of the marriage amendment that is being discussed. He was trying to balance the idea of a domestic partner registration that gives some recognition without implying that the City of Shorewood supports the legal recognition of same sex marriage. Mayor Lizee stated she doesn't have a problem with leaving the word legal in the resolution. She asked Attorney Keane to comment on it. Attorney Keane stated Council is asking a policy question about a position that Council is communicating to the State and the public. He noted there are no legalities that affect this Council. Council understands what is not legal in the State with regard to marital unions. By adopting a Domestic Partnership Registry Council authorized a statement in it self as to the value of those relationships by registering them at the local level. He noted it's up to Council to decide on its policy position. Councilmember Zerby stated he recollected Councilmember Woodruff talking about hospital visitation rights when the Domestic Partnership Registry was discussed. He asked Woodruff if he was uncomfortable with that now. Woodruff stated he didn't think it needed to be in there. Councilmember Woodruff requested the maker of the motion withdraw it and that Staff be asked to revise the resolution. Councilmember Zerby stated he is of adding the word Minnesota. He recognized. Motion passed 4/1 with Woodruff dissenting. C. Adoption Mayor Lizee noted Director DeJong explained tl discussed the modified prelimi that were made to the prelimin 22, 2011, meeting. The part -tij Rec Resources for managing reduction in the contribution r $78,000. Unfortunately, it still the with the way the resolution is written with the exception vhy you would register the partnership if it's not legally 2012 General Fund Operating Budget DeJong. during the work session immediately preceding this meeting Council y 2012 General Fund Operating Budget. He reviewed the major changes 2012 General Fund Operating Budget adopted during Council's August web coordinator position was eliminated. The contract with Community - eation programs will not be renewed starting 2012. There was a $5000 ired for the police public safety facility bonds. These changes save over ves the General Fund with a budget deficit of approximately $87,400. DeJong clarified during the Truth -In- Taxation meeting scheduled for December 5, 2011, the budget discussed will include those new figures. Councilmember Zerby noted Council has been discussing this budget for many months. He stated he thought it appropriate to move this forward. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11 -067 "A Resolution Adopting a Modified Preliminary 2012 General Fund Operating Budget." Councilmember Woodruff stated the modified preliminary 2012 General Fund Operating Budget is set at $5,223,830. The levy remains at $4,763,319. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 13 of 17 Motion passed 510. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Tobacco License Ordinance and License Request Administrator Heck explained that during its November 14, 2011, meeting Council discussed a new license application for the sale of tobacco products for Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco Inc. located at 23710 State Highway 7 in the Shorewood Village Shopping Center. During that meeting Councilmember Zerby expressed a concern about the background check conducted. He also expressed concern that some of the devices that might be sold at the establishment could be similar to items sold at the gas station / market located in Greenwood along Highway 7. Some people might consider certain devices to be drug paraphernalia; the City's tobacco ordinance calls them drug related devices. Zerby suggested Council review the City's tobacco ordinance and decide if it should, or can, be modified to address the sale of drug paraphernalia in the City. Heck then explained based on the background infi talking with Attorney Keane he does not think recommends approving the license. With regard something about what could be considered drug p or in other ordinances anything specifically states noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the c He also noted the Greenwood City Council alsc paraphernalia. That Council concluded that st; Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) officers issue a citation. rmation'obtained and the City's tobacco ordinance and here is a sound reason for denying the license. Staff to amending the City's tobacco ordinance to include traphernalia he stated he couldn't find in State Statutes that certain devices are drug related paraphernalia. He efinition of drug paraphernalia found in State Statutes. talked about amending its 'ordinance to address drug to law alreadv covers this and if the South Lake lrug related paraphernalia they can Heck went on to explain that some of the tobacco related infractions are administrative in nature. Those infractions don't show up during a background check because they do not go through the court system. In the future the application will require the applicants to identify other cities they have or have had licenses in. The City can then contact those cities to determine if the applicant has had issues in those cities as part of the background process. Councilmember Zerby expressed his appreciation to Staff for having done the research on this. He stated he is willing to approve the license request.. Attorney Keane stated with regard to the paraphernalia devices and definition the city attorneys have wrestled with that somewhat illusive issue. If there is consensus it is that that they look to the law enforcement community to help with identifying the rapid changes in devices of conveyance as well as the products. That environment is changing daily. Councilmember Zerby stated in the not too distant past there were changes made to state law to address a certain type of synthetic drug. He thought that was well defined and it was defined in such a way that the law did not have to be amended to address each new variations. He then stated it would be good to see a similar law applied to devices that are considered drug paraphernalia. He noted law enforcement personnel can only consider a device drug paraphernalia if it has drug residue on them or drugs in them. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11 -062 "A Resolution Approving a License to a Retailer to Sell Tobacco Products for Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc., 23710 State Highway 7." CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 14 of 17 Mayor Lizee stated she will bring this topic to the SLMPD Coordinating Committee. Motion passed 510. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 8:59 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 9:04 P.M. B. City Border Signs Administrator Heck explained that Director Brown asked WSB & designs to prepare a mockup of a sign that will meet the minimum roads with speed limits of 25 miles per hour (mph) or higher. Foi be a minimum of 6 inches tall and lower case letters must be a in displayed was 24 inches tall and 42 inches wide. Some of the new and approximately 72 inches wide. Heck then explained Staff is considering replacing the eight rece with the to be ordered 24 inch tall by 42 inch wide signs. Whe because of poor visibility or damage in the future the 24 inch b border sign. The signs along Highway 7 will only say the City Minnesota Department of Transportation considers the phrase advertising and that is not allowed on a border sign. Councilmember Zerby stated he likes the smaller sign. He ex has done on this. He suggested the sign be 24 inches tall by 48 other neighboring communities. Councilmember Woodruff mph. Administrator Heck Zerby replace the current 48 inch such as County Road 19 and on State Highway 7 that m passed 4/1 with Woodruff dis Councilmember ciates personnel with expertise in irements for lettering on signs for signs the uppercase letters must in of 4.5' inches tall. The mockup that were put up are 48 inches tall rtly purchased 48 inch by 72 inch signs i'City border signs have to be replaced , 42 inch sign will be the new standard of Shorewood and the population. The "... a South Lake Community" to be his appreciation for the work Staff wide because that is what he sees in sign will look like for streets with speed limits less than 25 Ze size sign can be used. I, authorizing the purchase of 24 inch by 48 inch border signs to 72 inch signs to be placed on local streets with high volume traffic iithtown Road; authorizing the purchase of two signs for placement Minnesota Department of Transportation requirements; Motion still has the same objections he had when this was first discussed. C. Dog License Ordinance Amendment for Discussion Mayor Lizee noted the City has both a dog licensing ordinance and a dog registration ordinance. She suggested tabling this to a latter date. She stated the meeting packet contains a copy of revised City Code Chapter 701 Dogs containing a number of changes. She suggested tabling this to a latter date. Lizee explained the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department ( SLMPD) provides animal control enforcement to the four SLMPD member cities, of which the City is one. She stated she wants to bring the topic of dog ordinances and dog registration to the SLMPD Coordinating Committee and ask the Committee if it will support having SLMPD Community Service Supervisor (CSS) Hohertz and the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 15 of 17 member city City Administrators/Manager and City Planners work on drafting one common ordinance for the four member cities. Zerby moved, Liz& seconded, tabling the discussion about an amendment to the City's dog licensing ordinance and the dog registration ordinance. Councilmember Siakel asked if Council needs to provide direction on what it thinks about the licensing ordinance and the registration ordinance. She stated it makes sense to have a consistent ordinance across the four cities. Administrator Heck stated he has a meeting scheduled with SLMPD CS discuss the dog licensing ordinance originally proposed as well as to dis( in stead. Heck then stated that during the November 14, 2011, Council me( Councilmember Hotvet raised concern about the section on destruc Panchyshyn also commented on that same thing. He asked Hotvet for some things were too vague. Motion passed 510. 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPOR A. Administrator and Staff Administrator Heck stated Staff does not anticil help fund the $72,000 cost of constructing 1200 Road 19 Tonka Bav /Shorewood border to Smitht ohertz on November 30 to the concept of a registration when this was discussed of animals. Deputy Clerk fication. Hotvet, responded ,v ill hear about the City's grant application for to feet of paved trail from the LRT Trail on County gad until the beginning of 2012. 1. GreenStep Cities Program U Administrator Heck explained Staff is working on having an energy audit done of the City's facilities. Communication Coordinator Moore obtained quotes from a number of sources for conducting the audits. Moore determined the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will do them for free. The goal is to have at least one facility done by the end of the year. He then explained that he is going to make revisions to the GreenStep Cities Program Best Practices document he created based on a requests made by the Planning Commission. He stated he has been working with the Department of Administration to get additional buildings added to the benchmarking program. He explained that a number of the web pages on the City's website have a button that links to the City's GreenStep Cities Program progress page. He noted there is a South Lake Minnetonka' Police Department Coordinating Committee meeting scheduled for November 29, 2011, but he will not be able to attend because he and Councilmember Hotvet are going to attend an Innovation Conference. Director Brown explained that on November 15 there were two watermain breaks near the intersection of County Road 19 and Glen Road. He stated Building Official Pazandak has been working with contractors in preparation of the demolition of the house on the City -owned property located at 24620 Smithtown Road. The Excelsior Fire District did use the house for live burn training on November 26 Once the house is demolished the Public Works Department will do some restoration work on the site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 16 of 17 Director Nielsen stated during the fourth weekend of the 2011 deer harvesting effort the bow hunters took four more deer bringing the year -to -date harvested total to 31. That is more than in past years. The hunters are considering possibly harvesting the fifth weekend that was approved. He then stated that Councilmember Hotvet had asked him to report on the status of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate the City's Trail Plan Implementation Report into the Plan. It's out for review and comment by the adjoining communities and affected agencies. They have 60 days to respond and that 60 -day period ends on January 10, 2012. After that it will be sent to the Metropolitan (Met) Council for review and comment. It also has 60 days to provide comments back. He noted he doesn't anticipate the Met Council will have any issues with it. Hotvet stated there is a for sale sign in front of the old gas station located at the corner of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. She asked Director Nielsen to find out information about that property. Attorney Keane stated that property is located within the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment area so the City should pay attention to it. Councilmember Zerby stated he heard it was foreclosed on and it is for sale for slightly less than $700,000. Administrator Heck stated property went to a Sheriff's foreclosure sale three week ago. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Siakel stated during the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's (LMCD) November 16 work session there was a lengthy discussion about aquatic invasive species (AIS) and the future management of it. The LMCD Board did approve a resolution that looks at a partnership between the LMCD and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District'(MCWD) to develop a plan for managing AIS going forward. She indicated she thought the work session was very productive. Councilmember Woodruff stated he attended the Metro Cities and the League of Minnesota Cities regional meeting on November' 17 Metro Cities held a short business meeting and voted to adopt the legislative policies for 2012 as drafted. Metropolitan (Met) Councilmembers Steve Elkins and Wendy Wulff were present and they discussed what is going on with the Met Council. He found it interesting that except for Ms. Wulff, who has been on the Met Council for about two years, everyone else is new on the Council and trying to figure out what they are supposed to be doing. He went on to state if Councilmembers ever have the opportunity to hear Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin speak he believes they will find it very informative and very entertaining. She gave a speech during the dinner. Councilmember Zerby stated he attended the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board meeting on November 16 He explained the Board recorded the adoption of the EFD's 2012 budget. The Board also approved the Engine 22 Replacement Truck' Committee moving forward with the project. Engine 22 is proposed to be replaced with a tanker / pumper truck and it will cost close to $500,000. The proposed new truck will be able to carry substantially more water to locations within the District's service area that don't have fire hydrants. He stated he observed the EFD's live burn training exercise on November 26 done at the City - owned property located at 24620 Smithtown Road. There were a dozen different controlled burns and they went off as clockwork. A couple of other departments participated in the exercise. He noted the City has received many thanks for providing that opportunity. Mayor Lizee stated she attended the Senior Community Services annual meeting. During the meeting Tom Gillaspy, the State Demographer, gave a presentation. She noted Mr. Gillaspy explained how significantly the State's demographics are changing. She stated that budgets, ordinances and services need to be adjusted accordingly. She noted she will be attending the SLMPD Coordinating Committee meeting on November 29 She also noted there is a Personnel Committee meeting scheduled for December ls She went on to note the City's Truth -In- Taxation meeting is scheduled for December 51n CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 28, 2011 Page 17 of 17 13. ADJOURN Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 28, 2011, at 9:27 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Bria Mayor #Zc CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2011 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Heck; and, Finance Director DeJong Absent: None B. Review Agenda 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ; City Administrator Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. Mayor Lizee noted two students are present this evening for a Westonka High School assignment. One of them is Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn's son. 2. TRUTH -IN- TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING A. Staff Presentation Mayor Lizee stated this evening Council is seeking resident input on the City's 2012 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget and the 2012 Tax Levy. This is not the forum to discuss the assessor's evaluation of a property for tax purposes. That took place at the Board of Review, which is generally conducted in the spring. Director DeJong stated the there is a legal requirement for the City to hold a Truth -in- Taxation Public Hearing. The requirements are to present the City's 2012 Proposed General Operating Budget and 2012 Tax Levy and to take public comment. DeJong explained there are a number of changes affecting the 2012 Budget and ultimately taxes. Revenues are budgeted to increase '(primarily due to an increase in building permits) and expenses are budgeted to decrease (primarily due to a reduction in personnel expenditures) when compared to the 2011 Budget. The proposed 2012 General Fund Budget anticipates the use of $87,000 in General Fund balance reserves to make revenues and expenditures equal each other. The City's taxable property value decreased 5.1 percent. That decrease is less than most surrounding communities. Unfortunately, that means the City will shoulder a larger portion of the property tax burden for overlapping districts such as Hennepin County. If the property values in the City go down less then those in other communities the City carries a proportionally larger share of the County tax. That also applies to the school districts and other metropolitan wide agencies. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES December 5, 2011 Page 2 of 4 There are no levy limits in place for 2012. The City's tax levy has been flat since 2009. The City's portion of the property taxes pay for a number of services provided by the City. They include police protection, fire protection, snow plowing, street and parks maintenance, recreation programs, building inspections, and other valuable City services. The City's General Fund expenditures have been declining since 2010.The 2012 General Fund budgeted expenditures total $5,223,830. Of those expenditures 35 percent are for public safety services, 25 percent are for general government services, 18 percent are for public works, 17 percent are for capital transfers and 5 percent are for parks and recreation. The City's General Fund budgeted revenues total $5,223,830. Of those revenues 89 percent are from property taxes, 3 percent are from General Fund balance reserves, 3 percent are from transfers and miscellaneous revenues, 2 percent are from licenses and permits, 1 percent is from charges for services, 1 percent is from fines and forfeitures, and 1 percent is from intergovernmental DeJong reviewed the tax assessment and levy time Hennepin County collected data on property sales County then reviewed the sales data to determine comparisons. The County then took properties with determine the change in taxable property value. The Board of Review process took place from April among similar properties, and property owners were value based on comparisons to other similar propertie values established in September 2010, for every prop property tax rate needs to be in order to collect the nee applied to each property value and Truth -In- Taxatio November 2011. In 2011 `final property tax bills will be line for residential property taxes payable in 2012. from October 1, 2009 — September 30, 2010. The if a sales transaction should be used when making similar characteristics in the same neighborhood to DeJong then explained the 2 homestead market value excl Q10 — June 2011 That process equalized values ovided the opportunity to challenge the assessed The County then added the property values, the ty in a taxing jurisdiction to determine what the d revenue for the next year. The tax rate was then notices were then mailed to property owners in to property owners. ied a new property tax program called the the existing market value homestead credit (MVHC). The repealed MVHC gave homesteads valued below a certain amount tax relief through a state - paid credit. The HMVE provides a tax reduction to all homesteads valued below a certain amount by shifting a portion of the tax burden that would otherwise fall on the homestead to other types of property. The State was supposed to be paying $261 million State wide for the MVHC. That wasn't happening. The State only paid approximately $'89 million. Cities, primarily those in the metropolitan area, were not receiving what they were supposed to. In Hennepin County $65 million in MVHC that should have been paid to cities in the County did not get paid to them. The HMVE reduces the property value shown on the property tax statements.,, It generally adds about a 1.5 — 2 percent increase from where the tax should have been. The HMVE system is very difficult to explain to property owners. The property value changes in City depend on the location. Lower value properties generally held their value. Non lakefront property values decreased about 2 percent. Lakefront property values decreased approximately 11 percent. Before, lakefront properties held their value. The average City tax impact is as follows. For a property valued at $250,000 in 2011 its value decreased to $221,363 in 2012, and the tax decreased by $8.64. For a property valued at $419,000 in 2011 its value decreased to $350,664 in 2012, and the tax decreased by $16.10. For a property valued at $500,000 in 2011 its value decreased to $474,500 in 2012, and the tax decreased by $0.64. For a property valued at $750,000 in 2011 its value SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES December 5, 2011 Page 3 of 4 decreased to $711,750 in 2012, and the tax decreased by $20.15. For a property valued at $1 million in 2011 its value decreased to $949,000 in 2012, and the tax decreased $20.55. The 2012 property tax distribution for a property in the City located within Minnetonka School District 276 is as follows. The distribution is: 36.6 percent to Hennepin County, 34 percent to the school district, 22 percent to the City, and 7.4 percent to other. The 2012 total property tax percent change compared to the 2011 total tax for residential homestead properties in the City based on statistics from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office is as follows. Approximately 38.4 percent of the parcels (879) will see a decrease or no change. Approximately 54.6 percent of the parcels (1250) will see an increase of 0 — 4.9 percent. Approximately 6.7 percent of the parcels (154) will see an increase of more 5 — 5.9 percent. Approximately 0.3 percent of the parcels (8) will see an increase of 10 percent or more. The 2012 total tax dollar change compared to the 2011 total tax dolk percent of the parcels (879) will see a decrease or no dollar change. parcels (588) will see a tax dollar increase of $1— $150. Approximate will see a tax dollar increase of $151 — $300. Approximately 8.0 percc dollar increase of $301 — $450. Approximately 3.3 percent of the parc of $451 — $600. Approximately 1.8 percent of the parcels (40) will $750. Approximately 3.9 percent of the parcels (90) will see a tax dolly This concludes Director DeJong's presentation. B. Public Hearing Seeing no residents present at the Public Hearing t] Hearing and Public Testimony portion of the Public C. Council that the levy has not increa.s Zerby moved, Woodruff the 2012 General Fund O 2012." Motion uassed 510. 3. TREE he ision to is as follows. Approximately 38.4 Lpproximately 25.6 percent of the y 19.0 percent of the parcels (435) nt of the parcels (184) will see a tax ,Is (75) will see a tax dollar increase see a tax dollar increase of $601 — x increase of $751 or more. ig, Mayor Liz& opened and closed the Public at 7:18 P.M. pleased with the Budget as presented. He expressed his pleasure ing RESOLUTION NO. 11 -068 "A Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2011 Property Tax Levy Collectible in Administrator Heck explained that Communications and Recycling Coordinator Moore recently found out that the City of Minnetonka conducts a tree sale annually for their residents. The trees are balled and burlapped; they are not bare root. The trees are sold at their wholesale price which ranges from $31 to $74. There are 15 varieties to choose from. Minnetonka sells all of the trees it purchases for sale each year (approximately 1500 of them). The City of Shorewood has an opportunity to participate in the program and offer this to its residents. If the City participates the City of Minnetonka would manage the distribution of the trees to Shorewood residents. Shorewood would accept the orders from its residents and pass those orders on to Minnetonka. Shorewood would have to front the cost of the number of trees it preorders and recover the dollars upon the sale of trees to residents. There is no net cost to the City. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES December 5, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Heck stated if Council chooses to offer this to residents Staff recommends the City order 100 trees for the first trial year. He noted there are a number of diseases affecting the various types of trees planted in the City. In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Heck explained the City would preorder a certain number of trees of different varieties offered and it would pay for that preorder. The residents would pay for the trees when they place the order. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought this would be a great program to offer residents and he expressed hope that residents would take advantage of it. Woodruff moved, authorizing Staff to preorder 100 trees of various varieties for an amount not to exceed $7400 and directing Staff to work with the local gardeners to offer a program in the spring to educate residents on how to plant the trees before they are delivered. Councilmember Hotvet asked why the City couldn't the City places its preorder with Minnetonka. Admi years. to preorder and pay for the trees before tated that could be considered in future Zerby seconded the motion. Zerby expressed a little concern about some idea of how many residents would trees. He stated it would be nice to be able to get Councilmember Siakel stated she thought idea of putting on a tree planting class. be a good idea. She likes the Motion passed 510. 4. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning 2011, at 7:27 P.M. Motion passed 510. City Council Special Meeting of December 5, RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT' Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Liz&, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk #ZD CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2011 MINUTES 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS immediately following the Special Council meeting 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:29 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; and Heck Absent: None B. Review Agenda Hotvet moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. UNION NEGOTIATIONS Administrator Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; and Administrator Heck were present. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the City's negotiations with Local 224, Council 5, of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL -CIO labor union (the union representing the City's Public Works employees). 3. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of December 5, 2011, at 8:25 P.M. Motion passed 510. Christine ATTEST Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk COUNCIL ACTION FORM Department Council Meeting Item Number Finance December 12, 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 52406 through 52470 totaling $350,860.87. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 12/08/2011 1:18 PM VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE:11 /29/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOU CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE 00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 12/06/2011 00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 12/07/2011 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 12/06/2011 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 12/07/2011 20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 12/06/2011 1 LOGAN, STEVEN /TONI R 12/12/2011 00086 AFSCME COUNCIL 5 R 12/06/2011 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -4 R 12/06/2011 16625 NCPERS MINNESOTA R 12/06/2011 00052 PERA R 12/06/2011 00052 PERA R 12/07/2011 29306 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 R 12/12/2011 16275 AMERICAN MESSAGING R 12/12/2011 02860 BARNES DISTRIBUTION R 12/12/2011 29338 BLANCHARD CATERING, INC. R 12/12/2011 1 BOLLIG & SONS R 12/12/2011 04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 12/12/2011 17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 12/12/2011 26100 CENTURY LINK R 12/12/2011 17400 CITY OF MINNETONKA R 12/12/2011 29283 CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. R 12/12/2011 05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 12/12/2011 INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOU 12/08/2011 1:18 PM VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE:11 /29/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOU CHECK NAME STATUS DATE DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY R 12/12/2011 DREW KRIESEL R 12/12/2011 EARL F. ANDERSEN- DIVISION OF S R 12/12/2011 EKLUND'S MULCH SALES R 12/12/2011 EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC R 12/12/2011 G & K SERVICES R 12/12/2011 GRUPA MECHANICAL R 12/12/2011 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. R 12/12/2011 HELLING, PAMELA R 12/12/2011 HENN CTY - OFFICE OF CTY ASSESS R 12/12/2011 HENN CTY ELECTIONS R 12/12/2011 INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS INC R 12/12/2011 J. BECHER & ASSOC., INC. R 12/12/2011 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES R 12/12/2011 KIM ENGINEERING INC R 12/12/2011 LYNN & ASSOCIATES R 12/12/2011 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP R 12/12/2011 MAMA R 12/12/2011 METRO COUNCIL ENV.(SAC) R 12/12/2011 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. R 12/12/2011 MINNETONKA H.S. - VOCAL SUPPOR R 12/12/2011 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC. R 12/12/2011 INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOU 12/08/2011 1:18 PM VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE:11 /29/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOU CHECK NAME STATUS DATE MN LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM R 12/12/2011 MOORE, JULIE R 12/12/2011 MORTON SALT, INC. R 12/12/2011 NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE R 12/12/2011 OFFICE DEPOT R 12/12/2011 OLSEN COMPANIES R 12/12/2011 PAETEC R 12/12/2011 PEGGY PEARSON R 12/12/2011 SAM'S CLUB R 12/12/2011 STARK, BRUCE R 12/12/2011 STEPHANIE JOCHIMS R 12/12/2011 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 12/12/2011 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS R 12/12/2011 T- MOBILE R 12/12/2011 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES R 12/12/2011 TOWER, TERRY R 12/12/2011 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. R 12/12/2011 UPS R 12/12/2011 VERIZON WIRELESS R 12/12/2011 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS, INC. R 12/12/2011 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN R 12/12/2011 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. R 12/12/2011 INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOU 12/08/2011 1:18 PM VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE:11 /29/2011 THRU 99/99/9999 A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT ** T O T A L S ** NO INVOICE AMOUNT REGULAR CHECKS: 62 267,688.40 HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 DRAFTS: 6 15,851.76 EFT: 12 14,811.81 NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00 VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 80 298,351.97 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 80 298,351.97 REPORT TOTALS: 80 298,351.97 DISCOU CHECK INVOICE VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT 19800 XCEL ENERGY R 12/12/2011 01000 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC E 12/12/2011 05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 12/12/2011 06572 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA D 12/01/2011 09400 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 12/12/2011 10473 HENN CTY TAXPAYER SVCS PUBLIC E 12/12/2011 10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 12/12/2011 13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 12/12/2011 15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. E 12/12/2011 18500 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. E 12/12/2011 19445 NGUYEN, MICHELLE E 12/12/2011 19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 12/12/2011 20950 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. E 12/12/2011 21400 PURCHASE POWER E 12/12/2011 ** T O T A L S ** NO INVOICE AMOUNT REGULAR CHECKS: 62 267,688.40 HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 DRAFTS: 6 15,851.76 EFT: 12 14,811.81 NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00 VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 80 298,351.97 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 80 298,351.97 REPORT TOTALS: 80 298,351.97 DISCOU 12 -11 -2011 05:26 PM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - DECEMBER 12, 2011 PAGE: 1 VENDOR SORT KEY DESCRIPTION General Fund FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC 4TH QTR SVC General Fund General Fund Municipal Buildings 68.10 TOTAL: 73.61 TOTAL: 68.10 5755 CTRY CLUB RD ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC MAINT 10/15 -11/15 121.97 General Fund Municipal Buildings 74.00 General Fund Public Works 173.21 TOTAL: 74.00 Parks & Recreation AFSCME COUNCIL 5 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 305.92 42.51 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi TOTAL: 305.92 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 4894 RECYCLING Water Utility Recycling Utility Recycling 13,840.20 28125 BOULDER BRIDGE DR Water Utility Water 181.35 TOTAL: 13,840.20 AMERICAN MESSAGING 612 -534 -3975 & 612 - 818 -591 General Fund Public Works 3.20 General Fund Public Works 612 -534 -3975 & 612 - 818 -591 General Fund Public Works 14.92 Water 73.40 612 -534 -3975 & 612 - 818 -591 Water Utility Water 1.59 73.40 612 -534 -3975 & 612 - 818 -591 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1.59 CITY OF MINNETONKA CIP VINE HILL RD MILL & OV Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen TOTAL: 21.30 BARNES DISTRIBUTION NUTS, BOLTS HARDWARE, PAIN General Fund Public Works 584.29 PARK COORDINATOR SERVICES General Fund Parks & Recreation 5,130.00 TOTAL: 584.29 Southshore Communi BLANCHARD CATERING, INC. FALL SOUP CLASS Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 642.75 Senior Community Conte 602.00 CROWN COLLEGE DINNER Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 812.40 5,795.56 CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. SHWD EMAIL MKTG General Fund TOTAL: 1,455.15 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS AIR FILTER General Fund Public Works 63.91 SWITCH General Fund Public Works 9.70 TOTAL: 73.61 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 5755 CTRY CLUB RD General Fund Municipal Buildings 121.97 24200 SMITHTOWN RD General Fund Public Works 173.21 5745 CTRY CLB RD & 2520 HW General Fund Parks & Recreation 111.57 20630 MANOR RD- WARMING YOU General Fund Parks & Recreation 42.51 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 169.08 20405 KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD Water Utility Water 61.15 28125 BOULDER BRIDGE DR Water Utility Water 181.35 TOTAL: 860.84 CENTURY LINK 952- 470 -2294 General Fund Public Works 57.04 952- 470 -9605 Water Utility Water 73.40 952- 470 -9606 Water Utility Water 73.40 TOTAL: 203.84 CITY OF MINNETONKA CIP VINE HILL RD MILL & OV Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 111,232.16 TOTAL: 111,232.16 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES PARK COORDINATOR SERVICES General Fund Parks & Recreation 5,130.00 HOLIDAY PARTY Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 63.56 SSCC ASSISTANT Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 602.00 TOTAL: 5,795.56 CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. SHWD EMAIL MKTG General Fund Municipal Buildings 459.00 2012 EMAIL MARKETING Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 153.00 TOTAL: 612.00 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 53.41 12 -11 -2011 05:26 PM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - DECEMBER 12, 2011 PAGE: 2 VENDOR SORT KEY DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT SALT Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 33.90 TOTAL: 87.31 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY HEX DR WRENCHES FOR L.S. Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 48.26 TOTAL: 48.26 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA MONTHLY DENTIST PREMIUM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 681.23 TOTAL: 681.23 DREW KRIESEL CONTRACT SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 410.00 GENERAL SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 313.45 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 265.00 LINEN /TABLE /CLOTHS Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 509.26 TOTAL: 1,497.71 EARL F. ANDERSEN - DIVISION OF SAFETY SI CHEVRON SIGNS General Fund Traffic Control /Str Li 123.12 TOTAL: 123.12 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 5,142.47 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 28.95 FICA W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 2,088.75 FICA W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 26.58 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 721.11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 9.18 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 277.05 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 64.79 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 373.17 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 39.24 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 87.28 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 9.18 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 294.37 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 68.84 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 301.69 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 70.55 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 179.04 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 41.87 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 162.09 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 37.91 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 641.63 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 150.05 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 55.81 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 13.05 FICA W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 67.67 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 15.84 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 38.77 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 9.06 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 243.56 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 56.99 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 9.39 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 2.19 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 164.78 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 38.51 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 191.48 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 44.78 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 9.39 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 2.20 12 -11 -2011 05:26 PM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - DECEMBER 12, 2011 PAGE: 3 VENDOR SORT KEY DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 73.55 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 17.20 TOTAL: 11,870.01 EKLUND'S MULCH SALES TREE & BRUSH DISPOSAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 252.00 TOTAL: 252.00 EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC 24620 SMITHTOWN RD - DEMO Community Infrastr Community Infrastructu 144.26 TOTAL: 144.26 G & K SERVICES CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 131.38 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 887.31 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 70.74 TOTAL: 1,089.43 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL NOV RENT Water Utility Water 68.92 NOV RENT Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 68.93 TOTAL: 137.85 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. WATER METER PARTS Water Utility Water 703.50 TOTAL: 703.50 HELPING, PAMELA 2011- APPRECIATION General Fund Council 75.00 TOTAL: 75.00 HENN CTY - OFFICE OF CTY ASSESSOR ASSESSMENT FEE General Fund Professional Svcs 48,000.00 TOTAL: 48,000.00 HENN CTY ELECTIONS PVCs General Fund Elections 133.27 TOTAL: 133.27 HENN CTY TAXPAYER SVCS PUBLIC RECORDS EGKF64 - MONTHLY FEE General Fund City Engineer 30.00 TOTAL: 30.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 P/R DEDUCTS - DEFERRED COM General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 1,435.96 P/R DEDUCTS - DEFERRED COM General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 125.04 TOTAL: 1,561.00 INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS INC CASES OF MUTT MITTS General Fund Parks & Recreation 801.13 TOTAL: 801.13 J. BECHER & ASSOC., INC. REPAIR WA SYS /FIRE SHIP @ Water Utility Water 215.50 TOTAL: 215.50 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES PALLET OF ICE MELT General Fund Streets & Roadways 499.37 TOTAL: 499.37 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. MONTHLY PROSECUTION SVC General Fund Professional Svcs 2,291.66 TOTAL: 2,291.66 KLM ENGINEERING INC T- MOBILE UPGRADE @ HWY 7 T General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 4.000.00 TOTAL: 4,000.00 LANDINI, JAMES DEC WELLNESS REIM General Fund City Engineer 40.00 TOTAL: 40.00 12 -11 -2011 05:26 PM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - DECEMBER 12, 2011 PAGE: 4 VENDOR SORT KEY DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT LYNN & ASSOCIATES PRO DVLMT -LOCAL GOV'T PEER General Fund Administration 980.00 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. DEC NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government TOTAL: 980.00 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP OCT GENERAL General Fund Professional Svcs 1,850.00 OCT ADMIN CODE ENFORCEMENT General Fund Professional Svcs 111.00 General Fund Council OCT AIS General Fund Professional Svcs 684.50 TOTAL: 150.00 OCT 24620 SMITHTOWN RD Community Infrastr Community Infrastructu 55.50 11,870.00 OCT 5750 COVINGTON RD Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 37.00 GRUPA MECHANICAL 27845 WOODSIDE RD -WA MTR R Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL TOTAL: 2,738.00 LOGAN, STEVEN /TONI MAMA MTG @ EAGAN COMM CTR General Fund Administration 15.00 FELTED PURSE CLASS Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 157.50 TOTAL: 15.00 Southshore Communi METRO COUNCIL ENV.(SAC) NOV SAC REPORT Sanitary Sewer Uti NON - DEPARTMENTAL 2,207.70 TOTAL: 12,937.50 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC. SSCC- ANNUAL INSPECTION TOTAL: 2,207.70 72.80 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. HAUL SWEEPING Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 33,938.24 TOTAL: 33,938.24 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. DEC NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 341.66 DEC NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 32.81 TOTAL: 374.47 MINNETONKA H.S. - VOCAL SUPPORT 2011 APPRECIATION PARTY General Fund Council 150.00 TOTAL: 150.00 MISC. VENDOR BOLLIG & SONS DEMO 24620 SMITHTOWN RD Community Infrastr Community Infrastructu 11,870.00 GRUPA MECHANICAL 27845 WOODSIDE RD -WA MTR R Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 50.00 GRUPA MECHANICAL 27845 WOODSIDE RD -WA MTR R Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 360.00 LOGAN, STEVEN /TONI 10- 485222 -00 Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 100.00 PEGGY PEARSON FELTED PURSE CLASS Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 157.50 STEPHANIE JOCHIMS STEPHANIE JOCHIMS:FUSED GL Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 400.00 TOTAL: 12,937.50 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC. SSCC- ANNUAL INSPECTION Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 72.80 TOTAL: 72.80 MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 2,188.63 STATE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 19.50 TOTAL: 2,208.13 MN LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM 2011 VOLUNTEER GARDENERS General Fund Council 150.00 TOTAL: 150.00 MOORE, JULIE 2011- APPRECIATION General Fund Council 50.00 TOTAL: 50.00 MORTON SALT, INC. SALTS General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 3,957.54 TOTAL: 3,957.54 NCPERS MINNESOTA UNIT 4762400 MONTHLY LIFE General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 32.00 TOTAL: 32.00 NGUYEN, MICHELLE NOV MILEAGE General Fund Finance 79.20 TOTAL: 79.20 12 -11 -2011 05:26 PM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - DECEMBER 12, 2011 PAGE: 5 VENDOR SORT KEY DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT NIELSEN, BRADLEY CLEAN WATER SUMMIT /BATC General Fund Planning 90.00 57.70 MILEAGE JAN -NOV General Fund Planning 1,035.29 Senior Community Conte 103.46 TOTAL: 1,125.29 NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE REPAIR L.S 413 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 5,206.25 REPAIR OF PLOW HOIST DUMP General Fund Public Works TOTAL: 5,206.25 OFFICE DEPOT GEN SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 18.94 PATTI'S BACKUP BATTERY General Fund Planning 57.70 GEN SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 103.46 TOTAL: 180.10 OLSEN COMPANIES REPAIR OF PLOW HOIST DUMP General Fund Public Works 176.04 REPAIR OF PLOW HOIST DUMP General Fund Public Works 266.31 TOTAL: 442.35 PAETEC SVC - 09/29 -10/28 General Fund Municipal Buildings 135.86 SVC - 09/29 -10/28 General Fund Public Works 46.90 SVC - 09/29 -10/28 General Fund Parks & Recreation 145.60 SVC - 09/29 -10/28 Water Utility Water 98.70 SVC - 09/29 -10/28 Water Utility Water 100.25 TOTAL: 527.31 PERA P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 3,242.26 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 39.56 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Administration 334.06 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund General Government 437.46 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund General Government 45.88 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Finance 354.94 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Planning 387.45 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 235.00 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund City Engineer 190.15 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Public Works 786.24 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 66.34 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 82.69 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 45.33 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 307.42 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 10.98 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Water Utility Water 197.14 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 227.83 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 10.98 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 87.01 TOTAL: 7,088.72 PURCHASE POWER POSTAGE - 8000900007438223 General Fund General Government 1,219.99 PITNEY BOWES SUPPLIES General Fund General Government 82.57 TOTAL: 1,302.56 SAM'S CLUB CITY HALL General Fund Municipal Buildings 5.00 PUBLIC WORK General Fund Public Works 5.91 TOTAL: 10.91 STARK, BRUCE 2011- APPRECIATION General Fund Council 50.00 TOTAL: 50.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS ORD NO 484 -- 11/24 General Fund General Government 197.34 12 -11 -2011 05:26 PM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - DECEMBER 12, 2011 PAGE: 6 VENDOR SORT KEY DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT ORD NO 485 - -11/24 General Fund General Government 111.54 ORD NO 486 -- 11/24 General Fund General Government 188.76 BAUMAN 11/24 General Fund Planning 40.04 TOTAL: 537.68 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS ORD NO 484 -11/26 General Fund General Government 169.05 ORD NO 485 -11/26 General Fund General Government 95.55 ORD NO 486 - 11/26 General Fund General Government 158.03 BAUMAN CUP HRG 11/26 General Fund Planning 33.08 TOTAL: 455.71 T- MOBILE 952- 463 -5836 - BRIAN HECK General Fund Administration 87.51 TOTAL: 87.51 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES DEC NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund General Government 897.65 DEC NEWS SVC- ARCTIC & PRIN General Fund Parks & Recreation 310.04 DEC NEWS SVC -SSCC Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 313.67 TOTAL: 1,521.36 TOWER, TERRY 2011- APPRECIATION General Fund Council 50.00 TOTAL: 50.00 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. TEMP REPAIR GARAGE DOOR -ST General Fund Public Works 158.87 TOTAL: 158.87 UPS PACKAGE TO WARNER CONNECT General Fund General Government 42.87 TOTAL: 42.87 VERIZON WIRELESS L.S. PHONE SERVICES Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 215.34 TOTAL: 215.34 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS, INC. GAS SVC 10/18 -10/19 General Fund Public Works 2,663.01 TOTAL: 2,663.01 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN 24200 SMITHTOWN RD WASTE S General Fund Public Works 379.60 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD WASTE Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 165.06 TOTAL: 544.66 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS P/R DEDUCTS -HSA General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 803.94 P/R DEDUCTS -HSA General Fund General Government 288.45 TOTAL: 1,092.39 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. NOV -APPLE RD CHANNEL STABL Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 852.63 TOTAL: 852.63 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. NOW SVC General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 3,493.12 TOTAL: 3,493.12 XCEL ENERGY 5700 CTY RD 19 General Fund Traffic Control /Str Li 32.05 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control /Str Li 238.86 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 634.64 24253 SMITHTOWN ROAD Water Utility Water 498.62 TOTAL: 1,404.17 12 -11 -2011 05:26 PM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - DECEMBER 12, 2011 PAGE: 7 VENDOR SORT KEY DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT — PAYROLL EXPENSES 11/29/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Administration 4,607.80 General Fund General Government 6,666.74 General Fund Finance 4,895.83 General Fund Planning 5,344.16 General Fund Protective Inspections 3,241.36 General Fund City Engineer 2,622.76 General Fund Public Works 10,844.87 General Fund Streets & Roadways 914.97 General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 1,140.46 General Fund Tree Maintenance 625.20 General Fund Parks & Recreation 4,240.45 Southshore Communi Senior Community Conte 151.44 Water Utility Water 2,719.04 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 3,142.16 Recycling Utility Recycling 151.44 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,200.22 TOTAL: 52,508.90 _____ FUND TOTALS ------------ 101 General Fund 154,212.45 404 Street Capital Improvemen 111,232.16 450 Community Infrastructure 12,069.76 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 6,066.27 601 Water Utility 5,705.85 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 11,354.32 621 Recycling Utility 14,014.21 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 36,205.85 GRAND TOTAL: 350,860.87 TOTAL PAGES: 7 1: ® # 3B City f Shorewood Council Meeting tem M TYPE y g Reggular ular Meeting Title / Subject: 2011 SWPPP public meeting Meeting Date: 12/12/2011 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Attachments: Policy Consideration: Background: As part of the federal Clean Water Act, the City of Shorewood is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit was originally obtained in March, 2003. The public education and outreach requirement of the permit requires an annual public meeting be held to discuss the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Staff is recommending that this meeting be held January 23, 2012 at 7 PM, as part of the regular City Council meeting. Financial or Budget Considerations: Publication fees of the local newspaper. Options: 1. Direct staff to advertise this date and time for the meeting. 2. Direct staff to advertise a different date and time for the meeting. 3. Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval to accept this date and time for the Public Informational Meeting. 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 i, — : I -- City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Meeting Date: Prepared by: Reviewed by: Attachments: Shady Hills Traffic Controls 12 December 2011 Brad Nielsen Patti Helgesen Draft Resolution #3C MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Having directed City staff to prepare a resolution revising turning restrictions at the intersection of Brom's Boulevard and Shady Hills Road, should the Council now adopt the resolution? Background: At its last meeting the City Council considered a request by residents of the Shady Hills neighborhood to relax turning restrictions at the intersection of Brom's Boulevard and Shady Hills Road. The Council directed staff to prepare a resolution to that effect. Financial or Budget Considerations: The new sign is anticipated to cost less than $100 including time for installation. Options: Approve the resolution; revise the resolution or do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: It is recommended that the resolution be adopted. Next Steps and Timelines: Upon adoption of the resolution, staff will order the sign, which should be received and installed in 2 -4 weeks. Connection to Vision / Mission: This item is viewed as providing quality public services to area residents. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 11 -069 A RESOLUTION REVISING TURNING RESTRICTIONS AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROM'S BOULEVARD AND SHADY HILLS ROAD WHEREAS, residents of the Shady Hills neighborhood have petitioned the City Council to revise traffic controls at the intersection of Brom's Boulevard and Shady Hills Road; and WHEREAS, the City Council has agreed to relax the restrictions on turning movements at the above intersection; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1.) The Department of Public Works is hereby directed to install a "NO RIGHT TURN BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 A.M" sign on the south side of Brom's Boulevard west of the intersection of Brom's Boulevard and Shady Hills Road. 2.) The Department of Public Works is hereby authorized to remove the "NO LEFT TURN" sign located on the east side of Shady Hills Road, south of Brom's Boulevard. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of December, 2011. ATTEST Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Bauman — C.U.P. for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards Meeting Date: 12 December 2012 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: James Landini Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum, dated 29 November 2011 Draft Resolution M MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Should Robert and Joan Bauman be granted an after- the -fact permit to place approximately 900 cubic yards of fill on their property at 26640 Smithtown Road? Background: The Baumans received a grading permit to place up to 100 cubic yards of fill on their property. Due to miscommunication between them and the people they got the fill from (City of Chanhassen) nearly 900 yards of material was brought in. This amount of fill requires a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 6 December to consider an after - the -fact C.U.P. and on a 6 -0 vote have recommended the C.U.P. subject to the conditions recommended by City staff. It may be worth noting that no one from the public testified for or against the C.U.P. Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee paid by the applicants covers the cost of processing the permit. The applicants have been advised that they are responsible for any street cleaning that may be necessary as a result of erosion into the street. Options: Approve the request per the Planning Commission's recommendation; deny the request and direct the applicants to remove the fill; modify the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Recommendation / Action Requested: The applicants are probably fortunate that the street abutting their property has a concrete curb and that neither the curb nor the pavement appears to have suffered from the work that was done. Staff recommends approval of the C.U.P., resolution to which effect is attached for your consideration. Next Steps and Timelines: The erosion control referenced in the staff report should be required to be in place by 1 March 2012. Over- seeding should occur immediately after snow melt next spring. Connection to Vision / Mission: Regulation of large scale grading projects 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 CITY OF 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.ci.shcrewood.mn.us - cityhall@ci.shcrewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 November 2011 RE: Bauman, Robert and Joan — C.U.P. for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards (After the Fact) FILE NO. 405(11.13) BACKGROUND Joan and Richard Bauman own the property at 26640 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). In August Mr. Bauman received a permit to bring in 100 cubic yards of fill to level off portions of the rear yard of the property. Due to some miscommunication between the applicant and the people from whom he was getting the fill (the City of Chanhassen), substantially more material (approximately 900 cubic yards) was brought in than what was authorized. The Baumans explain what happened in their request letter — Exhibit B. As a consequence, the Baumans were advised that they either had to remove the unauthorized material or apply for an (after the fact) conditional use permit. The applicants were required to submit a grading plan showing the contours of the property once the fill has been graded out. Exhibit C is an as-built survey of the work that has been done. As can be seen, the property continues to slope and drain to the north. The most significant feature of the grading plan is the large berm that abuts Marsh Pointe Drive on the east side of the site. The remainder of the material has been used to level off the property. The subject property is zoned R -lA, Single - Family Residential and contains 38,889 square feet of area. The land is bounded on its north by a wetland. None of the fill material has extended into the wetland. r% ,Jb PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Bauman C.U.P. 29 November 2011 ANALYSIS /12ECOMMENDATION The C.U.P. process for fill /grading projects serves several purposes: 1) Heightened scrutiny on drainage issues; 2) control over traffic patters for trucks hauling fill; and 3) advising local residents of what can amount to a dramatic change in terrain. Obviously, two of these have been somewhat subverted by the unauthorized work that was done. What remains is to make sure that adjoining land has not been adversely affected by the project. ' Staff has inspected the property and found that site drainage does not affect adjoining property. The land continues to drain north to a small wetland area. Although silt fence has been installed, the City Engineer advises that it needs to either be trenched in, or anchored in order to prevent sediment bypass. This should be done before next spring. The applicants mention that lack of rain has necessitated hand watering the seed they have planted. In one sense, from an erosion perspective, they have likely been fortunate. The Engineer also recommends over - seeding the disturbed areas early next spring. Finally, additional erosion control (silt fence, hay bales or straw biologs) should be placed behind the curb along Marsh Pointe Drive to prevent any erosion into the street until the turf is better established. The Engineer reminds the applicants that they are responsible for any erosion and resulting street cleaning that may be necessary next spring. It appears that the amount of fill placed around the existing trees on the site is somewhat minimal. Depending on how much compaction may have occurred from site grading, the affect on the trees may not be seen for a few years. Finally, staff checked the condition of the pavement and curbing on Marsh Pointe Drive. The City Engineer maintains a record of the street conditions from year to year and there appears to have been no damage done from trucks hauling the material to the site. Subject to the City Engineer's recommendations, including the over- seeding of exposed soil and additional erosion control, staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. Cc: Brian Heck James Landini Larry Brown Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Robert and Joan Bauman I a a a a a a L N E N L LL z� 0 o M O a \ a a a a a a a o a a a a a � a a a --- --� a I I . .i_. a s pow *R N p p0.0 - - -� _ -� Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Bauman— C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards Date: October 21, 2011 To: City of Shorewood From: Robert and Joan Bauman Re: Conditional Use Permit for property at 26640 Smithtown Road, Shoreview, Mn We are applying for an after the fact Conditional Use Permit for some fill and grading done at the above address. The facts leading up to this after the fact application are as outlined below. We wanted to bring in some fill to fill some holes on the West side of the property and then level the land to make it easier to mow and make it more usable as a recreational area. We also wanted to fill the East side of the property to make it level with the street and eliminate a dangerous drop for mowing. I spoke with Joe Pazandak and also Brad Nielson to find out what permits we needed. I was told we could get a permit for up to 10 truckloads with just a simple fill and grading permit that we could get Exhibit B -1 APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER Dated 21 October 2011 within a few days. If we wanted more than 10 truckloads we would need a Conditional Use Permit which would require a public hearing and approval by the City Counsel. That process could take up to 3 months. We opted for the fill and grading permit and did in fact receive it. The City of Chanhassen had some fill they wanted to get rid of and said we could have all we wanted but they needed to know that we had the permit from the City of Shorewood before they would bring any fill in. I physically took our permit to the City of Chanhassen public works department and they made a copy for their records. They also wanted to know who I talked to at the City of Shorewood. The next day they started bringing in fill and also brought in a Caterpillar tractor and said we were getting more than 10 loads of fill. I said our permit was for only 10 loads and we needed a Conditional Use Permit for more. I was lead to believe that they had talked with the City of Shorewood and everything was OK. They told me not to worry about it. M Because I was dealing with the City of Chanhassen I thought everything was OK. I had no idea how much fill they were bringing in. They scraped back the black dirt with the cat and then put in the fill and then covered the fill with the black dirt. I think they did a wonderful job and was sure we had a win /win situation. The fill is what they dug out when a waterline broke. It was too saturated with water to replace in the repair site so they filled the site with sand and stockpiled the wet dirt to dry it out. Then they were hauling the dried dirt considerably south and paying someone to take it. I now understand why they wanted to dump all they could at our place. I am sure it saved them a considerable amount of money. We have since planted grass although it is slow starting because of the lack of rain. We have been hand watering it. We also have erected a silt fence to control possible run off. The water still drains in the same direction it did before the grading. After the work was done I called Joe Pazandak to come out for the final inspection. He said it looked like we had brought in more than 10 truckloads. I said yes but I thought it was all cleared through you. He said the City of Shorewood did not know about the extra fill and he would have to talk to Brad about it. Brad called me and that is why we are applying for a Conditional Use Permit as per Brad's instructions. We are very pleased with the work the City of Chanhassen did and with our hard work we feel we have turned a neglected eyesore, which we purchased, into a very respectable looking property that anyone connected with the City of Shorewood can be proud of. Sincerely Submitted Robert and Joan Bauman (,2 , lj2jj RM-0/Pa M N� Silt Fence _ 954.9 948.1 �� 959.4 . - f SF- -- 3E- SF - --XSF 95X 954 SF" X 948 1 -9 i i X9532 _ f ��� - X951.3 X954.0 -- X955.3 i X950.9 52 X9525 / 504 X9s2.9 f ♦ W - . X957.7 X9570 _ X953: X951.6 X963. X98.5 X951.7 ,' X952.3 X9 �59 X953.3, / 958.5 - --- - - ---� X954.4 X954.6 i � X959.6 9 X954.1 9®2 - - 955 -- "' Xi955:9 1 _ _96 X X9673 961' X962.7. /X9pQ5� w i c V --965-, 964.3 ' u i 9642 _ -- - - -.-- ,964:9 x9657 1�67.4 7(967 4 967.95.5 - X969.1 X9697 9encf)merk: _ 969.5 �" lap comr of X 970.4 concrete patio X97T.2 970. 971.5 � ' - 9> � X 971.8 1 Existing Dwelling a s� Exhibit C PROPERTYSURVEY Contours after fill Drw. X956.7._ X957.7 X9570 _ % (9671 X X557.9 X9 �59 958.5 - --- - - ---� X959.6 9 9®2 � _96 X X9673 961' X962.7. x � X9626 }9603 X X9615 - X'9628 X963.296 2 x 971.8 1 Existing Dwelling a s� Exhibit C PROPERTYSURVEY Contours after fill Drw. "%kW,!, I e-ylro fili'll lilifl �� I x { A t � F�L4 �r G4 nt � t t _ •3 m ro � n VIEW FROM THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING- NORTH ei A ll BUNKER AT CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHERE THEY HAD THE FILL STORED CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS FOR ROBERT AND JOAN BAUMAN WHEREAS, Robert and Joan Bauman (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 26640 Smithtown Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as: "The South 378.78 feet of the West 115 feet of that part of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23 lying East of a line parallel with the West line of said Southeast quarter, Hennepin County, Minnesota "; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit (after the fact) to place up to 900 cubic yards of fill to raise and level off the above - referenced property; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit to place fill in excess of 100 cubic yards; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the Planning Director, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council dated 29 November 2011; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his recommendations were included in Planning Director's memorandum and is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 6 December 2011, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 12 December 2011, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in the R -IA, Single - Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 38,889 square feet of area. -1- 2. The Applicants have placed approximately 900 cubic yards of fill on the subject property as shown on the as -built survey (Exhibit A, attached). The area of fill shall be limited to that which is shown on Exhibit A. CONCLUSION a. The application of Robert and Joan Bauman, for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth hereinabove be and hereby is granted. b. Erosion control measures shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. C. The Applicants shall be responsible for any costs associated with street cleaning that may be necessary as a result of erosion of soil onto the street. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 12th day of December, 2011. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk -2- N� Silt Fence _ 954.9 948.1 �� 959.4 . - f SF- -- 3E- SF - --XSF 95X 954 SF" X 948 1 -9 i i X9532 _ f ��� - X951.3 X954.0 -- X955.3 i X950.9 52 X9525 / 504 X9s2.9 f ♦ W - . X957.7 X9570 _ X953: X951.6 X963. X98.5 X951.7 ,' X952.3 X9 �59 X953.3, / 958.5 - --- - - ---� X954.4 X954.6 i � X959.6 9 X954.1 9®2 - - 955 -- "' Xi955:9 1 _ _96 X X9673 961' X962.7. /X9pQ5� w i c V --965-, 964.3 ' u i 9642 _ -- - - -.-- ,964:9 x9657 1�67.4 7(967 4 967.95.5 - X969.1 X9697 9encf)merk: _ 969.5 �" lap comr of X 970.4 concrete patio X97T.2 970. 971.5 � ' - 9> � X 971.8 1 Existing Dwelling a s� Exhibit C PROPERTYSURVEY Contours after fill Drw. X956.7._ X957.7 X9570 _ % (9671 X X557.9 X9 �59 958.5 - --- - - ---� X959.6 9 9®2 � _96 X X9673 961' X962.7. x � X9626 }9603 X X9615 - X'9628 X963.296 2 x 971.8 1 Existing Dwelling a s� Exhibit C PROPERTYSURVEY Contours after fill Drw. # ® 9A 1: U2 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Traffic Study — Glencoe Road at Yellowstone Trail Meeting Date: December 12, 2011 Prepared by: Larry Brown Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator James Landini, City Engineer Attachments: 1. Report by City Engineer 2. Traffic Study Glencoe Road at Yellowstone Trail, WSB and Associates, Inc. Policy Consideration: How should the City respond to requests for Multi -way Stop Sign requests or traffic calming measures, due to concerns of speeding vehicles? Background: Councilmember Woodruff initially brought this issue to staff's attention in September 2010. Staff reviewed the policy regarding stop sign locations and made recommendation to the City Council for amendments to that policy. In the spring of 2011, Engineer Landini conducted traffic counters to collect speed and volume data. This information was presented to the City Council with staff's recommendation not to install a four -way stop. Based upon that decision, residents of the area petitioned the City Council to reconsider the issue of a stop sign, in addition to the issues of speed. On October 10, 2011, the City Council considered the recommendations and directed staff to assist in providing further analysis on this issue. Furthermore, to provide recommendation of any traffic calming devices were warranted for this intersection. In response, staff requested that Mr. Chuck Rickart, Professional Traffic Engineer with WSB and Associates review the intersection and provide a report. Said report is attached, for the City Council's consideration. Attachment 2 is the traffic study, prepared by WSB and Associates. For brevity, the report is a brief and concise and will not be repeated here. Certainly, it is a difficult issue when residents are concerned about the safety of any roadway or intersection. The City has a responsibility to respond to address sight distance issues and insure that the intersection is operating properly. The findings of the report indicate that sight distance needs to be improved to meet the above objectives. Similarly, and just is important, is the issue of speed along our roadways. Staff receives numerous calls and concerns about speed along many of the roadways within the City. This concern is not just confined to this neighborhood, but is found in every neighborhood. In the engineering community, this issue is also heard across the entire metropolitan area. As the City Council may be aware, the State of Minnesota, by means of Minnesota State Statute, has set the lowest speed limit of any roadway to 30 mph; with the exception that a speed limit may be lowered 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 if it is authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation to a lower rate, based upon an engineering investigation that has been completed by the State and warrants such a change. In response to the numerous concerns that have been voiced across the Metro, the City Engineering community is lobbying legislators to review the 30 mph limit and have this lowered. While it is hopeful that this change may occur, this still boils down to an enforcement issue. This is true if the speed limit is 20 miles per hour or 30 miles per hour. From the traffic report which recorded all speeds in the area, it does not appear that speeds are in great excess of the posted limit. With regard to the traffic calming issue, staff concurs with the findings of the report. The issues brought to the City Council are local to the intersection and not warranted in this small stretch of roadway. While this is always a very difficult issue to address, the City Council should also keep in mind that this issue is experienced in every neighborhood, and not just here. Thus, staff and the City Council need to be prepared to consider such solutions in a uniform and equitable manner for all the neighborhoods that this is considered for. Certainly, engineering solutions such as chicanes, narrowing of the roadway, or placing obstructions to slow traffic down is always something that may be put in place. However, those types of solutions should be used very sparingly to address areas where speed has been greatly exceeded. For the instances recorded here, it appears that improving the sight distance is the best and most cost effective solution. Financial or Budget Considerations: Currently there are no funds set aside or budgeted for the installation of traffic calming measures. Options: 1. Do nothing 2. Accept the Traffic Report prepared by WSB and Associates and have Public Works clear the areas documented within the public right of way to improve sight distance. 3. The City Council may provide other direction regarding traffic calming or multi -way stop conditions. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the traffic report prepared by WSB and Associates and direct Public Works clear the areas documented within the report to improve sight distance at this intersection. Next Steps and Timelines: Public Works will commence with removal of trees within the public right of way, in a timely manner, as schedule permits. Connection to Vision / Mission: Such action promotes a safer condition for residents within the area. 1:(2 Q City f Shorewood Council Meeting Item Y g Title / Subject: Stop Sign Request on Yellowstone Trail at Glencoe Road Meeting Date: 5/23/11 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Attachments: Crash Mapping Tool Report, aerial photo Policy Consideration: None Background: The City of Shorewood received a request for a stop sign at the intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Glencoe Road. Glencoe Road already has stop control. The City Council adopted a Street Sign Policy on 4/11/11 which listed four conditions for approving sign placement; 1. Review of the accident data. 2. Review traffic volume and speeds. 3. Review sight lines. 4. Review traffic flow. According to the MN Crash Mapping analysis tool there were two incidents in the area. Both were documented as ran off road and not at an intersection. Traffic counters were placed on 5/9/11 to 5/12/11. The counters indicate an average of 800 cars per day on Yellowstone Trail and 150 cars per day on Glencoe Road. The 85 percentile speed recorded on Yellowstone Trail was 29mph and Glencoe Road's 85 percentile was 21mph. Attached are photos of the intersection to exhibit sight lines. Financial or Budget Considerations: $300 now plus ongoing maintenance. Options: 1. Direct staff to deny the request for stop signs on Yellowstone Rd. 2. Direct staff to install stop signs on Yellowstone Rd. 3. Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council deny the request for stop signs on Yellowstone Trail since none of the conditions from Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are met. 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 �� / YYSB & Associates, Im Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction Technical Memorandum To: Larry Brown Director of Public Works City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Chad Ellos, PE Date: November 2011 Re: Traffic Study Request Glencoe Road at Yellowstone Trail WSB Project No. 1459 -59 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 -541 -4800 Fax: 763- 541 -1700 Copy: James Landini The purpose of this memorandum is to document the steps taken to evaluate the Traffic Study Request for the possible installation of an all -way stop condition at the intersection of Glencoe Road and Yellowstone Trail in the city of Shorewood, MN. L Existing Conditions The intersection consists of two local residential streets. Refer to Figure 1 for the project location. Currently there are stop signs controlling northbound and southbound Glencoe Road. Yellowstone Trail traffic proceeds through the intersection without stopping. II. Intersection Evaluation According to the City of Shorewood Street Sign Policy, there are four conditions for approving sign placement: 1. Review of the accident data 2. Review of traffic volume and speeds 3. Review sight lines 4. Review traffic flow 1. Review of the accident data According to 2004 through 2010 crash data collected by the City', two accidents were recorded near the intersection. Both crashes were run -off the road and not related to the intersection. 1 MnCMAT Crash Mapping Database November 2011 Page 2 of 5 2. Review of traffic volume and speeds According to the volume and speed data collected by the City between May 9 and May 12, 2011, it was determined that the daily traffic volume on Yellowstone Trail was 800 vehicles while Glencoe Road had 150 vehicles. Figure 2 displays the average daily traffic volumes approaching the intersection from each direction. According to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD), meeting one of the following conditions may warrant an all -way stop sign installation. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day. Traffic volumes do not meet this condition. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per day for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to the minor - street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour. Traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes do not meet this condition. If the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above values. The 85 percentile approach speed on the major street (Yellowstone Trail) was 29 mph. Collected speed data does not meet this condition. 3. Review of sight lines A recent site visit was conducted on October 11, 2011 to review the sight lines experienced by drivers at the intersection. For vehicles on Glencoe Road waiting to turn left, a sight distance of 335 feet is recommended to enter the traffic flow and not cause vehicles traveling at 30 mph on Yellowstone Trail to decelerate. Recommended sight distance for vehicles on Glencoe Road waiting to go straight or turn right is 290 feet. Similarly, vehicles traveling along Yellowstone Trail at 30 mph would need approximately 200 feet of sight distance to react and stop to avoid a collision at the intersection. Figures 3 through 6 are photographs taken of the existing sight distance. Figure 3 show insufficient sight distance for southbound vehicles waiting at a stop sign on Glencoe Road. Looking west, the sight distance is approximately 115 feet. Figure 4 show sufficient sight distance for southbound vehicles on Glencoe Road. Looking east, the sight distance is greater than 900 feet. Figures 5 and 6 show insufficient sight distance for northbound vehicles waiting at a stop sign on Glencoe Road. Looking west, the sight distance is 115 feet. Looking east, the sight distance is 160 feet. Figure 7 shows panoramic views from the Glencoe Road stop signs. 2 Speed and traffic data was collected by the City from May 9 through May 12, 2011. s Based on procedures and values found in "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" (2004) by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). These values are for two -lane highways with no median and grades 3 percent or less. K: \01459- 590\Admin\Docs\Memo \Traffic Study - All -way Stop.doc November 2011 Page 3 of 5 Vehicles traveling eastbound and westbound on Yellowstone Trail also have less than 200 feet to decelerate and stop to avoid a collision should a vehicle from Glencoe Road enter the intersection. Sight obstruction areas, as shown in Figure 8, were created to help visualize the previously described issues. This figure also includes vehicle locations at the intersection and at private residential driveway near the intersection. Tree trimming and /or tree removal within the right -of -way would increase the sight lines to an acceptable distance in the northwest and southwest quadrants. The southeast quadrant would also need tree trimming and /or tree removal along with regrading of the hill. Some of the work in the southeast quadrant may be outside of the public right -of -way. 4. Review of traffic flow Traffic flow along Yellowstone Trail was also reviewed. Yellowstone Trail serves as a main route through the area and has multiply all -way stop intersections. An all -way stop condition exists at the Lake Linden Drive intersection, 1,600 feet to the west and at the Grant Street intersection, 900 feet to the east of the Glencoe Road intersection. These all -way stop intersections interrupt the traffic flow along Yellowstone Trail producing gaps at side - street stop intersections downstream and discourage cut - through traffic. Traffic flow patterns through this area are not expected to change overtime. III. FUTURE CONDITIONS Future traffic volumes along Yellowstone Trail and Glencoe Road are anticipated to remain relatively constant. Most of the area is developed and additional cut - through traffic is not anticipated. IV. TRAFFIC CALMING Various forms of traffic calming measures may be used in an attempt to slow traffic and /or persuade cut - through traffic to choose a different route. Successful traffic calming measures consists of three important components: engineering, education, and enforcement. Since neighborhood traffic studies often reveal that area residents themselves are contributing to the perceived speeding problem, engineering alone often does not produce satisfactory results. A number of changes to roadways can be used to bring about more attentive driving, reduced speeds, reduced crashes, and greater tendency to yield to pedestrians. These changes can generally be grouped into three categories. These categories and roadway changes are listed below. Visual — Traveling at a slower speeds seem more natural • Reduced Lane Width • Landscaping (medians, planters, trees, shrubs, etc.) • On- street Bike Lanes Physical — Devices that force lower speeds • Curb Bump -outs • Speed Bumps and Humps • Raised Pedestrian Crossings and Refuges Islands • Roundabouts Enforcement and Education • Reducing Speed Limits • Police Enforcement K: \0 1 45 9- 5 90\.Admin\Docs\Memo \Traffic Study - All -way Stop.doc November 2011 Page 4 of 5 • Driver Feedback Signs (Digital Speed Readouts) Community Meetings A review of the traffic and speed data collected by the City in May of 2011 revealed that traffic volumes and speeds along Yellowstone Trail are typical for that of a local roadway. Based on the volume data, traffic on Yellowstone Trail is relatively low at approximately 800 vehicles per day. From the speed data, Yellowstone Trail's 85 percentile speed recorded was 29 mph. Yellowstone Trail currently has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. A review of the recorded crashes in the area revealed only two crashes, both unrelated to the intersection and both being run off road crashes. Based on these factors, the addition of traffic calming measures within the study area would not be warranted. Multi -Way Stop Signs as Traffic Calming Devices A paper by W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E. titled Multi -way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct! summarizes over 70 technical papers related to multi -way stop signs. The study concentrated on their use as traffic calming devices and their relative effectiveness in controlling speeds in residential neighborhoods. A summary is provided below. Researchers found that multi -way stop signs do not control speed. In analyzing 23 studies related to multi -way stop signs, five were favorable and 18 were unfavorable toward installing unwarranted all - way stop signs. All -way stop signs were found to be effective, though, at reducing accidents at intersections that have sight distance problems and on- street parking. Benefits to control speeds by installing multi -way stop signs are perceived rather than actual and the costs for the driving public are far greater than any benefits derived from the installation of the multi -way stop signs. In summary, the research found that multi -way stop signs do NOT control speed except under very limited conditions. The research shows that the concerns about unwarranted stop signs are well founded. Stop signs function best when motorists perceive a convincing reason to come to a complete stop to avoid possible conflicts such as heavy cross traffic, pedestrians, or a visibility limitation. Stop signs that are perceived as "nuisance stops" experience a high incidence of intentional violation, thus creating a false sense of security /safety for pedestrians at the intersection. At those intersections where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign and frequently speeds are higher between intersections to make up for lost time. V. CONCLUSIONS Based on the information contained in this document and engineering judgment, the following conclusions have been drawn: Only two crashes near the intersection were recorded between 2004 and 2010. Both were unrelated to the intersection. According to crash data, an all -way stop condition is not warranted at this intersection. • According to collected traffic volumes, daily traffic approaching the intersection is relatively low. Speed data collected did not indicate a speeding issue. Based on volumes and speeds, an all -way stop condition is not warranted at this intersection. • The implementation of additional traffic calming measures is not warranted based on collected data related to volumes, speeds, and crashes. Traffic characteristics through the area seem typical for that K: \0 1 45 9- 5 90\Admin\Docs\Memo \Traffic Study - All -way Stop.doc November 2011 Page 5 of 5 of a local roadway. Should the City choose to explore and /or implement additional traffic control measures, significant improvements to the perceived speeds, volumes, and safety issues would not be anticipated. According to field measurements and accepted standards established by AASHTO, current sight lines for both northbound and southbound drivers waiting at a stop sign on Glencoe Road will need to be increased in order to maintain the side - street stop condition. At a minimum, tree trimming and /or tree removal may be necessary in the northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants. The southeast quadrant also has a hill that may need to be regraded in order to further increase the sight lines for northbound Glencoe Road and private driveway vehicles. A review of the traffic flow along Yellowstone Trail revealed that all -way stop conditions already exist relatively close to the intersection. These all -way stop conditions provide gaps in the traffic flow allowing drivers on side - street stop intersections a chance to join or cross the Yellowstone Trail traffic. Since adequate gaps in traffic already exist, placing an all -way stop condition at Glencoe Road will inhibit traffic flow, increasing delay to vehicles on Yellowstone Trail. From a traffic flow standpoint, an all -way stop condition is not warranted at this intersection. Based on these conclusions, installing an all -way stop condition at the Glencoe Road and Yellowstone Trail intersection is not the best solution to resolve the perceived safety issues. The recommended solution is to increase the sight lines at the intersection and maintain the existing side - street stop control. Improving and maintaining adequate sight lines may involve tree trimming, tree removal, and /or regrading of a hill. K: \0 1 45 9- 5 90\Admin\Docs\Memo \Traffic Study - All -way Stop.doc Figure 1 N Project Location 0 KA CD RD. /` s �O %N x GILD - x r" a Lake Hall pje& S RD J {� } RIDGE POINT ,��C. Mary AC QEMY AVEo I CI Lak e' PARK 1 ' w o w T. CD Q w ' , - ` w � GALPIN t' J <r c a - -- Cr '" QI, w Mq ` ter MURRAY S T LLJ FL o ER U MIT ILTSEY LA AVEq � T 17 n� WSB �} 17 4 T I 17 N LD R 2 3 W R 3 VV z I � & /d—CfellK.)' Inc- Lqm Figure 2 2011 Daily Approach Count 0 0 M IN �. J E �OF.R �R° Mary Lake 2 F O � �R� q w C) LU rc : it -ef- n, . '� VW6 c 1 tS i y 2011 E I[ 0 U z LL) J A�yl�y N r FA � v � WSB ST, z 7 I ------------ 0 a 0 PARK Figure 7: Panoramic Photographs 1 4 1 =mow -- Northbound Glencoe Road Stop Sign October 11, 2011 MAW - - -- Southbound Glencoe Road Stop Sign October 11, 2011 Mi►S O� A-0-v" Inc- Sight Obstruction Areas O Stopped Driver Location (at Intersection) Stopped Driver Location (at Driveway) y 4 R Figure 8: Sight Obstruction Areas Intersection and Driveway Sight Lines r , ' T k �� "yam... " Trim branches and /or I remove trees with in U the right -of -way " 23530 d 0. ® Trim branches and /or remove trees with in the right -of -way N ... A'f� I Q L Lm - L .I 1 Trim branches and /or remove trees k' with in the right -of -way. Regrade and /or construct retaining wall to increase driveway sight lines. ••� �,.. ti - NOTE: Sight lines based on 335 feet. Property lines are approximate. wsB Source: Hennepin County Property Map, parcels updated on: 10/5/2011 1: M #9B City f Shorewood Council Meeting tem M TYPE y g Reggular ular Meeting Title / Subject: Draintile Replacements for Strawberry Lane Meeting Date: December 12, 2011 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Attachments: Quote Tabulation, plat, plan Policy Consideration: Background: Staff received 4 quotes for replacement of a failed drain tile pipe on Strawberry Lane. The failed drain tile has a minimum of 4 pipe failures that have created sink holes. Televising the pipe indicated the pipe settled enough to trap water and hinder the flow of water leaving the pond in the rear yards of the plat Strawberry Gardens. The pipe is 12" diameter PVC that is approximately 900 feet long. Shorewood does have a 20' wide drainage and utility easement over the pipe that was obtained during the platting process. Staff requested quotes to replace the pipe using two different construction methods. The first method is open cut digging and the other is directional drilling to minimize surface disturbance. Staff received two quotes for open cut digging, one quote for directional drilling and one quote for pipe bursting. Staff requested a quote to install a conduit from City Hall to the South Shore Center for future fiber optic connection. Two contractors provided a quote for $11,000 and $13,750. This price will need to be increased to include access points along the route. This part of the quote does require that those contractors be awarded the pipe replacement project. I requested this price to save on mobilization charges. There isn't a return on investment; South Shore Center pays about $50 a month in internet. Financial or Budget Considerations: The low quote is $30,472.00 and would be a maintenance activity funded by the Storm water utility fund. The project is not budgeted for. The storm water utility fund does have a balance to cover the activity and would be eligible for the bonding reimbursement resolution that was passed in June of 2011. Options: 1. Direct staff to work with Schneider Excavating, Inc. to replace the failed pipe. 2. Direct staff to work with a different quoter. 3. Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends working with Schneider Excavating, Inc. to replace the failed drain tile pipe. 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 City of Shorewood Quote Tabulation Storm Sewer Maintenance Strawberry Lane City Project No. 11 -09 Quotes Opened: Dec 07 2011, 10:00 A.M. City of Shorewood Engineer: James Landini No Quoter, Quote 1 E. J. Mayer directional drill $ 59,500.00 2 E. J. Mayer fiber conduit $ 11,000.00 3 Schneider open cut $ 30,472.00 4 Parrott open cut $ 40,082.00 5 RPU Pipe Burst $ 44,770.00 6 RPU fiber conduit $ 13,750.00 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 V/ 3 0 0 � Il� � t !v im l� ic OFFICIAL PLAY S"I"Rom"AWBERRY GARDENS `NOk�'iwssr CORNER of HE. '/4 of HENNEPIR COUNTY MONOMENC S.W %4 of Sec. 32,17, 11 R.23. Northeast• corner Of N.E. 4 0£ / Sec. 32, T. 117 , R.23 1 <Y � 0 i m BU It/r - Ir�rl � �v tr� ��c.tJlviV IV... III The North line of the South 1/3 of NE 114 of SW 1/4, Sec.32, T. 117, R.23 � 33 - - S89 °46'09 "W -- 3 3 r(OAC — � t 3 I � M L' 33 °T I t.: N Ib tr S � 1 0 I i � z v ° 1 ll O rr. t c ik N I 73 / t;, ' 66 � — — — 823.99 — _ _ — I - - t10 - - :10 of of f Sec. 32, T. 117, R.23 West fine of SI /3 of NEI 14 of SW1 /4, 5ee.32, T. 117, R,23 623.99 — — — — o I : / 33 Iv 6 Drainage and Utility Easements �s W LY i L_ — — _ -- — _ _ _S 8 ° 4 "W — — — — — — I — — z — — - _ P Q/ h I ----- e 589 °47'19"W -- -a -- - - "W - -- -s —J W p 33 I cv 624.17 W r------------ _ _ 624.17 -- l0 B LOC K to a ) 2 d I �I 3s S89 °48'29 "w = — L Sa9 °48'29 "W — — — J W 624,33 v 33 ;E4 I W �° co o i ( �, $ I� 4 {{ �Q T_ to o q. I 3 �) $ — — — — 824.34 Ho z - 110 - I— _ — — 624.54 — -- I t.: N Ib tr S � 1 0 I i � z v ° 1 ll O rr. t c ik N I 73 / t;, ' 66 - - S89 °49'40 "W -- - 1317.08 - The South line of the South 1/3 NE 1/4 SW /4, / :- of of f Sec. 32, T. 117, R.23 West fine of SI /3 of NEI 14 of SW1 /4, 5ee.32, T. 117, R,23 33 l �TJ G` / Drainage and Utility Easements Are Shown Thus: pi n_ LC a Being3 fear In wldfh and adjoining fat lines unless otherwise Indicated and 10 feet in width and adjoining street lines as shown on the plat. 0 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET o Denotes iron monument .1 H edl u nd , /'� A!! bearings S hown are assumed t hereby certify that this instrument is I f e d l U / / � �isyted in accordance with a power con X y% * e r Atted in the instrument of trust on file Engineering 4�_ * I,) ft}1Af2D VI. EUllLOM, Examfner of Titles . $y ("li'�r� lJatedt �ut✓. / r I4 �1� ,y R. T. DOC, N 0. 1 REGN''iERED YK 11 ?7,t PAGL_ f fy__ '40 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Lewis W. Child, as trustee under the will of Sherman W. Child, and as personal representative of the estate of Fan L. Child, deceased, fee owner, and B-T Land Company, a Minnesota Corporation, contract for deed purchaser of the following described property situated in the County of Henn- epin County, State of Minnesota, to wit: The South 1/3 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23. Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as STRAWBERRY GARDENS and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the Drive, Lane, and easements for drainage and utility purposes as shown on this plat. In witness whereof said Lewis W. Child, as trustee under the will of Sherman W. Child, and as per- sonal representative of the estate of Fan L. Child, deceased has hereunto set his hand and seal this -.ytd day of 1971 and B-T Land Company, a Minnesota C rporation, has caused these resents to be sf by its proper officer this 31.Z day of • 19 W . P fined SIGNED B-T LAND COMPANY Vice - President 7�+►J�,a Thomas P. Lowe Lewis W. Child 0 1.&1 4. G e t $14)4 4 State of Minnesota !� !. CA*D 14140 -d A* "0* 1�L P "'J6 � � � f�lfy o County of Hennepin l " tl'Sts t* • 4 . R( The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 110 day of _ 19 , — by Lewis W. Child, as trustee under the will of Sherman W. Child, and as personal representative of the estate of Fan L. Child, deceased. Notary Public, Garver County, nnesota My Commission Expires State of Minnesota County of Hennepin The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this -f. day of _AJoVPtNn� t/_ 19 n by Thomas P. Lowe vice - president of B-T Land company, a Minnesota Corporation, on behalf f said C ration. Notary Public, Carver County, nnesota My Commission Expires I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted the property described on this plat as STRAWBERRY GARDENS: that this plat is a correct representation of said survey; that all distances are correctly shown on said plat in feet and hundredths of a foot; that all monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as shown on said plat; that all the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on said plats and that there are no wetlands to be designated on said plat. 7 calvin H. Hedlund, Land Surveyor Minnesota Registration Number 5942 State of Minnesota County of Hennepin �-/ ��}},,--,�������� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of k CJ��C71TV l 19��, BY Calvin H. Hed- lund, Land Surveyor. ti ft far'1�j s) Notary Public, Hennepin Count Minnesota My Commission Expires tt�o.01, tall. SHORENIOOD, MINNESOTA .. The plat of STRAWBERRY GARDENS was approve$d and accepted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota., at a regular meeting thereof held on this - - 4tay of 1977 CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA By Mayor By f t_e1�C �GCav ` •` Clerk =f� FINANCE DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota q 1,;�� I hereby certify that there are no delinquent taxes for all years prior to 19 for land described�on �� plat. Dated this 1317H day of NoV6 sl 19 ' 1 3 `r r Vernon T. Hoppe, Director sy P kk o, 't Tax Clerk HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEYOR ���� Pursuant / to Chapter 810, Minnesota laws of 1969, this plat has been approved - this _ ? = day of Li<tiyen y - 19 _LL. Alver R. Freeman, Hennepin County Surveyor By ' REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I herebb certify that the within plat of STRAWBERRY GARDENS was filed in this office this �g rN day of, /t/DY,�'lfaeR 19 7_,at / o'clock =,M. Wayne A. Johnson, Registrarof Tifles By v r� Deputy L C3 Lij 0 2 6390 6390 2639 LEGEND PIPE REPLACEMENT • CLEAN OUT W/ OPEN DRAIN BIOLOG EXISTING STORM EXISTING SANITARY 100 FEET Directions to 5900 Strawber Ln, Excelsior, MN 55331 1.5 rri — about 4 nins Savetr Downlow ( phow at g o Lake innelonka Tonks Ba 44* std a Courdry CX6 sx,.W.Ood 0 W oo C a �� ieart (D 1 Pam F=rld Path Ana (D z K Eck 1 L 0 L,j 3: LL-j LLJ < LJ 0 Ln if 0 0 3: w 0 C"i (if 0 THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES THAT ARE SHOWN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. IT IS NOT GUARANTEED THAT ANY OR ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS Cit of Shmrom mod FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND Cepts. of Pubiic Nc•.!: and En ALL UTILITIES. 5755 Shorewood Countr Club WN, 5533* 952,960.7910 STORM SEWER SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS --13 f7) IRN AWBERRYN, COURT - 0171 REFEREN& 1:(2 U2 City f Shorewood Council Meeting Item Y g 10. B MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Adoption of the 2012 -2021 Capital Improvement Plan, 2012 Enterprise Budgets, and Southshore Community Center Budget Meeting Date: December 12, 2011 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Brian Heck Attachment: Resolution Budget and CIP Summaries Equipment Purchase Details Policy Consideration: Adoption of these budgets will give staff the authorization to expend funds to provide or maintain service levels to the community. Background: The 2012 General Fund Budget and tax levy were adopted, as required by state law, after the Truth -in- Taxation meeting last Monday. These remaining funds are not required be budgeted, but should be to ensure that staff is clear on the level of expenditure the City Council is comfortable allowing for each of these areas in the coming year. The CIP also provides a glimpse at potential spending in various areas over the next nine years beyond 2012. However, none of the funding scheduled in the CIP for 2013 or beyond will be committed until after the 2013 budget is adopted. Each of these budgets has been discussed in some detail at work sessions held throughout the fall. These budgets represent staffs estimate of what is required to provide the level of service desired in 2012. Financial or Budget Considerations: The adoption of these budgets does not limit the City Council's ability to modify spending priorities or authorizations throughout the year. Options: The City Council may choose to: Adopt the budgets and CIP as presented; Make additional changes and adopt the amended budgets and CIP; Do not adopt any budgets or CIP and require staff to present justification and individual authorization for each expenditure or project. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the budget and CIP resolution as submitted by staff. 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. Next Steps and Timelines: The final budget and CIP will be printed and distributed to staff and the public by January, 2012. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management by providing financial resources to pay for desired city services. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. It- ADOPTING the 2012 -2021 Capital Improvement Plan, 2012 Enterprise Budgets, and Southshore Community Center Budget WHEREAS, City staff have presented the preliminary CIP and 2012 budgets at work sessions since July; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the CIP and budgets and made modifications to each that reflect desired community service levels; and WHEREAS, these budgets represent a reasonable estimate of what needs to be spent to provide the desired service level; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: 1. The 2012 -2021 Capital Improvement Plan is hereby adopted as presented. 2. The Water, Sewer, Recycling, and Storm Water budgets are hereby adopted as presented. 3. The Southshore Community Center Budget is hereby adopted as presented. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of December, 2011. ATTEST Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk WATER FUND Revenue Coding: 601 Expenditure Coding: 601 - 49400- Preliminary 101 Regular Salaries Actual Actual Budget YTD Projected Budget Percent Dollar 102 O.T. Salaries 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 Change Change REVENUES 4,822 4,524 5,346 4,277 5,800 5,972 12% 822 37110 Water Sales 577,565 465,861 630,000 417,495 600,000 630,000 0% 164,139 36101 Special Assessments 40,214 21,744 35,000 6,667 14,000 35,000 0% 13,256 37170 Permits & Connection Fees 28,885 29,184 1,000 15,380 15,380 1,000 0% (28,184) 36210 Interest Earnings 3,740 31,999 35,000 4,118 25,000 35,000 0% 3,001 37171 Water Meter Sales 4,838 3,028 2,500 1,330 1,330 2,500 0% (528) 37175 Antennae Space Rental 132,816 148,859 140,000 74,998 149,000 100,000 -29% (8,859) Total Revenues 788,058 700,675 843,500 519,988 804,710 803,500 -5% 142,825 EXPENSES Personal Services 101 Regular Salaries 68,229 64,359 73,738 56,374 74,000 79,474 8% 9,379 102 O.T. Salaries 3,256 2,057 2,000 2,624 3,000 3,000 50% (57) 121 PERA City Share 4,822 4,524 5,346 4,277 5,800 5,972 12% 822 122 FICA City Share 5,279 4,817 5,641 4,290 6,000 6,310 12% 824 131 Ins. City Share 8,205 8,158 9,209 1,929 9,200 10,011 9% 1,051 151 Workers Compensation 683 Total Personal Services 89,791 84,598 95,934 69,494 98,000 104,767 9% 11,336 Supplies 200 Office Supplies - 101 - 106 106 - 208 Postage 1,574 1,235 1,000 1,031 1,300 1,300 30% (235) 221 Maint- Equipment 4,414 4,244 6,500 3,027 4,000 6,500 0% 2,256 223 Maint - Buildings 246 252 1,000 258 500 1,000 0% 748 240 Small Tools 19 290 550 43 300 550 0% 260 245 General Supplies 10,955 7,608 10,000 7,015 9,000 10,000 0% 2,392 260 Wtr Purch - Tonka Bay 3,050 2,125 3,300 1,419 3,300 3,300 0% 1,175 261 Wtr Purch - Excelsior 17,082 18,892 17,500 8,730 17,500 17,500 0% (1,392) 262 Wtr Purch - Mtka 990 687 1,000 528 1,000 1,000 0% 313 263 Wtr Purch - Chan 11,387 11,380 12,000 8,144 11,500 12,000 0% 620 265 Water Meters 4,751 5,631 5,000 2,752 3,000 5,000 0% (631) Total Supplies 54,468 52,445 57,850 33,053 51,506 58,150 1% 5,405 Other Services & Charges 301 Financial & Audit 2,250 2,250 2,250 - 2,250 2,250 0% 0 302 Consulting 4,448 - - 1,775 3,000 - 0 303 Engineering - 2,070 - - - (2,070) 304 Legal Fees - - - 107 - 0 321 Communication 14,329 978 1,500 626 1,200 1,500 0% 522 331 Travel, Conf,Sch 558 350 600 700 700 600 0% 250 351 Print /Publish 629 628 1,000 583 900 1,000 0% 372 360 Insurance -Total 10,125 7,816 7,500 - 7,900 8,000 7% (316) 394 Utilities - Amesbury 4,142 9,672 5,500 6,689 9,600 10,000 82% (4,172) 395 Utilities - Badger 10,561 10,243 11,000 8,444 11,000 11,000 0% 757 396 Utilities - Boulder Bridge 16,673 16,799 15,000 9,418 13,000 15,000 0% (1,799) 397 Utilities - Woodhaven 501 - - - - 0 398 Utilities - SE Area /Tower 38,077 29,892 30,000 17,301 23,000 30,000 0% 108 400 Contractual 14,329 13,987 15,000 10,625 15,000 15,000 0% 1,013 420 Depreciation 274,066 279,699 270,000 - 280,000 290,000 7% (9,699) 433 Subscrip- Member - - - - - 0 437 Licenses -Sales Taxes 2,669 4,382 3,000 542 1,000 3,000 0% (1,382) 440 Misc. Services 119 126 200 137 200 200 0% 74 450 Bank Svc Chgs 509 95 525 - 700 525 0% 430 Total Other Services & Charges 393,983 378,987 363,075 56,947 369,450 388,075 7% (15,912) Capital Outlay 580 Other Improve - 2,446 - 25,869 30,000 (2,446) Total Capital Outlay - 2,446 - 25,869 30,000 - (2,446) Debt Service 601 Bond Principal 310,000 - 295,000 180,000 240,000 175,000 -41% 295,000 611 Bond Interest 133,302 124,656 110,488 59,953 111,538 103,398 -6% (14,168) 620 Fiscal Agent Fees 750 750 1,500 318 750 1,500 0% 750 Total Debt Service 444,051 125,406 406,988 240,271 352,288 279,898 -31% 281,582 Total Transfers - - - - - 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 982,294 643,882 923,847 425,634 901,244 830,890 -10% 279,965 REVENUES OVER /(UNDER) EXPENSES (194,236) 56,793 (80,347) 94,354 (96,534) (27,390) 26 SEWER FUND Revenue Codin 611 - Expenditure Codin 611-49450 - Prelimina Actual Actual Bud YTD Projected Bud Percent Dollar REVENUES 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 Chan Chan 33635 MCES I & I Grant - - - - - 36210 Interest Earnin 50,143 38,439 36,000 4,074 36,000 36,000 0% (2,439) 36240 Refunds/Reimburse - 37250 Metro Sac Char 37210 Sewer Sery Char 801,552 812,537 825,000 612,713 825,000 825,000 0% 12,463 37220 Sewer Ch Coll - 28,456 - - 37250 Local SAC Char - 2,400 - - - - (2,400) 37270 Sewer Permits 700 1,650 700 900 300 700 0% (950) 39201 Tsfr From Other Funds - 60,000 - - 60,000 - (60,000) Total Revenues 852,395 943,482 861,700 617,687 921,300 861,700 0% (81,782) EXPENSES Personal Services 101 Re Salaries 53,332 53,842 63,898 51,416 58,632 71,179 11% 10,056 102 O.T. Salaries 815 922 1,654 - 1,200 103 Part Time Salaries - - - - - 121 PERA Cit Share 3,662 3,740 4,633 3,848 4,104 5,260 14% 893 122 FICA Cit Share 4,041 4,004 4,888 3,938 4,485 5,545 13% 884 131 Ins. Cit Share 5,908 6,538 7,017 1,670 9,090 9,017 29% 479 151 Workers Compensation 683 Total Personal Services 67,757 69,729 80,436 62,526 76,311 92,201 15% 10,707 Supplies 200 Office Supplies - 102 - 105 - 110 208 Posta 1,593 1,211 1,500 987 1,300 1,500 0% 212 Motor Fuel & Lube - - - - - - 221 Maint-E 2,526 14,640 5,000 1,673 4,000 5,000 0% (9,640) 222 Maint-Buildin - - - - - - - 240 Small Tools 1,017 79 550 - 1,000 550 0% 471 245 General Supplies 1,796 919 2,100 543 2,100 2,100 0% 1,181 Total Supplies 6,932 16,951 9,150 3,308 8,400 9,260 1% (7,801) Other Services & Char 300 Financial & Audit 2,250 2,250 2,250 - 2,250 2,250 0% - 308 Consultin 4,448 - 1,500 - 1,500 1,500 0% 1,500 303 En Fees - - - - - 313 En - Desi Sta 273 4,634 5,000 1,536 3,500 5,000 0% 366 321 Communication 3,537 3,806 4,000 3,052 4,500 4,000 0% 194 331 Travel, Conf,Sch 868 934 1,500 1,300 1,200 1,500 0% 566 351 Print/Publish - - - - - - - 360 Insurance-Total 6,427 5,225 6,500 - 2,021 6,500 0% 1,275 380 Utilities-Gas/Elec 5,845 5,919 6,000 4,164 4,600 6,000 0% 81 385 MCES Service Char 576,016 564,332 713,835 535,651 580,250 728,000 2% 149,503 386 Excelsior Sewer Ch 31,006 29,941 30,000 15,759 31,000 31,000 3% 59 400 Contractual 31,351 31,825 20,000 15,371 20,000 20,000 0% (11,825) 420 Depreciation 218,481 218,483 219,000 - 219,000 225,000 3% 517 433 Dues & Subscriptions 23 - - - - - - 437 Licenses-Taxes - 265 - 23 - - (265) 440 Misc. Services 105 126 150 114 200 150 0% 24 450 Service Char 636 110 900 - 500 900 0% 790 Total Other Services & Char 881,264 867,850 1,010,635 576,970 870,521 1,031,800 2% 142,785 Capital Outla 540 Machiner - - - - - - 560 Furn & Fixtures - - 580 Other Improve 25,643 36,031 70,000 (25,643) Total Capital Outla - 25,643 36,031 70,000 (25,643) Transfers 720 Permanent 1,000,000 - - - Total Transfers 1,000,000 - - - - - - TOTAL EXPENSES 1,955,954 980,173 1,100,221 678,835 1,025,232 1,133,261 3% 120,048 REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES (1,103,559) (36,691) (238,521) (61,148) (103,932) (271,561) RECYCLING FUND BUDGET Revenue Coding: 621 - Expenditure Coding: 621- 49550- REVENUES 33620 County Recycling Aid 36210 Interest Earnings 37310 Recycling Service Charges 37320 City Clean -up Fees 37330 Recycling Bin Sales 37340 Revenue from Contractor 39201 Transfers from Other Funds T ota l R e v e n ues 88,928 178,495 171,350 136,418 179,294 184,350 8% 5,855 EXPENSES Personal Services 101 Regular Salaries 102 O.T. Salaries 103 Part Time Salaries 121 PERA City Share 122 FICA City Share 131 Ins. City Share - - - 910 910 - - 788 - 997 997 Preliminary 3,448 4,307 10,271 2 Actual Actual Budget YTD Projected Budget Percent Dollar 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 Change Change 22,830 23,560 21,000 23,086 23,086 23,000 10% (560) 986 656 350 54 250 350 0% (306) 60,009 154 150,000 114,525 150,000 155,000 3% 721 4,983 - - (1,247) 5,958 6,000 6,000 120 - - - - - - T ota l R e v e n ues 88,928 178,495 171,350 136,418 179,294 184,350 8% 5,855 EXPENSES Personal Services 101 Regular Salaries 102 O.T. Salaries 103 Part Time Salaries 121 PERA City Share 122 FICA City Share 131 Ins. City Share - - - 910 910 - - 788 - 997 997 1,000 3,448 4,307 10,271 2 5,000 5,251 233 353 745 292 400 450 264 388 786 308 400 475 353 - 1,386 - - 619 Total Personal Services Supplies 200 Office Supplies 208 Postage 245 General Supplies Total Supplies Other Services & Charges 400 Contractual 440 Misc. Services 450 Service Charges Total Other Services & Charges TOTAL EXPENSES 212 -49% 944 -40% 97 -40% 87 619 -41% 1,959 (2) 604 1 325 864 900 900 177% (311) 112 170 250 176 200 200 -20% 30 716 1,483 575 1,145 1,100 1,200 109% (283) 94,104 166,449 166,992 124,976 166,992 166,992 0% 543 158 8,405 150 7,613 7 8,000 5233% (405) 10 - 20 - - - -100% - 94,273 174,854 167,162 132,589 174,251 174,992 5% 138 183.987 2% 1.814 99.286 182.173 180.925 138.416 183.058 REVENUES OVER /(UNDER) EXPENSES (10,358) (3,678) (9,575) (1,998) (3,764) 363 4,297 5,836 13,188 4,682 7,707 7,795 - 102 105 100 28 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND Revenue Coding: 631 - Expenditure Coding: 631-49600 - REVENUES 33620 Grant Proceeds 36101 Special Assessments 36210 Interest Earnings 36270 Miscellaneous Revenue 37175 Cellular Antenna Revenue 37410 Storm Utility Charges 39201 Transfers /Internal Loans Total Revenues 201,806 209,431 210,775 160,934 220,857 208,675 -1% (756) EXPENSES Personal Services 101 Regular Salaries 102 O.T. Salaries 103 Part Time Salaries 121 PERA City Share 122 FICA City Share 131 Ins. City Share 47,576 17,816 41 24,971 37 27,642 - 158 300 3,117 1 2,987 1,822 2,601 2,004 3,628 1 3,152 1,881 2,843 2 1,507 2 4,839 545 5,754 2,834 Total Personal Services Supplies 200 Office Supplies 208 Postage 221 Maint- Equipment 240 Small Tools 245 General Supplies 55,828 22,737 52,174 29,377 48,657 Preliminary - Actual Actual Budget YTD Projected Budget Percent Dollar 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 Change Change 5,658 5,202 5,100 5,157 5,157 5,100 0% (102) - 7,651 - - - - (7,651) 4,991 5,637 5,100 742 5,000 3,000 -41% (2,637) 125 122 75 10,550 10,550 75 0% (47) 191,032 190,819 200,500 144 200,150 200,500 0% 9,681 Total Revenues 201,806 209,431 210,775 160,934 220,857 208,675 -1% (756) EXPENSES Personal Services 101 Regular Salaries 102 O.T. Salaries 103 Part Time Salaries 121 PERA City Share 122 FICA City Share 131 Ins. City Share 47,576 17,816 41 24,971 37 27,642 - 158 300 3,117 1 2,987 1,822 2,601 2,004 3,628 1 3,152 1,881 2,843 2 1,507 2 4,839 545 5,754 2,834 Total Personal Services Supplies 200 Office Supplies 208 Postage 221 Maint- Equipment 240 Small Tools 245 General Supplies 55,828 22,737 52,174 29,377 48,657 34,595 - 102 - 1 5,000 106 106 100 - 1 350 864 1,000 1,000 1,087 - 5,500 - 1,000 5,500 16 - 300 - 120 300 691 1 3,000 2,074 3,000 3,000 Total Supplies Other Services & Charges 300 Financial & Audit 303 Engineering 304 Legal Communication 313 Engineering - Design Stage 351 Print /Publish 360 Insurance -Total 400 Contractual 420 Depreciation 433 Subscrip- Member 440 Misc. Services 450 Service Charges 1,795 2,581 9,150 3,044 5,226 9,900 3,000 8,384 5,000 8,661 10,000 5,000 138 46 1,000 240 500 1,000 - 1 5,000 4 5,000 5,000 25 - 100 324 400 100 24,935 40,871 50,000 17,644 20,000 50,000 19,833 19,833 20,000 - 20,000 22,000 - 600 - - 600 1 1 1 117 1,000 1 59 14 500 - 75 500 Total Other Services & Charges Capital Outlay 510 Land 580 Other Improvements 49,226 72,314 83,300 31,136 56,975 85,300 870 - 33,475 120 392,022 400,000 120,000 Total Capital Outlay 33,475 120,000 392,892 400,000 120,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 106,848 131,107 264,624 456,449 510,858 249,795 REVENUES OVER /(UNDER) EXPENSES 94,957 78,324 (53,849) (295,515) (290,001) (41,120) 33% 9,826 -33% 818 -33% 828 -41% 386 -34% 11,858 (2) 186% (211) 0% 5,500 0% 300 0% 1,732 8% 7,319 0% (3,384) 0% 954 0% 3,582 0% 100 0% 9,129 10% 2,167 0% 600 0% (648) 0% 486 2% 12,986 0% 86,525 0% 86,525 -6% 118.688 29 City of Shorewood, Minnesota Capital Improvement Program 2012 thru 2021 PROJECTS BY SOURCE Source # Priority 2012 2013 201 2 2 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 402 - Park Improvements Message Boards P0001 1 4140 4 Picnic Tables P0002 1 14,000 14,000 Freeman Plaza P0100 5 5,000 5,000 Freeman Skating /Hockey Rink P0101 4 50,000 50,000 Freeman North Playground P0102 4 55,000 55,000 Equipment Freeman Parking Lot w/ MCWD P0103 5 50,000 50,000 Freeman Ball Field Lights P0104 5 75,000 75,000 Freeman Picnic Shelter Re -Roof P0105 4 3,000 3,000 Cathcart Park - Resurface tennis P0200 1 6,000 6,000 6,500 6,500 25,000 Courts Cathcart Park Hockey Boards P0201 3 20,000 20,000 Cathcart Park Tot Lot P0202 5 50,000 50,000 Cathcart Parking Lot P0203 5 100,000 100,000 Badger Park - Rustic Trail P0300 3 7,500 7,500 Badger Park Tennis Cours P0301 2 245,000 8,000 8,500 261,500 Badger Park Hockey Boards P0302 2 40,000 40,000 Badget Park Swing Set P0303 2 12,000 12,000 Badget Park Green Space P0304 2 20,000 20,000 Badget Park Warming House P0305 2 80,000 80,000 Badget Park Plalyground Equipment P0306 2 65,000 65,000 Manor Park - Resurface Tennis PO400 1 6,000 100,000 6,500 6,500 119,000 Courts Silverwood Park - Resurface 1/2 court P0500 2 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 9,000 Silverwood Park Equipment P0501 3 60,000 60,000 Silverwood Park Swing Set P0502 3 14,000 14,000 Skate Park Rehab P0600 3 75,000 75,000 Skate Park Picnic Shelter P0601 5 15,000 15,000 402 - Park Improvements Total 32 3 140 522 82 128 11 155 140 3 500 27 115 15 1,229,140 Source # Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 403 - Equipment Replacement Fund Dump Truck - Replace Unit 33 E -11 -01 1 155,000 155,000 Replace Unit 21 - 24' trailer E -12 -01 2 16,000 16,000 Sand Pro 3000 - replace Unit 64 E -12 -02 2 13,000 13,000 Groundsmaster Mower- Toro 328D - E -12 -03 2 24,000 30,000 54,000 replace unit 75 Air Compressor - Replace unit 38 E -13 -01 3 12,000 12,000 Dump Truck - replace unit 65 E -13 -02 3 160,000 160,000 Dump Truck - Replace Unit 68 E -13 -03 2 165,000 165,000 Pickup 44 - Replace Unit 78 E -13 -04 3 38,000 38,000 Cab for mower - replace A3 E -13 -05 3 8,000 8,000 Utility Truck w /crane & toolbox E -14 -01 5 77,000 77 replace unit 76 Mower - Replace Unit 84 E -14 -02 4 25,000 25,000 Utility Vehicle - replace unit 77 E -14 -03 4 25,000 25,000 Blower Attachment for mower E -14 -04 4 6,000 6,000 replace A8 Cab attachement for mower replace E -14 -05 4 7,000 7,000 unit A4 Pick -up - 4 x 4 150 Replace Unit 80 E -15 -01 5 35,000 35,000 Dump Truck - replace unit 72 E -15 -03 5 175,000 175,000 Trailer 18' replace unit 59 E -16 -01 5 15,000 15,000 Sewer Jetter - replace unit 60 E -16 -02 5 53,000 53,000 Pickup - 350 44 replace unit 81 E- 47 -01 5 42,000 42,000 Groundsmaster Mower replace unit E -17 -02 5 28,000 28,000 91 Mower blower attachment replace E -17 -03 5 6,000 6,000 unit Al Cab for mower replace A4 E -17 -04 5 7,000 7,000 Vehicle Analysis station replace A9 E -18 -01 5 4,000 4,000 Skid Steer - replace unit 63 E -19 -01 5 35,000 35,000 ATV - replace unit 34 E -19 -02 5 20,000 20,000 Sander replace Al E -19 -04 5 12,000 12,000 4 pump replace unit 50 E -20 -01 5 45,000 45,000 Trailer 12' replace unit 69 E -20 -02 5 4,000 4,000 Roller - replace unit 73 E -20 -03 5 37,000 37,000 Pickup 350 44 - replace unit 91 E -20 -04 5 42,000 42,000 Sweeper - replace unit 74 E -21 -01 5 190,000 190,000 Cab for mower - replace A3 E -21 -03 5 8,000 8,000 Source # Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Flatbed - 4 x 2 Replace unit 49 E -24 -01 5 Broom Attachment - Skid Steer E -25 -02 5 replace A13 3,000 Street Sign Replacement LR -99 -001 n/a South Shore Community Center PF -11 -01 n/a Public Works Building PF -12 -01 n/a City Council Laptop Computers (5) T -12 -01 1 Server and Operating System T -12 -02 2 Replacements 5,000 Financial Software T -12 -03 2 Computer Upgrades T 99-99 - Equipment Replacement Fund Total 90,000 404 - Street Reconstruction Fund Clover Lane LR -12 -01 2 Club Lane LR -12 -02 2 Elder Turn LR -12 -03 2 Knightsbridge Road LR -12 -04 2 Lakeway Terrace LR -12 -05 2 Pleasant Avenue LR -12 -06 2 TeeTrail LR -12 -07 2 Wood Drive LR -12 -08 2 Wood Duck Circle LR -12 -09 2 Elbert Point LR -13 -01 3 KcKinley Circle LR -13 -02 3 McLain Road LR -13 -03 3 Shady Hills Rd LR -13 -04 3 Shore Road LR -13 -05 3 Valleywood Circle & Lane LR -13 -06 3 Charleston Circle LR -14 -01 4 Club Valley Road LR -14 -02 4 Lake Virginia Drive LR -14 -03 4 Radisson Entrance LR -14 -04 4 Shady Lane LR -14 -05 4 Sunnyvale Lane LR -14 -06 4 Timber Lane LR -14 -07 4 Chaska Road LR -15 -01 5 Mayflower Road LR -15 -02 5 392 44,000 44,000 208 72 68 253 36 1,982,500 3,000 3,000 6,000 6,300 6,600 6,900 7,200 7,500 7,800 8,100 8,400 8,700 73,500 2,500 42,000 2,000 46,500 4,000 6,500 81,000 91,500 5,000 26,000 5,000 10,000 26,000 10,000 90,000 90,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1 0,000 100,000 392 199 255 256 239 208 72 68 253 36 1,982,500 26,000 26,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 26,000 62,000 62,000 46,000 46,000 21,000 21,000 19,000 19,000 46,000 46,000 36,000 36,000 27,000 27,000 21,000 21,000 26,000 26,000 29,000 29,000 26,000 26,000 601,000 601,000 36,000 36,000 29,000 29,000 63,000 63,000 33,000 33,000 24,000 24,000 228,000 228,000 55,000 55,000 87,000 87,000 33,000 331000 Source # Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total McKinley Court LR -15 -03 5 40,000 40,000 Murray Hill Road LR -15 -04 5 52,000 52,000 Star Circle & Lane LR -15 -05 5 453,000 453,000 Summit Avenue LR -15 -06 5 32,000 32 Amlee Road LR -16 -01 5 332,000 332,000 Garden Road LR -16 -02 5 42,000 42,000 Gillette Curve LR -16 -03 5 35,000 35,000 Manitou Lane LR -16 -04 5 317,000 317,000 McKinley Place N & S LR -16 -05 5 65,000 65,000 Shady Hills Circle LR -16 -06 5 51,000 51,000 Echo Road LR -17 -01 5 71,000 71,000 Howards Point Road LR -17 -02 5 180,000 180,000 Kathleen Court LR -17 -03 5 22,000 22,000 Oak Ridge Circle LR -17 -04 5 29,000 29 Riviera Lane LR -17 -05 5 371,000 371,000 Shorewood Lane LR -17 -06 5 423,000 423,000 Mann Lane LR -18 -01 5 444,000 444,000 Maple Street LR -18 -02 5 100,000 100,000 Bayswater Road LR -19 -01 5 100,000 100,000 Boulder Circle LR -19 -02 5 49,000 49,000 Christmas Lane W LR -19 -03 5 32,000 32,000 Lilac Lane LR -19 -05 5 46,000 46,000 Strawberry Lane LR -19 -06 5 85,000 85,000 Vine Street LR -19 -07 5 33,000 33,000 Birch Bluff Road LR -20 -01 5 107,000 107,000 Excelsior Blvd LR -20 -02 5 19,000 19,000 Seamans Drive LR -20 -03 5 629,000 629,000 West Lane LR -20 -04 5 32,000 32,000 Christmas Lane E LR -21 -01 5 21,000 21,000 Christmas Lake Road LR -21 -02 5 107,000 107,000 Country Club Road LR -21 -03 5 95,000 95,000 Maintenance - Bituminous Sealcoating LR -99 -100 1 141,000 220,000 270,000 228,000 245,000 184,000 238,000 305,000 274,000 2 55,000 2,360,000 104 - Street Reconstruction Fund Total 448 950 738 925 1 1 782 650 1 478 8,399,000 405 - MSA Road Reconstruction Fun_j Eureka Road N LR -19 -04 5 1,922,000 1,922,000 MSA Road Reconstruction Fund Total 1 1,922,000 Source # Priority 2012 2013 201 2 2 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 406 - Trails Trail Connection to LRT Tool 1 72,000 72,000 Smithtown from West Border to T002 1 357,500 357,500 Minnewashta Elem Galpin Lake Rd T003 1 192,500 192 Mill Street T004 1 137,500 137 From 7/41 to Chanhassen Trail T005 1 24,000 24,000 Smithtown from Minnewashta to 19 T006 1 412,500 412,500 Strawberry Lane T007 1 192,500 192,500 County Road 19 from Pub Works to T008 1 220,000 220,000 Excelsior St. Albans Bay Rd T009 1 110,000 110,000 Edgewood Road Tolo 1 1 65,000 165 406 - Trails Total 72 3 000 357 192 137 24 412 192 220 110 165 1,883,500 601 - Water Fund Radio /ISP Communications System W -10 -01 1 75,000 75,000 Water Main - Star Circle & Lane W -11 -02 n/a 130,000 130,000 Water Main - Valleywood Circle & W-12-01 n/a 272,000 272,000 Lane Boulder Bridge Well Controls W -12 -03 5 220,000 220,000 Water Main - Sunnyvale Lane W-13-02 n/a 100,000 100,000 W. Water Tower - Rehab & Painting W -13 -03 3 450,000 450,000 601 - Water Fund Total 295 3 000 722 100 130 1,247,000 611 - Sanitary Sewer Fund Radio /ISP Communications - Lift SS -10 -10 1 40,000 40,000 80,000 Stations Lift Station 6 Rehab - 27950 SS -12 -01 2 125,000 125,000 Smithtown Rd. Utility Locator SS -12 -02 2 5,000 5,000 Lift Station 11 Rehab - 20465 SS -13 -01 3 130,000 130,000 Rad isso n Rd. Infiltration and Inflow Reduction SS -99 -05 1 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 700,000 611 - Sanitary Sewer Fund Total 240 3 000 240 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 1,040,000 631 - Stormwater Management Fund Star Circle & Lane - Stormwater STM -12 -02 3 31,000 31,000 Source # Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Lake South Auto Drainage - WSB STM -12 -05 3 Report Valleywood Circle & Lane - Drainage STM -12 -08 4 Afton Rd Drainage STM -13 -01 4 Sunnyvale Lane Drainage STM -13 -02 4 Club Valley Drainage STM -14 -01 4 Lake Virginia Drive Drainage STM -14 -02 4 6120 Riviera Drainage - WSB Report STM -14 -04 3 Star Circle & Lane STM -15 -01 5 23610 Gillette Curve Drainage - STM -15 -03 3 WSB Report 23350 Academy Drainage STM -15 -04 4 Garden Road STM -15 -05 4 Gillette Road STM -15 -06 4 Echo Rd Drainage STM -16 -01 4 Manitou Lane STM -16 -02 4 Riveria Lane STM -17 -01 4 Shorewood Lane STM -17 -02 4 Mann Lane STM -18 -01 4 Maple St STM -18 -02 4 Eureka Road N STM -19 -01 4 Seamans Drive STM -20 -01 4 - Stormwater Management Fund Total GRAND TOTAL 24,000 24,000 142,000 142,000 147,000 147,000 192,000 192,000 101,000 101 283,000 283,000 19,000 19,000 31,000 31,000 211,000 211,000 75,000 75 26,000 26 17,000 17,000 270,000 270,000 75,000 75,000 87,000 87,000 99,000 99,000 105,000 105,000 24,000 24,000 452,000 452,000 148,000 148,000 24 289 595 391 345 186 129 452 148 2,559,000 1,503,140 3,279,800 2,033,600 2,038,400 1,776,200 2,312,000 1,386,800 3,409,600 1,757,400 765,200 20,262,140 City of Shorewood Department of Public Works Equipment Replacement Schedule Unit No Model Year Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 21 1987 Trailer 24' - Trail King $ - $ 15 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2009 Backhoe - Case 580M $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 33 1988 Dump Truck - Ford L8000 $ 154 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 34 2004 Cub Cadet ATV $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19 $ - $ - 35 1988 Tractor - Ford 3910 $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 38 1990 Air Compressor - Ingersall Rand 185 $ - $ - $ 11 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 46 1982 Sweeper - Tennant 240 - Rep w /skid steer brrr $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 49 1993 Flatbed - 4 x 2 Ford F350 $ - $ - $ - $ 44 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 50 1985 Pump - 4' Discharge $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44 $ - 56 2011 Loader - Cat 930H $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 58 1996 Grader - Cat 140H $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 59 1996 Trailer 18'- Felling FT 18WD $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14 $ - $ - $ - $ - 60 1987 Sewer Jetter - Sereco Trailer mount $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52 $ - $ - $ - $ - 63 1998 Skid Steer - Bobcat 753 $ 34 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45 64 1997 Sand Pro 3000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12 $ - $ - $ - 65 1998 Dump Truck - Ford $ - $ 159 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 68 1998 Dump Truck - Ford $ - $ - $ 164 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 69 2000 Trailer 12'- Felling FT 3 $ - $ 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 71 2000 Generator - Generac 163 KW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 72 2000 Dump Truck - Frieghtliner FL80 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 174 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 73 2000 Roller - Beuthling B2000 Static $ 36 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 74 2000 Sweeper - Athey M9 -D $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 189 $ - 75 2003 Mower -Toro Groundsmaster 328D $ 24 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29 $ - $ - 76 2003 Truck - Ford F450 w /crane, tool box $ - $ - $ - $ 77 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 77 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan $ - $ - $ 25 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 78 2003 Pickup - 4 x 4 Ford F250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 37 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 80 2005 Pickup - 4 x 4 Ford F150 $ - $ - $ - $ 35 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 81 2005 Pickup - 4 x 4 Ford F350 $ - $ - $ - $ 42 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 82 2003 Baldor Generator- 35 KW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 84 2007 Mower - Toro Groundsmaster 328D $ - $ - $ 25 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31 85 2001 Freightliner Water Truck (Used) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 88 2007 Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 gall $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 91 2010 Mower - Toro Groundsmaster 328D $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 28 $ - $ - $ - $ - 91 2010 Pickup - 4 x 4 Ford F350 $ - $ - $ - $ 42 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 92 2009 Dump Truck - Freightliner $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 82 2006 Pwks Building Generator $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 93 2009 City Hall Building Generator $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 1 1972 Attach - Blower for Groundsmaster $ - $ - $ 6 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 10 2000 Replace Rusted Sander $ 11 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 12 new Blower Attachment Skid Steer $ 12 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 13 new Broom Attachment Skid Steer $ - $ 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 2 2007 Attach - Cab for Groundsmaster $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8 A 3 2010 Attach - Cab for Groundsmaster $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8 A 4 2003 Attach - Cab for Groundsmaster $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7 $ - $ - $ - $ - A 5 1988 Attach - Flail rear mower Ag Tractor $ - $ 9 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 6 1988 Attach - Flail side mower Ag Tractor $ - $ 16 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 7 1995 Mower - Toro Walk Behind Proline 44 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 8 2000 Attach - Blower for Groundsmaster $ - $ - $ 5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A 9 2003 Engine/Transmission Analysis Station Software $ 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTALS $ 276,515 j $ 257 $ 239 $ 240 $ 212 $ 102 $ 12 $ 49 $ 234 $ 941191 1:(2 U2 City f Shorewood Council Meeting Item Y g Title / Subject: 2011 Audit Services Meeting Date: December 12, 2011 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Brian Heck Attachment: Proposal Engagement Letter 10C MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: The City must be audited annually by a qualified CPA firm as required by state law. The City Council has the authority to choose which firm provides that service. Background: The City Council solicited Requests for Proposals for audit services at the end of 2008 and selected Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP for a three year contract period. The original period is complete and the firm has performed all contracted service in a capable manner. Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP have presented staff with an engagement letter for the years of 2011, 2012, and 2013 as contemplated in the original bid process. They have also presented a scope of audit services for 2011 that are the same as those previously performed. Both documents are attached. The only difference is that the proposed cost for 2011 of $26,625 is up about 2.9% from the $25,872 paid in 2011 for the 2010 audit. This proposal locks in the same audit rate for the following two years with only modest increases for preparing the Office of State Auditor annual reporting form. Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost of this service was contemplated in preparing the 2012 budget. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1. Accept the contract for services with Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLC as presented; or 2. Reject the proposed contract and seek proposals from other CPA firms. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the proposal for the next three years as submitted. Next Steps and Timelines: The audit will be conducted during April and May of 2012 with a presentation to the City Council of the results in June. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management by ensuring proper recording, expending, and reporting of financial resources used to provide city services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. nano EICK& .r M* , Qa M PkMc Amoft s & Cents 5201 Eden Mum Suite 250 Edits, MN 55436 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Shorewood Shorewood, Minnesota The following sets forth the engagement of our services for the certified audit of the accounts of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota (the City). We will audit the financial statements of the City of Shorewood for the years ending December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013 in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit will include tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express an opinion that the financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether caused by error or fraud. Because of the concept of reasonable assurance and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that a material misstatement may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect errors, fraud, or other illegal acts that are immaterial to the financial statements. However, we will inform you of any material errors and any fraud that comes to our attention. We will also inform you of any other illegal acts that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to matters that might arise during any later periods of which we are not engaged as auditors. We will perform the auditing services discussed above for the calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. If at any time during this period the Council is dissatisfied with our services for any reason whatsoever, our services may be terminated by so informing us. Our Firm, however, shall be obligated at your continuing discretion to perform the audit services for the three -year period at the following fees: Service 2011 2012 2013 Audit OSA Reporting Form Total $ 26,625 $ 26,645 $ 26,660 Our fee includes the City audit, the Management Advisory Letter, and general consulting related to the audit. If the City receives over $500,000 in Federal expenditures in any one year, a Federal Single Audit will be required, which would be additional fees. Also, if there is any significant new accounting or auditing standards, there may also be additional fees. November 23, 2011 26,050 $ 26,050 $ 26,050 575 595 610 952.835.9090 • Fax 952.835.3261 www.aemcpas.com City of Shorewood November 23, 2011 Page Two It is our belief that the proposed three -year audit engagement is in the best interest of the City. Our Firm can provide the City with a fixed three -year fee schedule to facilitate the budgeting process. Further, our ability to provide meaningful assistance through our Management Advisory Letter will improve with each year of continued audit involvement. It is the policy of our Firm to issue a Management Advisory Letter. As independent auditors, we are in a position to acquire a detailed knowledge of client financial and administrative procedures; the Management Advisory Letter serves to summarize our recommendations toward improving the accounting and administrative controls, strengthening financial structure and developing a more efficient business operation. Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP recognizes that its most important product is prompt and effective service of the highest quality. We will serve the City to its complete satisfaction and will apply the highest level of skills available in our firm to that end. Sincerely, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountants & Consultants Andrew K. Berg, CPA Governmental Services Partner RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Shorewood. Signature: Mayor Date: Signature Date: City Administrator 952.835.9090 • Fax 952.835.3261 www.aemcpas.com nano EICK& ®r i� .,P Qa M PkMc Amoft s & Cents November 23, 2011 5201 Eden Mum Suite 250 Edina, MN 55136 Management, Honorable Mayor, and City Council City of Shorewood Shorewood, Minnesota We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide the City of Shorewood (the City) for the year ended December 31, 2011. We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as management's discussion and analysis (MD &A), to supplement the City's basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the City's RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. These limited procedures will consist of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. The following RSI is required by generally accepted accounting principles and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited: 1) Management's Discussion and Analysis. 2) Schedule of funding progress for other post employment benefits (if applicable) We have also been engaged to report on supplementary information other than RSI that accompanies the City's financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and will provide an opinion on it in relation to the financial statements as a whole: 1) Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules The following other information accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements, and for which our auditor's report will not provide an opinion or any assurance. 1) Summary Financial Report — Revenues and Expenditures for General Operations — Governmental Funds The following other information accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements, and for which our auditor's report will not provide an opinion or any assurance, though is required to be presented when a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is issued. 1) Statistical Section 2011 GAAS Audit Engagement Letter City of Shorewood November 23, 2011 Page 2 Audit Objective The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to whether your basic financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and to report on the fairness of the supplementary information referred to in the second paragraph when considered in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and will include tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such opinions. If our opinions on the financial statements are other than unqualified, we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or to issue a report as a result of this engagement. Management Responsibilities Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as well as all representations contained therein. We will prepare a general ledger trial balance for use during the audit. Our preparation of the trial balance will be limited to formatting information in the general ledger into a working trial balance. As part of the audit we will prepare a draft of your financial statements and related notes. We will also use the financial statements to complete the Office of the State Auditors' City Reporting Form. You are also responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management functions; for designating an individual with suitable skill, knowledge, or experience to oversee our assistance with the preparation of your financial statements and related notes and any other nonattest services we provide; and for evaluating the adequacy and results of those services and accepting responsibility for them. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities; for the selection and application of accounting principles; and for the fair presentation in the financial statements of the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City and the respective changes in financial position and where applicable, cash flows, in conformity with U. S. generally accepted accounting principles. Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and confirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the government involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud or illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the government received in communications from employees, former employees, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the entity complies with applicable laws and regulations. You are responsible for the preparation of the supplementary information in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. You agree to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains and indicates that we have reported on the supplementary information. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon or make the audited financial statements readily available to users of the supplementary information no later than the date the supplementary information is issued with our report thereon. 2011 GAAS Audit Engagement Letter City of Shorewood November 23, 2011 Page 3 Audit Procedures — General An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity. Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements, or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, we will inform you of any material errors and any fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform you of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will require certain written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters Audit Procedures — Internal Control Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify deficiencies in internal control. However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards. Audit Procedures — Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the City's compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and agreements. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion. Engagement Administration, Fees, and Other We may from time to time, and depending on the circumstances, use third -parry service providers in serving your account. We may share confidential information about you with these service providers, but remain committed to maintaining the confidentiality and security of your information. Accordingly, we maintain internal policies, procedures, and safeguards to protect the confidentiality of your personal information. In addition, we will secure confidentiality agreements with all service providers to maintain the confidentiality of your information and we will take reasonable precautions to determine that they have appropriate procedures in place to prevent the unauthorized release of your confidential information to others. In the event that we are unable to secure an appropriate confidentiality agreement, you will be asked to provide your consent prior to the sharing of your confidential information with the third -parry service provider. Furthermore, we will remain responsible for the work provided by any such third -party service providers. We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmations we request and will locate any documents selected by us for testing. 2011 GAAS Audit Engagement Letter City of Shorewood November 23, 2011 Page 4 Andrew K. Berg CPA is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and signing the report or authorizing another individual to sign it. We expect to begin our audit approximately in April 2012 and to issue our reports no later than June 30, 2012. Our fee for these services will be as follows: Audit 2011 Office of the State Auditor's Reporting Form 26,050 575 The fee estimate is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the engagement. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. Amounts not paid within 30 days from the invoice date will be subject to a late payment charge of 1 percent per month (12 percent per year). If for any reason the account is turned over to an attorney for collections, additional fees will be added to cover collections cost. In accordance with our Firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 90 days or more overdue and will not be resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to have been completed upon written notification of termination, even if we have not completed your return. You will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out -of- pocket expenditures through the date of termination. Except in the event of your failure to make a payment when due, in the event of a dispute related in any way to our services, our Firm and you agree to discuss the dispute and, if necessary, to promptly mediate in a good faith effort to resolve. We will agree on a mediator, but if we cannot, either of us may apply to a court having personal jurisdiction over the parties for appointment of a mediator. We will share the mediator's fees and expenses equally, but otherwise will bear our own attorneys' fees and mediation cost. Participation in such mediation shall be a condition to either of us initiating litigation. In order to allow time for the mediation, any applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled for a period not to exceed 120 days from the date either of us first requests in writing to mediate the dispute. The mediation shall be confidential in all respects, as allowed or required by law, except our final settlement positions at mediation shall be admissible in litigation solely to determine the prevailing party's identity for purposes of the award of attorneys' fees. In the event you fail to make a payment for services or to reimburse for costs advanced by the Firm on your behalf, the Firm reserves the right to take all legally permissible action, including commencement of litigation in lieu of mediation, and shall have the right to collect its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in any such collection or litigation activities. We have the right to withdraw from this engagement, in our discretion, if you do not provide us with any information we request in a timely manner, refuse to cooperate with our reasonable requests or misrepresent any facts. Our withdrawal will release us from any obligation to complete your return and will constitute completion of our engagement. You agree to compensate us for our time and out - of- pocket expenses through the date of withdrawal. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. Very truly yours, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountants & Consultants Andrew K. Berg CPA Governmental Services Partner RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Shorewood. Signature: Title: 2011 GAAS Audit Engagement Letter 1:(2 Q City f Shorewood Council Meeting Item Y g Title / Subject: GASB 54 Fund Designations Meeting Date: December 12, 2011 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Brian Heck Attachment: Resolution 10C MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Adoption of these designations will allow the City of Shorewood to present financial statements in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. Background: Staff is in process of implementing GASB 54, which clarifies fund types and reclassifies fund balances. The new standard says that the foundation for a special revenue or enterprise fund should be from a revenue source that is either restricted or committed. That restricted or committed revenue source should be expected to continue to represent a substantial portion of the inflows reported in that fund. Other restricted, committed or assigned revenue may be reported in that fund. At any point the government does not expect that a substantial portion of the inflows will be from restricted or committed resources, the government should stop using a special revenue fund and report the remaining resources in the general fund. This will affect how the sale proceeds and interest earnings from the Liquor Fund are reported. Under current practice, fund balances are either classified as reserved or unreserved. Many governments also designate part of unreserved fund balance. Recent research shows that the components are often misunderstood by financial statement readers. It is often unclear if any of the reserved or designated balances are available to help balance a government's budget. GASB 54 will significantly change how this information is reported. The statement is intended to improve the usefulness of the amount reported in fund balance by providing more structured classification. The statement also clarifies the definition of existing governmental fund types. The hierarchy of five possible classifications of fund balance is: Non - spendable Fund Balance • Amounts that cannot be spent due to form; for example, inventories and prepaid amounts. Also, long -term loan and notes receivables, and property held for resale would be reported here unless the proceeds are restricted, committed or assigned. • Amounts that must be maintained intact legally or contractually (corpus or principal of a permanent fund) 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. Restricted Fund Balance • Amounts constrained for a specific purpose by external parties, constitutional provision or enabling legislation. This is the same definition used by GASB Statement no. 34, Basic Financial Statements —and Management's Discussion and Analysis —for State and Local Governments, for restricted net assets. Committed Fund Balance • Amounts constrained for a specific purpose by a government using its highest level of decision - making authority. It would require action by the same group to remove or change the constraints placed on the resources. • Action to constrain resources must occur prior to year -end; however, the amount can be determined in the subsequent period. Assigned Fund Balance • For all governmental funds other than the general fund, any remaining positive amounts not classified as nonspendable, restricted or committed. • For the general fund, amounts constrained for the intent to be used for a specific purpose by a governing board or a body or official that has been delegated authority to assign amounts. Amount reported as assigned should not result in a deficit in unassigned fund balance. Unassigned Fund Balance • For the general fund, amounts not classified as nonspendable, restricted, committed or assigned. The general fund is the only fund that would report a positive amount in unassigned fund balance. • For all governmental funds other than the general fund, amount expended in excess of resources that are nonspendable, restricted, committed or assigned (a residual deficit). • In determining a residual deficit, no amount should be reported as assigned. In order to accomplish this, the City Council will have to make a commitment for the Southshore Community Center fund balance by resolution at the December 12 meeting. Staff recommends allowing the City Administrator or his designee to make any assignments of fund balance. Financial or Budget Considerations: The adoption of this standard has no direct budgetary effect. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1. Adopt the resolution as presented; 2. Make additional changes and adopt the amended resolution 3. Do not adopt any GASB 54 standards and not be able to report in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles for government. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends adoption of the resolution as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: The annual financial report will be prepared and presented to the City Council in June. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management by providing financial resources to pay for desired city services. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. It- ADOPTING GASB 54 REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ( "GASB ") has adopted Statement 54 ( "GASB 54 "), a new standard for governmental fund balance reporting and governmental fund type definitions that became effective in governmental fiscal years starting after June 15, 2010, and WHEREAS, the GASB 54 definition of special revenue funds states that special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects; and WHEREAS, the term "proceeds of specific revenue sources" established that one or more specific restricted or committed revenues should be the foundation for a special revenue fund and comprise a substantial portion of the fund's revenues; and WHEREAS, investment earnings and transfers from other funds do not meet the definition of a specific revenue source; and WHEREAS, Council action is required to formalize the commitment of the specific revenue sources to specified purposes; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood elects to implement GASB 54 requirements, and to apply such requirements to its financial statements beginning with the current fiscal year ending December 31, 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the GASB 54 Policy is hereby adopted. 2. All proceeds from the Southshore Community Center are hereby committed to the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the center. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of December, 2011. ATTEST Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk City of Shorewood GASB 54 POLICY L PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to create new fund balance classifications to allow for more useful fund balance reporting and for compliance with the reporting guidelines specified in Statement No. 54 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). II. GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY The policy of this city is to comply with GASB Statement No. 54. To the extent a specific conflict occurs between this policy and the provisions of GASB Statement No. 54, the GASB Statement shall prevail. III. DEFINITIONS A. "Assigned" fund balance amounts are comprised of unrestricted funds constrained by the city's intent that they be used for specific purposes, but that do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. In funds other than the general fund, the assigned fund balance represents the remaining amount that is not restricted or committed. The assigned fund balance category will cover the portion of a fund balance that reflects the city's intended use of those resources. The action to assign a fund balance may be taken after the end of the fiscal year. An assigned fund balance cannot be a negative number. B. "Committed" fund balance amounts are comprised of unrestricted funds used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of the council and that remain binding unless removed by the council by subsequent formal action. The formal action to commit a fund balance must occur prior to fiscal year end; however, the specific amounts actually committed can be determined in the subsequent fiscal year. A committed fund balance cannot be a negative number. C. "Enabling legislation" means legislation that authorizes a city to assess, levy, charge, or otherwise mandate payment of resources from external providers and includes a legally enforceable requirement that those resources be used only for the specific purposes listed in the legislation. D. "Fund balance" means the arithmetic difference between the assets and liabilities reported in a city fund. E. " Nonppendable" fund balance amounts are comprised of funds that cannot be spent because they are either not in spendable form or are legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. They include items that are inherently unspendable, such as, but not limited to, inventories, prepaid items, long -term receivables, non - financial assets held for resale, or the permanent principal of endowment funds. F. "Restricted" fund balance amounts are comprised of funds that have legally enforceable constraints placed on their use that either are externally imposed by resource providers or creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, voters, or laws or regulations of other governments, or are imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. G. "Unassigned" fund balance amounts are the residual amounts in the general fund not reported in any other classification. Unassigned amounts in the general fund are technically available for expenditure for any purpose. The general fund is the only fund that can report a positive unassigned fund balance. Other funds would report a negative unassigned fund balance should the total of nonspendable, restricted, committed and assigned fund balances exceed the total net resources of that fund. H. "Unrestricted" fund balance is the amount of fund balance left after determining both nonspendable and restricted net resources. This amount can be determined by adding the committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balances. IV. CLASSIFICATION OF FUND BALANCES The city shall classify its fund balances in its various funds in one or more of the following five classifications: nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. V. ORDER OF RESOURCE USE If resources from more than one fund balance classification could be spent, the city will strive to spend resources from fund balance classifications in the following order (first to last): restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. VI. COMMITTING FUND BALANCE A majority vote of the city council is required to commit a fund balance to a specific purpose and subsequently to remove or change any constraint so adopted by the board. VII. ASSIGNING FUND BALANCE The City Council delegates the power to assign fund balances to the City Administrator or his designee. Assignments shall be reported to the city council on a annual basis. VIII. REVIEW The city council will conduct an annual review of the sufficiency of the fund balance levels. CITY OF SHOREWOOD GASB -54 Fund Balance Classification Policy FUND BALANCES L PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to create new fund balance classifications to allow for more useful fund balance reporting and for compliance with the reporting guidelines specified in Statement No. 54 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY The policy of the City of Ottertail is to comply with GASB Statement No. 54. To the extent a specific conflict occurs between this policy and the provisions of GASB Statement No. 54, the GASB Statement shall prevail. 2. DEFINITIONS (A) "Assigned" fund balance amounts are comprised of unrestricted funds constrained by the city's intent that they be used for specific purposes, but that do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. In funds other than the general fund, the assigned fund balance represents the remaining amount that is not restricted or committed. The assigned fund balance category will cover the portion of a fund balance that reflects the city's intended use of those resources. The action to assign a fund balance may be taken after the end of the fiscal year. An assigned fund balance cannot be a negative number. (B) "Committed" fund balance amounts are comprised of unrestricted funds used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of the city council and that remain binding unless removed by the city counil by subsequent formal action. The formal action to commit a fund balance must occur prior to fiscal year end; however, the specific amounts actually committed can be determined in the subsequent fiscal year. A committed fund balance cannot be a negative number. (C) "Enabling legislation" means legislation that authorizes a city to assess, levy, charge, or otherwise mandate payment of resources from external providers and includes a legally enforceable requirement that those resources be used only for the specific purposes listed in the legislation. (D) "Fund balance" means the arithmetic difference between the assets and liabilities reported in a school district fund. (E) " Nonspendable" fund balance amounts are comprised of funds that cannot be spent because they are either not in spendable form or are legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. They include items that are inherently unspendable, such as, but not limited to, inventories, prepaid items, long -term receivables, non - financial assets held for resale, or the permanent principal of endowment funds. (F) `Restricted" fund balance amounts are comprised of funds that have legally enforceable constraints placed on their use that either are externally imposed by resource providers or creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, voters, or laws or regulations of other governments, or are imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. (G) "Unassigned" fund balance amounts are the residual amounts in the general fund not reported in any other classification. Unassigned amounts in the general fund are technically available for expenditure for any purpose. The general fund is the only fund that can report a positive unassigned fund balance. Other funds would report a negative unassigned fund balance, should the total of nonspendable, restricted, and committed fund balances exceed the total net resources of that fund. (H) "Unrestricted" fund balance is the amount of fund balance left after determining both nonspendable and restricted net resources. This amount can be determined by adding the committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balances. 3. CLASSIFICATION OF FUND BALANCES The city shall classify its fund balances in its various funds in one or more of the following five classifications: nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. 4. MINIMUM FUND BALANCE The city will strive to maintain a minimum unassigned general fund balance of two months of operating expenses. 5. ORDER OF RESOURCE USE If resources from more than one fund balance classification could be spent, the city will strive to spend resources from fund balance classifications in the following order (first to last): restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. 6. COMMITTING FUND BALANCE A majority vote of the city council is required to commit a fund balance to a specific purpose and subsequently to remove or change any constraint so adopted by the council. 7. ASSIGNING FUND BALANCE The city council, by majority vote, may assign fund balances to be used for specific purposes when appropriate. The council also delegates the power to assign fund balances to the chief financial and administrative officer. Assignments so made shall be reported to the city council on a monthly basis, either separately or as part of ongoing reporting by the assigning party if other than the city council. An appropriation of an existing fund balance to eliminate a projected budgetary deficit in the subsequent year's budget in an amount no greater than the projected excess of expected expenditures over expected revenues satisfies the criteria to be classified as an assignment of fund balance. 8. REVIEW The city council will conduct an annual review of the sufficiency of the minimum unassigned general fund balance level. MEMORANDUM Date: December 8, 2011 To: Mayor Lizee Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: October, 2011 Monthly Budget Report The 2011 General Fund budget continues to look reasonably good. At 90.6% of non - property tax revenues, we compare well to the previous three years. Actual revenues are about $45,000 lower than last year at this point. Overall expenditures are at 74.2% which is higher than last year at this point and the three year average. REVENUES • We have received the first half property taxes collected through May 15 from Hennepin County. • License and permit revenues are up about $21,000 over last year. Staff believes this is a sustainable increase in activity from the levels of the past couple of years which is reflected in the 2012 budget. • Intergovernmental revenues are typical for this point with the first half of the MSA funds in from the state. • Charges for services are running just under last year's level, but are on track to make budget. • Fines and forfeitures are lower than last year so this item may come in under budget for the year. • Miscellaneous revenue looks to be on track for the year. . EXPENDITURES • General Government — looks slightly higher than average because of support services. However, the charges should remain under budget overall. • Elections — should be well under budget based on salary allocations. • Finance - over in both supplies and support services, but some expenses may be allocated to other departments. • Municipal Buildings — looks high only because the LMCIT liability insurance costs were expensed early in the year rather than allocated monthly. • Police and Fire are tracking closely with previous years. • Public Works - over because more wages have been coded to this department based on actual time spent. As shown in the staffing analysis this will not cause a major problem over the course of the year because allocations to Streets and Roads are down considerably. • Streets and Roads — a significant supply expenditure for blacktopping caused this budget to be exceeded. Snow and Ice - over because of all the snow received late last winter. There is still a chance that the overall budget will not be exceeded if snow fall this fall and early winter is average or below. Sanitation and Waste Control — over because more weed spraying in the parks was needed this year. Please contact me or Mr. Heck if you have any questions. Attachment: October Monthly Budget Spreadsheet Monthly Budget Report October 31, 2011 YTD YTD 2011 % of 2011 Expected Variance 2010 October Adopted Annual % of 2011 (Negative) Year to Date Overview Actual 2011 Budget Budget Budget or Positive REVENUE Property Taxes 2 2 4 51.4% 50.0% Licenses and Permits 118 137 98 139.9% 84.7% Intergovernmental 67 34 69 49.1% 100.0% Charges for Service 40 31 35 90.3% 85.3% Fines and Forfeitures 44 36 52 69.8% 73.3% Miscellaneous 56 49 63 77.1% 58.0% Transfers from other funds - - 40 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 2 2 5 53.5% $99 288 318 90.6% EXPENDITURES 156 188 226 83.5% 85.0% Personnel Department 83.0% 89.3% Materials and Supplies - - - Council 13.3% Support and Services 2 3 4 82.7% Personnel 13 13 16 83.3% 82.0% Materials and Supplies 616 684 1 52.6% 100.0% Support and Services 35 61 102 60.1% 73.7% Total 50 76 120 63.3% $14 Administration 156 188 226 83.5% 85.0% Personnel 117 118 142 83.0% 89.3% Materials and Supplies - - - 0.0% 13.3% Support and Services 2 3 4 82.7% 49.0% Capital Outlay 1 - - 228 21.7% Total 121 122 147 83.0% $7 General Government Personnel 156 188 226 83.5% 85.0% Materials and Supplies 12 11 18 60.0% 71.0% Support and Services 21 28 32 87.8% 64.0% Capital Outlay 1 - - 45.3% Total 191 228 277 82.4% ($2,198.05) Elections 141 Personnel 27 273 4 5.7% 67.0% Materials and Supplies 2 1 2 72.4% 81.7% Support and Services 1 - - 60.0% Total 31 1 7 27.4% $3 Finance 141 131 170 77.1% 78.3% Personnel 118 127 153 83.5% 72.7% Materials and Supplies 7 7 6 112.0% 82.0% Support and Services 2 8 6 130.5% 31.7% Capital Outlay - - - 12.3% Total 128 144 166 86.6% ($25,217.14) Professional Services 163 173 199 87.0% 89.3% $4 Planning and Zoning Personnel 141 131 170 77.1% 78.3% Materials and Supplies 149 203 655 31.0% 100.0% Support and Services 5 5 11 49.0% 66.7% Total 146 137 183 75.1% $4 Municipal Building - City Hall Materials and Supplies 43 43 16 260.9% 64.7% Support and Services 15 101 157 64.5% 15.7% Capital Outlay 15 1 - 26.3% Transfers - - 103 0.0% 0.0% Total 75 146 278 52.6% ($110,904.83) Police Support Services 790 831 995 83.5% 86.7% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 228 230 230 100.0% 99.7% Total 1 1 1 86.6% $311003.45 Fire Support Services 316 337 337 100.0% 100.0% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 272 270 270 100.0% 98.0% Total 589 607 607 100.0% ($5,414.94) Inspections Personnel 93 94 109 86.4% 83.0% Materials and Supplies 28 154 300 51.3% 2.7% Support and Services 3 2 6 30.9% 39.0% Total 96 96 116 83.1% ($3,312.32) City Engineer Personnel 75 77 111 69.3% 81.0% Materials and Supplies 44 410 1 32.7% 36.7% Support and Services 6 10 13 81.2% 40.3% Capital Outlay 388 - 1 0.0% 48.3% Total 83 88 126 69.7% $8 Public Works Service Personnel 219 215 184 117.2% 81.0% Materials and Supplies 46 65 71 92.6% 72.3% Support and Services 34 34 41 83.6% 75.7% Capital Outlay - - - 0.0% Total 301 316 296 106.6% ($84,403.73) Streets and Roads 4 547 2 24.0% 100.0% Materials and Supplies Personnel 80 78 113 69.0% 86.3% Materials and Supplies 70 122 85 144.3% 90.3% Support and Services 9 1 34 5.0% 55.0% Capital Outlay - - 700 0.0% 0.0% Total 160 202 932 21.7% ($9,212.73) Snow and Ice Personnel 26 41 56 73.9% 54.0% Materials and Supplies 12 14 45 32.9% 34.7% Total 39 56 101 55.7% ($10,439.26) Traffic control / Street Lights Materials and Supplies 2 6 5 120.4% 100.0% Support and Services 29 43 52 83.9% 70.7% Total 31 49 57 87.1% $41 Sanitation / Waste Control Personnel 4 547 2 24.0% 100.0% Materials and Supplies - 30 100 30.0% 3.3% Support and Services 3 7 4 178.3% 55.0% Total 7 8 6 124.2% ($3,719.67) Tree Maintenance 132 122 185 65.9% Personnel 15 16 14 120.6% 77.3% Materials and Supplies 41 331 1 23.2% 6.7% Support and Services 7 5 13 39.5% 54.3% Total 22 22 28 78.3% ($4,345.70) Parks and Recreation Personnel 132 122 185 65.9% 87.3% Materials and Supplies 14 15 19 78.2% 92.0% Support and Services 80 71 91 78.0% 100.0% Transfers - - 42 0.0% 0.0% Total 227 209 339 61.7% $62 Unallocated 122 - 0.0% Total Expenditures 3 3 5 74.2% ($81,424) Net Revenue less Expenditures (698,024) (1,133 (96,989) Note: The balanced budget includes $150,000 of fund balance in the Transfers item of the Revenue section. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 1.2, 2011 - 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC SIGN -IN SHEET For the record, please Rrigt your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address 6.