11-12-13 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP
E. D. C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2013 5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Attachments
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby___
Hotvet ___
Siakel ___
Sundberg ___
Woodruff ___
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes, October 28, 2013 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 28, 2013 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. City Hall December Holiday Schedule Administrator’s
memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Sue Davis on the November 5, 2013 Planning Commission
meeting
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Apple Road Funding Agreement Engineer’s memo
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – NOVEMBER 12, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway Designation City Administrator’s
memo
B. Certification of Delinquent Charges Finance Director’s
memo, Resolution
C. Special Assessment Policy Finance Director’s
memo
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Monthly Financial Report
2. Quarterly Investment Report
3. Construction Update on Trail Projects
B. Mayor and City Council
1. Metro Cities Draft Policies
13. ADJOURN
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2013 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator
Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; and
Director of Public Works Brown
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. RATE STUDY
Mayor Zerby introduced Ms. Stacie Kvilvang with the firm of Ehlers who is present to give a presentation
about the results of the sewer and stormwater rate studies that firm conducted.
Ms. Kvilvang noted her colleague Mr. Jason Aarsvold is present.
The highlights of Ms. Kvilvang’s PowerPoint presentation about the sewer rate and stormwater rate studies
are as follows.
Ehlers was asked to conduct sewer rate and stormwater rate studies. The goal was to determine
what the rates need to be to pay for the cost operations and various capital projects while
continuing to maintain healthy fund balances. The Sewer Fund and the Stormwater Management
Fund are Enterprise Funds. Therefore, they should be run like a business and make money. They
both have solid fund balances and no outstanding debt.
The Stormwater Management Fund’s net assets are stable but cash has declined from $650,000 in
2009 to a projected $100,000 at the end of 2013. More than $550,000 was spent on capital
projects. The current stormwater rates cover the operating costs but not future capital needs
identified in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The capital projects will cost a total of just
over $2.5 million over the next three years. The goals for this Fund are: to pay for capital projects
in the CIP; to achieve and maintain a targeted Fund balance); and, pay for projects. For any
Enterprise Fund balance it is recommended there be enough to cover 50 percent of operating costs,
100 percent of the annual depreciation expense and 100 percent of the next year’s debt without
having to bond for them.
The current residential stormwater rates are: for lots less than 10,000 square feet – $10.59 per
quarter; for lots between 10,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet – $15.12 per quarter; and for
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 2 of 8
lots 50,000 square feet or more – $19.68 per quarter. The commercial rates vary. About 67 percent
of the residential stormwater accounts pay the middle rate. An inter-fund loan is proposed from the
Sewer Fund in the amount of: $475,000 in 2014; $150,000 in 2015; $450,000 in 2016; and,
$150,000 in 2017. The loan would be paid back at a 4 percent interest rate. A rate increase of
about $3.00 per quarter is proposed for 2014 and 2015 for the middle rate.
The Stormwater Management Fund balance will increase overtime to where the balance should be.
The actual working capital should get to where it is higher than the target working capital. The
rates and projects should be reviewed on an annual basis.
The goal for the Sewer Fund and Stormwater Management Funds are to increase them steadily.
The Sewer Fund balance has been stable at about $3.5 million for the last three years. But, $2.990
million (or 85 percent) of reserves is projected to be spent in the next four years. The goals for this
Fund are: to pay for capital projects in the CIP; to achieve and maintain a targeted Fund balance;
to fund Stormwater Management and trail projects; and, pay for projects without having to bond
for them. Overtime the target working capital and the Fund balance will become better
proportionally.
To maintain the targeted cash reserves (50 percent of operating costs and 100 percent of the annual
depreciation) in the Sewer Fund a 3 percent increase in the rates for all customers is recommended
starting in 2014. That would keep up with operating cost inflation and take into consideration the
inter-fund loan of $1.7 million to the Stormwater Management Fund. The payback of that loan
with a 4 percent interest rate is accounted for in the 3 percent rate increase.
Two rate options were presented for the sewer rate for customers on both City sewer and City
water. Option 1 is a fixed fee plus a user charge based on actual City water usage. Option 2 is a
fixed fee plus a user charge based on winter water usage averaging for residential customers only.
There are pros and cons for the Options. Customers pay sewer rates based on the actual water
usage; but, not all water usage goes down the drain. Winter averaging is based on the first quarter
water usage and would make the yearly rate more predictable; but, it assumes all water usage is
indoors. Users not on City water cannot measure sewer usage. Customers with lower water usage
will experience a decrease in their sewer bills; but, those higher usage customers will see an
increase.
Sewer Fund Option 1 – For the 2012 sewer operations personnel services costs were
approximately $95,000. That equates to a base rate of $8.25 per customer per quarter. The usage
charge covers all other operating and capital costs for the Sewer System. The usage charge would
be $1.90 per 1,000 gallons based on the average user for all customers on City water. For
customers not on City water it would be based on the average water usage of 34,000 gallons per
quarter and the total quarterly sewer bill for those customers would be $72.85.
Sewer Fund Option 2 –The base rate of $8.25 per customer per quarter is the same as for Option
1. The usage charge would be based on winter average water usage in the first quarter for
residential customers. The usage is much lower in the winter months; therefore, the usage charge is
higher. The usage charge would be $3.40 per 1,000 gallons for residential customers and $1.90 for
commercial customers. For customers not on City water it would be based on the average water
usage of 19,000 gallons per quarter and the total quarterly sewer bill for those customers would be
$72.85.
The first quarter average water usage is the lowest consumption quarter. The usage starts to
increase some in the second quarter. It is the highest in the third quarter. And it goes down to the
second lowest in the fourth quarter. The winter average water is relatively flat throughout the year.
There is a slight dip in the first quarter and that is likely because of those customers that go south
in the winter.
The existing residential quarterly sanitary sewer rate is $70 for residents, $46.66 for low income
sewer only, and $70 for sewer customers only. For commercial customers it is $70.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 3 of 8
For residential and commercial customers an $8.25 fixed base charge is being proposed. For low
income sewer only customers the charge would be $48.57. For sewer only customers the charge
would be $72.85. For Option 1 (actual water consumption) the residential usage charge would be
$1.90 per 1,000 gallons and for Option 2 (winter average water usage) it would be $3.40 per 1,000
gallons. More money would be collected for Option 1. The commercial usage charge would be
$1.90.
For residential users 80 percent fall in the 34,000 gallons per quarter average water consumption
and pay $70 per quarter. For that average the usage rate would be $72.85 for both Options. For
non-water customers it is assumed they will fall into the 80 percent range. The current charge is
$70.00 and it will increase to $72.85 for both Options. For the 10 percent of customers who use
4,000 or 7,000 gallons per quarter their sewer bill will go from $70 per quarter to $21.55 for
Option 1 and $21.85 for Option 2. For the 10 percent high water users their bill will go from $70
to $124.15 for Option 1 and $123.85 for Option 2. The commercial users who are only paying $70
will have their bill increase to $179.25.
Essentially the residential customers who are average water consumers are subsidizing high water
users and commercial users over time.
Deciding which Option to choose comes down to a policy discussion. There is no right or wrong
answer. Both Options generate the same amount of revenue. For Option 1 there would be more
fluctuation in the sewer bill between winter and summer. Low users will get a break and high users
will pay more. For Option 2 customers the first quarter usage caps water consumption for the rest
of the year and the bills would be more stable throughout the year. The majority of cities do winter
averaging; it helps with budgeting.
The City did a joint project with the City of Excelsior in 1971 for the joint usage of Glencoe Road
sanitary trunk sewer line. The total cost of that project was $42,360 and the City paid one half of
that. The City annually pays Excelsior joint use sanitary sewer service rental fees based on
budgeted collection costs, depreciation and administrative costs, and a proportional share of the
estimated wastewater flows into Excelsior for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services fees.
During the rate study it became apparent that there may have been some overpayments to Excelsior
with regard to what the City has been paying for the system. The City is being billed on budgeted
costs and there is no reconciliation back to actual costs. Also, the City is paying on depreciation
based on the entire City of Excelsior system and not just the Glencoe Road trunk sewer line. The
City currently pays about $30,000 annually to Excelsior. The City could save about $7,500
annually based on these assumptions: the value of the Glencoe Road trunk line in 1971; the life of a
fixed asset of 50 years; the asset being depreciated by the same amount each year; and, the asset
being fully depreciated by 2021. There is no one on staff or on Council who knows what the
agreement was in 1971.
Mayor Zerby thanked Ms. Kvilvang for the good report.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he spoke with Ms. Kvilvang earlier in the day and he asked her a number
of questions about the studies. He noted that Ehlers had been asked to model the two studies based on
capital needs out through 2018. Yet, there will be capital needs beyond that. He stated he is a little
concerned that the recommendations will not meet the capital needs going forward. He recommended the
study recommendations be revisited periodically. Ms. Kvilvang agreed with revisiting this. Ms. Kvilvang
clarified that Ehlers had the City’s capital needs out through 2023. After 2018 they are not very significant.
The proposed rates already account for that. Woodruff questioned if enough thought has been given to the
out years for capital projects.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 4 of 8
Woodruff stated the proposal for the sewer rate is for the low water users, which is about 10 percent of the
City-water customers, to see a significant drop in their sewer rates yet for those customers not on City
water there rate will increase slightly over today’s rate. He questioned the fairness of that.
Ms. Kvilvang clarified the water usage used is average so there will be some water users who’s bills will be
close to the higher amounts and there will be some that end up paying less. She also clarified that those
people not on City water are assumed to be in the 80 percent group of City water customers and therefore
they will pay the same rate. For the non-water customers who use a lot of water they are benefiting from
being grouped in with the 80 percent group and those who are low water users are not.
Councilmember Woodruff stated over the last 4 – 5 years he has had residents who go away for the winter
or who are retired and live alone ask him why their sewer bill is so high. He expressed concern that those
residents who are not on City water will continue to pay a higher rate. He noted that he does not have a
good idea about how to address that. He stated he would find it difficult to justify why a low City-water
user would have a very low sewer bill while a low well water user would have a much higher bill. He
commented there are those who might think that could incent people to want to connect to City water.
Woodruff noted there are trail projects beyond 2018. Yet, the rate change recommendations do not take into
account the Sewer Fund or Stormwater Management Fund helping to pay for those projects. The financial
needs for Galpin Lake Road, the Smithtown Road east and the Excelsior Boulevard trail segments are the
only ones taken into account.
Woodruff stated earlier in the day he questioned why a transfer, rather than a loan, could not be made from
the Sewer Fund to the Stormwater Management Fund. All property owners pay for both utilities. He noted
that he thought that the City paying itself interest on the loan is to him funny money. He suggested Council
discuss that some time. He clarified that although he has a slight problem with paying interest on that loan
it is not a significant issue for him.
Woodruff then stated Ehlers has recommended that the reserves cover the annual depreciation and 50
percent of the operating costs. He does not think that is enough. He noted that he has a philosophical
problem with establishing a fund to save up for future projects. This Council has never done that. Future
projects have been paid for with future money. He stated Council needs to discuss if it wants the City to
save up for future projects.
Councilmember Sundberg asked that Council be provided with comparable rate data for other
communities. Ms. Kvilvang suggested Council pass on to Director DeJong what communities it would like
data for and then DeJong can forward it on to her. She will then put the data together.
Councilmember Siakel noted she thought the results of the study are clearly laid out. She stated from her
vantage point the recommended increase in the stormwater rate is minimal; it is about $1 a month. She
suggested a larger increase in anticipation of future project needs such as trails. Ms. Kvilvang noted that is
Council’s policy decision. Councilmember Woodruff stated the analysis shows that for 67 percent of the
customers that rate will increase from the current rate of $15.12 to $37.62 in 2018. He considers that to be
a significant increase; an increase of over 150 percent when compared to 2013. He noted that when looking
at the actual dollar amount a person would be paying less than $160 a year for stormwater management.
Ms. Kvilvang explained the increase in the quarterly rate would be $3.02 in 2014, $3.63 in 2015, $4.36 in
2016, $5.22 in 2017 and $6.27 in 2018. Woodruff stated the amount the rate will increase by in 2017 when
compared to 2013 is more than the 2013 rate.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 5 of 8
Siakel stated the future stormwater management demands and project needs are quite significant. She noted
she does not view the proposed increases as out of line. She reiterated that she questions if the increases are
enough. She noted that she, like the other four Councilmembers, is not on City water but she thinks the
recommendations for the sewer rates seems fair. She stated she does not think there is a way to make the
rates fair for 100 percent of Council’s constituents. She then stated with regard to the billing issue with
Excelsior she thought if the situation were reversed she thought Excelsior would approach the City about it.
Therefore, she suggests the City approach Excelsior about this issue.
Councilmember Hotvet expressed her curiosity about how many residents go away for the winter.
Mayor Zerby noted that he thought the information was presented well. He stated he thought the
stormwater rate could be increased even more in anticipation of future projects and mandates. He noted that
he prefers the sewer rate Option 2 which uses the winter average water usage to determine the usage
charge. He thought it would be easy to understand and fair. He asked what happens with new users with the
winter averaging approach; those that become customers in the summer or fall. He asked if the rate is based
on an average. Ms. Kvilvang stated that is typically how it is done. He stated he thought not looking past
2015 for trail projects is okay; he thought that would allow for more resident involvement. He then stated
that if residents want the trail system to be built out faster it may become a bonding consideration, noting
Councilmember Woodruff has brought up residents voting on bonding for trails before. Consideration of
that has to be factored into the election cycle.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that the first opportunity to have this as part of an election cycle could be
in 2014. If Council really wants to do that it should discuss it during the first quarter of 2014. He clarified
he is not advocating the bonding issue at this time. He stated the next opportunity to have bonding on the
ballot would be in 2016 and noted he is not sure how many of the current members of Council will be on or
running for Council.
Mayor Zerby stated he agrees with Councilmember Siakel’s recommendation to approach Excelsior on the
potential overbilling issue.
Mayor Zerby thanked Ms. Kvilvang for coming this evening and for Ehlers efforts.
3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Administrator Joynes asked Council to consider what he is going to talk about from the perspective of the
end. He noted the two rate studies were pieces of the puzzle of how to fund the projects Council has been
talking about for 1.5 years, in particular trails. The rate studies done by Ehlers have provided a roadmap
for how to do that for the next couple of years.
Joynes reviewed the direction staff took from Council during the October 14, 2013, work session.
Determine how to stabilize the Equipment/Technology/Building Fund.
Allocate the proceeds from the sale of the property at 5795 Country Club Road to the Park Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and to phase in improvements to Badger Park over a couple of years.
Set aside the Mill Street trail segment project for a to-be-determined time period and to schedule
the construction Galpin Lake Road trail segment in 2014 and the Smithtown Road east
trail/sidewalk segment in 2015. That schedule was factored into the rate studies done by Ehlers.
Use Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funds to help fund trail projects where appropriate.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 6 of 8
Use reserves in the Sewer Fund to help fund trail projects. This was factored into the studies done
by Ehlers.
He noted if Council were to want to charge a lower sewer rate for those residents who go south for the
winter that would reduce the revenue earned and another source for funding the trails would have to be
identified.
He explained staff reviewed the items that would be funded out of the Equipment/Technology/Building
(ETB) Fund. Staff decided it would be appropriate to fund the purchase of certain pieces of replacement
equipment out of the Water Fund or Sewer Fund. For the Water Fund they would be a truck, air
compressor, utility truck, van and pickup. Water rates may have to be adjusted to fund them. For the Sewer
Fund they would be a sewer jetter and truck. After that is allowed for the future funding gaps out through
2023 in the ETB Fund would be an estimated $12,000 – $15,000 annually. Staff thinks the City would be
well within its ability to finance that gap by taking it out of reserves or from cost savings experienced for
roughly the last decade. Staff does not think there will be any problem stabilizing the Fund. Those were
factored into the rate studies done by Ehlers.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the seven equipment purchases just mentioned will be made between now
and the end of 2018. Director DeJong stated the purchases are scheduled for 2014, 2015 or 2016. They are
not scheduled to be replaced again during the remainder of the CIP. DeJong noted there are not any
watermain projects schedule to happen as part of a street reconstruction project during that 10-year period.
Administrator Joynes explained per Council’s direction the proceeds from the sale of the 5795 Country
Club road property will be allocated to the Park Improvement Fund. For the Badger Park improvements the
field orientation is scheduled to occur in 2014 for an estimated cost of $100,000 and the road, parking,
shelter and playground improvements for 2015 for an estimated cost of $435,000. The hockey rink in
Badger Park is slated to be removed.
A decision needs to be made as to whether or not the rink should be replaced with a rink in Freeman Park.
The CIP had allotted $40,000 for the hockey rink and staff believes that amount is very low if the rink will
be replaced. There has been discussion about the need to replace the hockey rink especially because there is
a hockey rink in the City of Tonka Bay’s Manitou Park which is a short distance from Badger Park. The
$40,000 has been taken out of the Park CIP. Staff has talked about working out a collaborative
arrangement for operating Tonka Bay’s rink with Tonka Bay staff. Shorewood Public Works staff would
be responsible for making sure the quality of the ice would be up to the Hockey Association’s standards for
organized hockey. In return the City would be able to use the rink. At the staff level Tonka Bay has not
been receptive to that. Having such an arrangement would be a win for both communities. The
collaborative arrangement topic may have to be discussed at the Council level.
Councilmember Siakel stated the Park Commission had been given a presentation about a portable hockey
rink. She asked if that would be a viable option for on the ball field, while noting she does not need an
answer this evening. Administrator Joynes stated that is a question that warrants follow-up.
Administrator Joynes explained the Park CIP projects he has just talk about are valid with the assumption
that the projects are funded through 2016. After 2016 it will take an approximate $80,000 additional
annual contribution to balance the Park CIP. The needs in the Park CIP taper off after the Badger Park
improvements are made.
For the Trail CIP staff will adhere to Council’s direction and use $1,092,000 out of the MSA Road
Reconstruction Fund over the 2013 – 2014 time period to help fund trail projects through 2015. MSA
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 7 of 8
funds can be used for the construction of trails provided the trails meet MSA standards. The Galpin Lake
Road trail segment and the Smithtown Road east sidewalk/trail segment will meet those standards. There is
a placeholder in the MSA Road Reconstruction CIP for upgrading Eureka Road north to MSA standards.
Staff is not sure that Council would ever ask for that to happen. He noted it is very common to have
placeholders for MSA projects so they can receive MSA funds. Using MSA funds for trails is part of the
purpose of the MSA funds. Staff anticipates funding 25 percent of the Smithtown Road west sidewalk
project and the 2014/2015 trail projects out of the Stormwater Management Fund. The funding would be
for stormwater management improvements made as part of the projects. The amount to transfer in 2014 is
estimated to be $226,700 and in 2015 it is $234,500. The Sewer Fund would contribute $305,011 over
2014/2015 for similar reasons. Those transfers were factored into the rate studies for both utility funds.
The trail projects slated for 2014/2015 will be funded based on the use of funds as described. After 2015
new sources will have to be identified for trail projects.
The City will collect all MSA funds available through 2016 for the construction of the Galpin Lake Road
and Smithtown Road east trail segments. Another funding source will need to be identified for funding
repairs to Eureka Road north because it is unlikely the roadway will be upgraded to MSA standards. The
City will receive an estimated allocation of MSA funds in the amount of $1,113,000 between 2017 and
2021. At this time there are no roadway or trail projects scheduled for the use of those funds.
If the recommended sewer rate increases are implemented as Ehlers presented the Sewer Fund actual
working capital will be higher than the target working capital threshold through 2018. If the recommended
stormwater rate increases are implemented as Ehlers presented the Stormwater Management Fund actual
working capital will reach the target working capital threshold in 2018. The implementation of new
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) rules and mandates will require resources from that fund.
There are additional funding resources available for use. The Water Fund has excess reserves of about $3
million that could be in part used for a loan. If the City were to use the Office of the State Auditor’s
(OSA’s) minimum standard for calculating General Fund reserves the City would free up about $1.5
million in reserves. He clarified staff is not recommending that be done. If the OSA’s upper limit standards
for General Fund reserves were used it would free up about $1.2 million. The City’s General Fund Balance
Policy stipulates reserves of 55 – 60 percent of the upcoming year’s general operating costs.
Councilmember Siakel asked what the OSA recommends for the minimum level of reserves. Director
DeJong explained the OSA’s recommendation is 35 – 50 percent of the upcoming year’s expenditures
excluding transfers.
Administrator Joynes stated there are ways to fund things independent on how much money the City has in
fund balances. There is bonding, equipment certificates (these are commonly used for capital equipment
purchases and it is similar to taking out a loan for a purchase) and assessments. He then stated in 2023 the
bonded debt for the public safety facilities will be paid off. That will free up about $510,000 annually for
Shorewood. Some of that will have to be banked for expected maintenance to the facilities.
Councilmember Hotvet asked what the interest rate is on that bonded debt. Director DeJong stated he
thought it is about 3 percent.
Mayor Zerby stated some of that money that was going toward the bonded debt needs to be set aside for
capital repairs to the facilities. He used the analogy that once a person’s house is paid off it does not imply
there won’t be any more bills.
Administrator Joynes stated the entire amount will not be needed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 8 of 8
Councilmember Woodruff stated he has questions about the CIP but there is not time to ask them this
evening. He asked if the CIP will be discussed during the next work session. Administrator Joynes stated it
would be and noted that the meeting that evening will be shorter because of other scheduling needs.
Administrator Joynes stated the General Fund budget has to be approved in the timeframe the State
requires. The CIP and the rates can be discussed at any time. He then stated his preference is to have
Council in a position to make some decisions so that by the time of the next Council and staff retreat in
early winter the financing is in place and then Council can talk about the strategic plan going forward.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he wants to conclude the CIP by the end of November and the sewer rate
and stormwater rate in December.
Mayor Zerby noted there has not been discussion about building funding needs and technology funding
needs. Administrator Joynes stated that will be available for the next meeting.
4. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of October 28,
2013, at 7:06 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2013 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong;
Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby.
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Director Nielsen stated the applicant for Item 8.B on the agenda asked that the application be continued to
the November 25 Council meeting.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 14, 2013
Hotvet moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of October 14,
2013, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 14, 2013
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
October 14, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolution Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Approval of the 2014 Concessions Operation Agreement
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 2 of 13
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-069, “A Resolution Approving Licenses to
Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products for CUB Foods Shorewood, Holiday Stationstore
#12, Lucky’s Station LLC #7, and Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Vacate a Portion of Rustic Way Right-of-Way
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Margaret Prehall and her son Sam have applied for a minor subdivision of
their property located at 4828 Rustic Way to divide it into two lots. As part of this request, there is a
request for the City to vacate 10 feet of the right-of-way (ROW) of Rustic Way. The ROW at that location
is 60 feet wide; that is somewhat consistent with the neighborhood. The City’s ROW standard is 50 feet
wide. There is some precedent to this ROW vacation request. The City had vacated a portion of Ferncroft
Drive a few years ago because of a similar type of request. The City does not need the portion of the
ROW that would be vacated. The City Engineer has indicated there are no utilities in the area. The City
will not need the area for roadway or utility improvements. The paved surface of the roadway would be
shifted way to the south of the ROW. Staff recommends the City keep a drainage and utility over the
vacated ROW per the City’s policy. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the ROW
as well as the vacation of the ROW. ROW vacations are the responsibility of the City Council.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case Mayor Zerby opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-070, “A Resolution Vacating
a Portion of Rustic Way (Ridgewood Road)” subject to the applicants execution of the required
drainage and utility easements. Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Zerby closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
7. PARKS
A. Report on the October 15, 2013, Park Commission Meeting
Park Commissioner Hartmann reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 15, 2013,
Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She noted that during Council’s
work session immediately preceding this meeting Councilmember Siakel asked if it would be feasible to
set up a portable ice rink on the ball field in Badger Park during the winter. She explained doing that
would degrade the ball field’s turf.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 3 of 13
Director Brown clarified that Eddy Station has been painted.
Councilmember Woodruff stated in 2007 the City contributed money toward Carver County’s off-leash
dog area in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Planning Commissioner Sue Davis (she was a Park
Commissioner at that time) was heavily involved with that. He suggested the Park Commission invite
Davis to come to a future meeting to discuss her experience with dog parks because she is a semi-expert
in that area.
In response to a question from Councilmember Hotvet, Commissioner Hartmann stated the Park
Commission was advised about hockey rinks at Freeman Park by Director Brown and Director Nielsen.
Hartmann noted that Nielsen provided three options of where a rink could be put in Freeman Park. Brown
explained that there are watermain and sanitary sewer utilities under one area proposed for a hockey rink.
Putting a rink there would drive the frost down and damage the utilities. Mayor Zerby asked if the cost to
relocate the utilities would be prohibitive. Brown stated staff can make an attempt to estimate that cost.
Hartmann asked where the free skating is located at Freeman Park. Brown stated an attempt was made to
have a free skating area on the north side of the pavilion during the Arctic Fever event. Brown noted it
was not that great. Brown explained that albeit subtle there is a necessary drainage swale that follows the
north side of Eddy Station and drains that entire area.
Councilmember Hotvet stated there is a warming house in Freeman Park. Therefore, she suggested there
should be some type of skating there. Commissioner Hartmann concurred. Hartmann stated having
something portable on the parking lot area makes sense to her, but she is not sure that would be feasible.
Director Nielsen explained that discussing the location of a hockey rink at Freeman Park is a top priority
on the Park Commission’s 2014 work program.
Councilmember Siakel stated the next item on this agenda is to talk about a monument sign for Gideon
Glen. The minutes of the last Park Commission meeting indicated that there had been discussion about a
budget of $12,000 – $15,000 for the sign and parking at Gideon Glen and splitting that into $9,000 for the
sign and installation in 2013 and $6,000 for parking in 2014. The amount for a sign seems like a lot to
her. She asked Commissioner Hartmann if the vision for Gideon Glen is mapped out well. She questioned
the appropriateness of putting up the sign this year.
Commissioner Hartmann stated the Park Commission thought it appropriate to put up a sign similar to
those put up for the other City-owned parks. She then stated many of the Commissioners want schools
and students to come to Gideon Glen for educational purposes. The Commission had discussed the issue
of handling buses. The area cannot accommodate a full-size bus. There could possibly be 2 – 4 parking
stalls for cars, but busses would have to park across the street.
Mayor Zerby stated the Skate Park project was a joint project with other South Lake communities; they
also contributed to that. When it was done there was a lot of discussion with the residents near the area.
There is a senior housing development nearby. A number of people expressed concern that their private
road would be used as a turnaround. He encouraged the Park Commission to reach out to the residents
near the Park. Commissioner Hartmann stated because of the size of the Skate Park and the fact that
skateboarding has decreased dramatically, the Park Commission has been discussing how the Park can be
used more effectively. Director Brown noted that area used to be an old rest stop area that was turned
back over to the City. Zerby again encouraged the Commission to involve the residents.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 4 of 13
B. Gideon Glen Sign
Director Nielsen explained that the Park Commission has recommended the City install a monument
identification sign similar to those in the other City parks at the Gideon Glen Open Space site. He noted
the meeting packet contains a copy of a drawing of the proposed sign. The sign will say Gideon Glen in
large letters. In smaller letters it will read “A Conservation Open Space Project” then “City of Shorewood
in Partnership with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District”. He explained that because Gideon Glen is
now part of the park system, the Commission thinks it should have a monument sign. There had been two
projects for Gideon Glen scheduled this year; the sign and the parking lot.
He then explained that the parking lot is being reviewed by the MCWD because a little bit of site
alteration will have to be done. It would not happen until next year. He noted that it will be difficult to
design a parking lot that would accommodate school busses. It is a dead end driveway and there is no a
cul-de-sac at the end. The Commission thinks that the buses could drop the students off and then come
back and pick them up. The parking lot will end up being three gravel parking spots with some curb
stone.
The Commission had originally shown in the Park Capital Improvement Program (CIP) an amount of
$20,000 for the sign and parking lot. The Commission reduced that down to $15,000. The estimate for the
sign is approximately $7,800. The Commission has recommended authorizing a not-to-exceed amount of
$9,000. The hope is to have the sign made and installed for less than $8,000. Both the sign vendor and the
masonry vendor have indicated they could get the work done this year if this is approved this evening.
In response to a question from Councilmember Hotvet, Director Nielsen noted the intent is to locate the
sign on the southeast corner of the site. It will be perpendicular to County Road 19. Because it will be a
double sided sign it will be visible from both directions.
Councilmember Woodruff stated installing the sign before the parking lot work is done will encourage
people to come to the site. He recommended installing the sign and doing the parking lot work in 2014.
Councilmember Siakel concurred.
Councilmember Siakel stated that in the past there has been discussion about mitigating the issue of some
areas being eroded and about landscaping needs at the site. There appears to be some other needs beside
the sign and the parking lot that should be addressed for Gideon Glen as well.
Director Nielsen noted that there is a tentative meeting scheduled for November 1 with the MCWD. He
explained the management plan for Gideon Glen includes an annual meeting between City staff and
MCWD representatives. Park Commissioner Kjolhaug will represent the Park Commission at that
meeting. He stated a lot of what is involved with that property is maintenance. He noted he has spoken
with Engineer Hornby about an engineering solution to mitigate the erosion problems.
Director Brown stated Public Works has reestablished the areas that had eroded. He noted the site gets a
fair amount of stormwater runoff from the area to the west. He stated that the verified claims approved
this evening included an item for working with the MCWD’s Prairie Restoration consultant that came in
to reseed some of the site.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she agreed with delaying the sign this year.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it is his understanding that the MCWD is responsible for vegetation
management on the site. He questioned why the City paid for the prairie restoration work. Director Brown
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 5 of 13
explained MCWD was responsible for the vegetation plan and maintenance. Brown then explained the
City agreed to pay for the work because the seeding was needed because of excavating the pond and
maintaining the pond.
Woodruff then stated he agrees that something needs to be done to mitigate the erosion problems. He
noted that Gideon Glen was never intended to be a park. If the City wants to make it a park with lots of
activity there then consideration has to be given to what it will take to make that happen.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she supports delaying the purchase and installation of the sign until
2014.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the sign will be beautiful. But, it may be a little early to put it
in.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if Hennepin County will get upset because they will not be
acknowledged on the sign. Director Nielsen responded the County’s contribution on the project was fairly
minimal. The project was an effort between the City and the MCWD.
There was Council consensus to delay the sign activities until the parking lot design has been completed.
Administrator Joynes asked Director Nielsen if the sign and installation of it will have to be rebid in 2014.
Director Nielsen stated Director DeJong just hold him that Council could approve the bid amount with the
understanding that it will not be installed until 2014. Mayor Zerby asked if that commits the City to
having the vendor who bid the work do the work.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would not consider it an issue if it cost a little more to accept the bid
in 2014. He does not want to accept the bid now.
8. PLANNING
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Margaret Prehall
Location: 4828 Rustic Way
Director Nielsen explained Margaret Prehall and her son Sam have applied for a minor subdivision to
divide the property located at 4828 Rustic Way into two lots. As part of this request Council approved a
request to vacate part of the right-of-way of Rustic Way earlier on the agenda. Both lots will exceed the
minimum square foot requirements for the R-1D/S Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district.
Staff has worked with the applicant and his engineer to ensure the new lot would be buildable. One of the
issues the applicant had to address is the driveway. There is a steep slope on the ROW going down to
Rustic Way. Between the setting of the house and moving the driveway away from the corner of the
intersection (it has to be 40 feet away from the corner of the intersection) they have come up with
reasonable access to the site.
Nielsen noted the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the minor subdivision.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-071, “A Resolution Approving
Subdivision of Real Property for Sam Prehall for the Property Located at 4828 Rustic Way.”
Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 6 of 13
B. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Tom and Kelly Cooper
Location: 22630 Murray Street
This item was pulled from the agenda at the applicant’s request. It will be on the November 25 Council
agenda instead.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Proposal for Wellhead Protection Plan Part 2
Director Brown explained Part 1 of the Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) as mandated by the Clean
Water Act included reviewing the available data, how groundwater moved on the subsurface and what the
chemical characteristics are for that. The WHPP Part 2 involves taking the data and applying it to the
City’s everyday operation. It will evaluate things such as how it is used in planning and how day-to-day
operations are carried out. The memorandum authored by him and the proposal for doing that outline
what has to be done. WSB & Associates’ proposal identifies how it intends to carry out each task and its
cost for doing that is $14,955. He noted that this mandate is not negotiable with the Minnesota
Department of Health or the federal government. He also noted that staff recommends approval of the
proposal.
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, accepting the proposal from WSB & Associates for
professional services for the Wellhead Protection Plan Part 2 for an amount not to exceed $14,955.
Motion passed 5/0.
B. Accept Change Order for 2013 Pavement Marking, City Project 13-09
Engineer Hornby stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum authored by him for
Change Order No. 1 for the 2013 Pavement Marking Project for an amount of $1,383.72. That is for re-
striping the parking lot for the City Campus parking areas. That striping had not been included in the
original project scope. The unit price is a little higher for the Change Order because of the layout; a
different type of machine needed to be used. The Change Order will increase the contract amount to
$16,287.72 from the original amount of $14,884.00.
Mayor Zerby stated he noticed there are new little arrows pointing to the Southshore Community Center.
He thanked people for getting that done.
Councilmember Woodruff asked where the funding for the additional striping will come from. Director
Brown stated striping is paid for out of the same fund as other roadways improvements are paid for.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-072, “A Resolution Approving
Change Order No. 1 for 2013 Pavement Marking Project, City Project 13-09.” Motion passed 5/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. 2014 City of Minnetonka Tree Sale
Administrator Joynes explained that in 2012 the City participated in the City of Minnetonka tree sale. The
City sold 100 trees mainly to residents. The City did not participate in 2013. Staff is recommending the
City participate in Minnetonka’s program in 2014. The trees have to be pre-ordered now. The City will
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 7 of 13
inform its residents about this program in January and February 2014 and they can sign up to purchase the
trees at that time. Staff is asking Council to approve an expenditure of $7,400 for the pre-purchase of the
trees; it is the same amount approved in 2012.
Hotvet moved, Siakel seconded, approving the City participating in the City of Minnetonka’s 2014
tree sale and authorizing staff to order trees for an amount not to exceed $7,400.
Councilmember Siakel noted she totally supports participating in this program. She stated the City will be
losing a lot of Ash trees in the south end of Freeman Park. She questioned if it may be beneficial to order
replacement trees for the parks. She stated that maybe residents would be willing to donate a tree.
Director Nielsen stated there is no money budgeted for Ash trees in 2013. A plan will be prepared for
dealing with the Ash tree situation for the entire City with a concentration on Freeman Park.
Director Nielsen noted that when the City participated in the program in 2012 it did order a few trees for
use on public property.
Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn stated she thought the City could order more than 100 trees but she has to
verify that.
Councilmember Siakel clarified she is talking about purchasing an extra 25 trees and publishing that there
will be an opportunity for residents to purchase and then donate one of those trees.
Director Nielsen noted there will be several areas for tree replacement in the City with one of them being
the City Campus parking area.
Administrator Joynes stated $7,400 should be enough to purchase 100 trees. He then stated 12 trees were
purchased in 2012 for public use. He noted he thought all 100 trees could be sold this year. He stated
there will be a much better tree replacement/needs plan available in 2014.
Motion passed 5/0.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Uniform Animal Ordinance
Administrator Joynes explained the meeting packet contains a copy of a Uniform Animal Ordinance that
has been discussed by the four South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member cities for a
number of years. The core of the Ordinance deals with nuisance animals. The impetus for this relates to a
number of law suits and incidences that have occurred around the Twin Cities. The language in the
member cities’ ordinances was not consistent and made enforcement of those ordinances more difficult
for SLMPD personnel. The SLMPD Coordinating Committee has recommended the Ordinance as a core
ordinance for nuisance animals with each member city having the ability to have an appendix where
specific items to that city would be identified. Staff has identified a list of sections in the City’s current
Ordinance that are different from the recommended Animal Ordinance. A copy of that information is
included in the meeting packet. Staff is recommending some of the differences be included in an
appendix. For other differences staff believes the changes are appropriate or they do not significantly
change what is already in existing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 8 of 13
Joynes noted that staff is recommending Council approve the Uniform Animal Ordinance. The Excelsior
City Council has already approved it and the Greenwood City Council will consider it during its
November 6 meeting. The Tonka Bay City Council had a negative reaction to the Ordinance.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the changes made to the Uniform Animal Ordinance since the last time
Council discussed it have cleaned up a lot of things. He then stated that for the City, the Ordinance will
add some control over the number of cats for the first time. He explained there is one cat boarding
business in the City and the recommended Ordinance would make that business illegal. He cautioned
against doing that. Earlier in the day he asked Director Nielsen to make a recommendation on how to
address allowing a business to board cats in an appendix.
Director Nielsen stated he has not had the opportunity to draft that language for inclusion in the appendix.
He noted the way the Uniform Animal Ordinance is written would make the woman’s cat boarding
business out of compliance. He explained the City has a multiple dog license. The City could also require
a multiple cat license. In most cases that would require a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) or some other
type of zoning action. The City does not allow dog kennels per se. The cat boarding business is
effectively a cat kennel. Adding a simple provision to the appendix recognizing multiple cat licensing
would address the business issue.
Mayor Zerby suggested copying the language in Section 701.06 Limitations of Numbers of Dogs which
states “… unless a multiple dog license is first obtained from the City” and including that same language
for cats. Director Nielsen stated he thought the new language would be something shorter than that and
noted that what applies to dogs only gets a person up to four dogs. The cat boarding business does board
more than four cats. Zerby asked if the City allows dog boarding. Nielsen stated that would be a zoning
issue as well; currently the City does not allow dog kennels as defined by the State.
Administrator Joynes asked if by the City adding cats to the section Mayor Zerby referred to and adding a
clause that in the case of cats there would not be a number limit would be adequate.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the SLMPD asked to add a cat clause. Director Nielsen stated no one
knows where the cat restriction came from. Hotvet stated she finds that to be a little outrageous. Nielsen
concurred.
Councilmember Siakel noted this discussion about cat limits is about working with one resident. She
asked what needs to be done to accommodate the existing cat boarding business.
Administrator Joynes stated he would like to have the Uniform Animal Ordinance done. Councilmember
Woodruff concurred.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if the Ordinance is approved by Council now and then something is
added to the appendix to address the cat boarding business at a later date with the understanding that there
will not be an enforcement done on the existing business in the meantime he asked staff if that will cause
any issues.
Administrator Joynes stated he would be pleased if the Ordinance would be approved this evening.
Councilmember Woodruff stated there have been numerous instances in the news over the last several
years about cat hoarders and feral cats. Therefore, he thinks there is some validity to restricting the
number of cats.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 9 of 13
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 504, “An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 701 of the Municipal Code Relating to Animal Regulations”, directing staff to propose
language to address the cat boarding business issue in an appendix, and Adopting RESOLUTION
NO. 13-073, “A Resolution Approving Publication of Ordinance No. 504 by Title and Summary.”
Without objection from the maker, the motion was amended to include suspending enforcement of
the Ordinance on the owner of the cat boarding business until the Ordinance is amended to make
the business legal.
Mayor Zerby noted that the SLMPD staff put a tremendous amount of time and effort into the Uniform
Animal Ordinance. He explained the model ordinance used as a template came from some organization.
The member City Administrators/Manager, some legal counsel and some member City Councilmembers
had the opportunity to provide a tremendous amount of input into the Ordinance. He stated he does not
think any ordinance is perfect the first time around. Therefore, he anticipates changes over time. He then
stated he thought having more consistent animal enforcement regulations for the four SLMPD member
cities will help the SLMPD. He noted that he whole heartedly endorses the Ordinance and making it
work.
Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Zerby asked Director Nielsen if the City has to do anything to rescind existing ordinances. He
asked staff to work with the City Attorney about that.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Southshore Community Center Update
Administrator Joynes stated staff and Councilmember Hotvet met with representatives from ICA Food
Shelf about the ICA’s possible use of the Southshore Community Center (SSCC). He is not sure ICA’s
needs fit with the idea of the SSCC. But, if it is to be pursued that would have to go back to the
Southshore Center Advisory Committee.
Joynes then stated the Minnetonka High School has put together a group of students that will work
through its Vantage Program that will attempt to develop a business plan for the SSCC in conjunction
with Minnetonka Community Education.
Mayor Zerby stated the goal is to have the final report by early January.
2. Construction Update on Trail Projects
Engineer Hornby explained staff had its weekly meeting with the contractor for the Smithtown Road west
sidewalk project on October 24. The contractor has committed to have forces available to move the
project forward. Quite a bit of the sidewalk has been put in. Tentatively the contractor is scheduled
tomorrow to start pouring between the end just to the west of the wetland down to the border with the
City of Victoria. That section is formed up. After that the contractor will concentrate at the LRT Trail and
go west again. The contractor is going east to west to accommodate the construction trucks in the opposite
direction. Approximately 4,000 feet of sidewalk is down. There is approximately 9,600 feet of sidewalk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 10 of 13
in total that will end up being put down, so close to one half of it is down. The contractor was to be on
site late today to lay out some more form work. He reviewed some of the tasks that are remaining.
Mayor Zerby thanked Director Brown for his efforts to get the contractor to pick up the speed on the
project. Brown noted Engineer Hornby and others from WSB & Associates were present to support those
efforts. Brown stated there had been some spirited discussions.
Zerby then stated there had been a vehicular incident last week. He asked if staff has talked with South
Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) personnel about having a little extra help when managing
traffic flow where there are big construction trucks in the area. Director Brown noted that SLMPD has
been doing speed patrol in the project area. Brown explained that with regard to the incident that occurred
on October 25 there is shared responsibility between the sweeper operator and the motorist making
critical errors. There was nothing the SLMPD could have done to prevent that.
Councilmember Woodruff stated staff had emailed to Council a very good memo about the status of the
sidewalk project. The schedule included indicated there is some vegetation work that has to be done. That
plan is to hydroseed to establish grass. He noted that a number of Councilmembers have indicated how
pleased they were with the sodding that was done as part of the County Road 19 trail segment. He asked
Council if hydroseeding is an appropriate vegetation plan for the sidewalk project. He noted that he
understands that sod would be much more expensive.
Woodruff then stated that a while ago, Council had talked about tree replacement for the Smithtown Road
west sidewalk project. He doesn’t recollect any decisions being made. He asked if there is a tree
replacement plan. Engineer Hornby noted there is not for this project. Hornby explained that in the
preliminary design it was thought that a significant number of trees would have to be removed. The
majority of trees that would have to have been removed were in the curve near the wetland. Those were
on City-owned property. A lot of those trees that were removed were not high quality trees. A lot of trees
that were located along the right-of-way were saved. Woodruff commented that he did not want a resident
whose property abuts the project to be disappointed that the City was not replacing the trees. Hornby
noted that an attempt was made to save a few more trees but residents asked that they be removed.
3. Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Update
Director Brown stated the City has submitted its Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
disaster request. Staff’s initial estimate right after the storm event was approximately $18,000 in cost. The
final amount submitted to FEMA was $29,671.42. FEMA has approved that amount.
Mayor Zerby thanked Director Brown for the great work.
Other
Administrator Joynes explained that based on previous discussions staff has assumed that the Mill Street
trail segment will not be constructed anytime during the next two to three years. The City has a pending
grant for that trail segment. Therefore, the City needs to notify Hennepin County that the City is not
considering constructing the trail during the next few years. He noted he will do that unless Council tells
him not to.
Director DeJong stated staff has been having extensive discussions about the new financial software
implementation. Staff is starting to work in earnest on that project with the vendor Springbrook. Staff will
begin having weekly meetings with the vendor starting tomorrow. He then stated staff is pursuing an early
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 11 of 13
renewal option for health insurance using the City’s health insurance broker. Quotes will be requested
from HealthPartners, Preferred One and Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The City has already received
Medica’s option for renewal.
Director Nielsen stated a public hearing notice has been sent out for the residents near the Summit Woods
proposed project area. The notice advised them that the Planning Commission’s meeting does not start
until 8:00 P.M. on November 5 because of elections. He noted that Mayor Zerby had indicated his desire
to have staff around between 7:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M.
Nielsen then stated the next Park Summit quarterly meeting will be held on November 19.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Siakel provided a little background on the Excelsior Fire District (EFD). The EFD’s fire
services are provided by a volunteer force. There are currently 46 volunteer firefighters that provide fire
services for the five member cities. They operate out of two fire stations. The firefighters receive an
hourly call rate of pay (the 2013 rate is $10.40 per hour) and when vested they are entitled to a per-year-
of-service (PYOS) pension benefit. The Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) manages its
Special Fund for the firefighters’ pension. The member cities are required to make sure the Special Fund
is 100 percent funded in order to meet the pension liabilities. There is an informal agreement between the
EFD Board and the EFRA Board that the firefighters will not ask for an increase to the PYOS benefit
unless the Special Fund is 110 percent funded. In 1996 the PYOS benefit was $2,600. It was increased in
1997, 1998, and 1999. It was increased to $4,700 in 2000 and it remained at that level through 2004. It
was increased to $5,000 for 2005 and 2006. In 2007 it was increased to $6,250 and it has remained at that
level. Now that the stock market has started to come back and the Special Fund is 118 percent funded the
firefighters are asking for an increase in their benefit.
Councilmember Siakel noted the increase in the PYOS benefit and funding of the Special Fund in excess
of 100 percent were the main topics of discussion during the October 23, 2013, joint work session of EFD
Board and EFRA Board. There was discussion about implementing a process that would allow the
firefighters to get an increase in the PYOS benefit contingent upon the funding level being at a certain
level. She also noted that she thought EFD Board Chair Miller did a very good job of running the work
session.
She explained that Chair Miller identified five EFRA benefit principles. They are as follows.
1. The EFD should be competitive so it can attract and retain high quality personnel. (The EFD
relies on volunteers that live with a radius of close proximity to the fire stations. Firefighters are
60 percent vested after 10 years of service and are fully vested after 20 years. The fact that the
firefighters have to negotiate with 25 council members for an increase to their PYOS seems
arduous.)
2. The PYOS benefit should at a minimum be in pace with inflation over time. (The 2007 PYOS of
$6,250 would have to be $7,111 now just to have kept up with inflation based on the CPI.)
3. Adequate controls over benefit increases should be put in place. (This includes doing an annual
evaluation and modeling, and consulting with professional pension managers.)
4. The need for mandatory contributions from the EFD member cities in order to bring the Special
Fund to a level where it is 100 percent funded should be minimized. (Because the stock market
took a serious dive in 2008 the member cities had to make mandatory contributions in 2010 –
2013. Over the history of the Special Fund very few mandatory contributions have been
necessary.)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 12 of 13
5. A financial model for long-term planning should be developed.
The proposal discussed for a benefit policy during the work session was an increase of 3 percent when the
coverage ratio is 115 percent, a 4 percent increase when the ratio is 120 percent, and a 5 percent increase
when the ratio is 125 percent. An increase of 4 percent for 2014 – 2017 was also discussed to recover for
no increases since 2007. The proposal was to increase the PYOS benefit by $250 in 2014.
Siakel reiterated that she thought Chair Miller did a very good job of leading the meeting. She stated that
EFD Boardmember Fletcher from Greenwood suggested some of the funding ratios. She thought the
majority of those present at the work session agree with the recommendations.
Siakel stated she thought it was important to share the big picture with Council. She asked the other
Councilmembers to tell her what, if any, concerns they have about what is being proposed. She stated
from her vantage point what the firefighters are asking for is completely fair. She noted that if the EFD
were to be a full-time force it would cost the member cities at least triple the amount. She expressed
support for agreeing to an increase in the PYOS benefit now and putting a process in place for
consideration of future increases.
Siakel stated a number of times she has heard during Council work sessions that when the bonded debt
for the public safety facilities is paid off there will be a reduction in yearly expenses for the facilities of
about $510,000 starting in 2023. She asked if that amount is for all five member cities. She noted that the
City’s portion of the fire services budget for 2014 is 38.48 percent.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he is 100 percent sure that the City’s portion of that reduction is
$500,000. Administrator Joynes concurred.
Woodruff stated he also attended the joint work session and he thought there was a lot of good discussion.
He complimented Chair Miller for preparing the EFRA portfolio spread sheet that projects the impacts of
various increases. He commented that he had questions and criticisms about various things. He stated the
EFRA Board can increase the PYOS benefit at any time without EFD Board approval and noted the
EFRA Special Fund is the EFRA’s money. The EFRA makes the decisions about how it invests its assets.
He expressed a little concern that the 115 percent ratio for the Special Fund is too low to trigger a 3
percent PYOS benefit increase. He stated that although the EFRA owns the money the member cities own
any shortfall. And, the City owns half the shortfall based on the EFD funding formula.
Councilmember Siakel clarified the City owns about 38 percent. She asked what the City’s portion of the
mandatory contributions have been the result of the market downturn. It’s her recollection that EFD
Boardmember Fletcher stated Greenwood’s portion was about $13,000. She stated she thought a large
portion of the mandatory contributions were paid for out of EFD operating fund reserves. She noted that
over the many years of the EFRA’s existence the cities have not contributed a lot to the fund for pensions.
Councilmember Woodruff reiterated when there is a shortfall in the EFRA fund for pensions the cities
have to cover that. The firefighters can increase their PYOS benefit and when there is a shortfall the
member cities have to make that up. He explained that normally he does not have a problem with that.
But, when the value of the EFRA’s investments is suddenly impacted by market conditions it is out of the
EFRA’s control yet the cities have to make good on it. He noted he wants a greater buffer than the 115
percent ratio for the start of increasing the benefit. He stated when he asked a question he was told by
those in the know that the PYOS benefit is not an attraction issue when recruiting firefighters.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2013
Page 13 of 13
Councilmember Siakel stated in previous meeting there was discussion about what is needed to attract
and retain firefighters and also about benefit increases.
Mayor Zerby stated he believes retention is equally as important as recruitment. It should be easier to
keep employees than it is to recruit new ones because of the experience existing firefighters have. He then
stated it is the City’s choice to get their fire services from a volunteer force. From his perspective, the
only way the City can afford to get those services is through a volunteer force. He went on to state to
convert the pension model to a different model would present challenges. He also stated that for those
firefighters who are very tenured with the District it is a small price to pay. He noted he thinks it is
appropriate to give the firefighters an increase.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the League of Minnesota Cities has a set of legislative policy proposals.
He thought the emails have been sent to Councilmembers. He noted comments on them are due on
November 1. He asked Councilmembers to copy him on any comments they have. Mayor Zerby asked
staff to comment on them as well.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if each member of Council gives their own personnel opinion. Mayor
Zerby responded that is the way it has been done in the past.
Mayor Zerby stated he attended a Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) meeting on
October 15. He reported on that meeting. A small committee had been formed to look at production
services costs. That equates to what the LMCC would charge affiliate member cities for services (cities
that have left the LMCC joint powers organization to directly franchise with Mediacom yet want to use
LMCC services). The LMCC adopted the fee for service scheduled recommended by that small
committee. There was some discussion about distributing the LMCC reserve balance amongst the LMCC
member cities. The cities leaving the LMCC want to deplete the reserves and have it split between the 17
member cities proportionally by weight. That discussion was postponed pending legal advice by LMCC
because there is language in the LMCC joint powers agreement (JPA) that discusses that directly. Some
of the member cities have approved the amendments to the JPA. Some cities have not taken action on
them yet. Some of the cities who have submitted their notice to withdraw from the LMCC have made
their withdrawal contingent on the approval of the amendments. That is a very tumultuous issue.
13. ADJOURN
Hotvet moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 28, 2013,
at 8:34 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: City Hall December Holiday Schedule
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
This year, the December holiday schedule provides for ½ day holiday on Tuesday, December 24 and a
full day holiday on Wednesday, December 25. Over the past few years when the City has remained
open on the morning of December 24, it has been staff’s experience that very little business occurs that
morning, there is usually a skeletal crew working that day, as the majority of staff use a ½ day of
vacation or personal holiday. As such, staff is requesting to officially close this year on Tuesday,
December 24. City Hall Staff who choose to take ½ day off will use their personal time for the ½ day on
December 24.
As established by the Union contract, the Public Works Department will remain open for the ½ day on
Tuesday, December 24.
The Holiday closures are posted on the city website, in the newsletter and on the front door of City Hall.
Council Action:
A motion authorizing the official closure of City Hall for the entire day on Tuesday, December 24, and to
allow staff to use vacation time, personal holiday, or comp time for the ½ day off.
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
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Apple Road Streambank Stabilization Project – MCWD Funding Agreement
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: MCWD Funding Agreement, Resolution
Background: The City of Shorewood has been working with residents and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District to design and construct an erosion stabilization project for the steep sloped ditch
along Apple Road. As part of the project, the City and MCWD worked collaboratively to develop the
design and work toward a shared funding opportunity. The Enclosed information includes the funding
agreement prepared by the MCWD, providing reimbursement of project costs in the amount of
$21,812.50 or 50% of the documented construction costs, whichever is less.
The City Council has previously approved an “Easement for Access, Construction, and Maintenance, and
Maintenance Declaration” (Easement) as the final approval step needed to obtain the MCWD permit to
construct the project. The enclosed funding agreement (paragraph 3) includes a maintenance
requirement that essentially requires the City to maintain the constructed project into perpetuity,
similar to the Easement the City approved previously, but also includes a provision for repayment of
grant funds if the City fails to maintain any portion of the project in accordance with the Easement. The
repayment of grant funds terminates 10-years after substantial completion of construction.
The funding agreement provides some benefit to the City by providing and an opportunity for a share of
load allocation credit, which can be applied to the City requirements for meeting MCWD requirements.
This will become more important for the City as regulations advance to reduce sediment and nutrient
loading to protect downstream water bodies. The City and MCWD consultant on the project has
previously calculated a load reduction of 39 Tons/Year of sediment and 7 Lbs/Year of phosphorus.
The project has advanced since 2012, with selective clearing of trees, and bidding the grading work and
rock grade control structure along the steepest slopes of the ditch channel. The grading and rock slope
work has not been performed to date, but plans have been made to complete this work in the next few
weeks.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The City has received the cost share grant (pending approval of the
funding agreement) as mentioned above with the MCWD, and has a BWSR grant through the
Conservation Corps for providing labor for tree removal, seeding and plantings for the project. The
project cost is currently estimated in the amount of $48,500, including a 3-year maintenance program
allowance previously discussed with the City Council. Staff will also need to work with the residents
directly affected by the project for the replacement of trees.
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
Maintenance will be an ongoing process for this project after construction as previously discussed in the
Easement document, with a 3-year plant establishment monitoring and maintenance program, and
erosion and planting maintenance by City crews after the plan establishment period has expired. It is
anticipated the plant maintenance requirements will be reduced to a minimal requirement after the
plant establishment period. The City is also required under the easement agreement to perform annual
maintenance reporting to the MCWD.
Options: The Council can consider the following potential action options or others actions as
determined at the Council meeting:
1.Approve the funding agreement as prepared by the MCWD – The funding agreement has
provisions for repayment of funds by the City to the MCWD for a ten year period for failure to
maintain any portion of the project in accordance with easement and declaration.
2.Construct the project without MCWD funding – This option would allow the project to be
constructed as a City project, with City funds and reduces the City obligations to the district for
reimbursement of granted funds.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends, with concurrence of the City Attorney, that
the Council authorize staff to construct the project without MCWD grant funding as indicated in Option
2, reducing the City obligations and liabilities to the MCWD for repayment of grant funds.
FUNDING AGREEMENT
APPLE ROAD STREAMBANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Shorewood
This Agreement is entered into by and between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, a special purpose district of the State of Minnesota with powers set
forth at Minnesota Statutes chapters 103B and 103D (District), and the City of
Shorewood, a statutory city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota
(City).
The Agreement is entered into to provide for District reimbursement to the City
for costs incurred by the City to construct streambank improvements on six
properties: five in Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at [ADDRESSES AND
PIDs], and one in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, at [ADDRESS AND PID],
each of which is separately owned in fee (the Properties).
The District has determined the amount of funding that it will contribute on
basis of the water-quality protection and improvement, public education and
demonstration benefits that will be realized by
approximately 650 feet of an eroded channel and establish 20 to 80 feet of
upland native buffer along the channel to reduce phosphorus loading, erosion
and sedimentation to Galpin Lake and Lake Minnetonka, a public water and
major recreational water body (the Project).
The District commits to reimburse the City in accordance with the terms and on
satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement.
1. Streambank Protection Project Design and Construction
Plans and specifications for the Project are attached as Exhibit A (the Designs)
and incorporated herein. The City will obtain and record an easement and
declaration from the owner of each of the Properties providing the City with the
legal rights necessary to construct and maintain the Project, committing the City
to maintain the Project and allowing for placement of educational signage. Each
easement and declaration entered by the City, the District and the owners of the
Properties will materially conform to Exhibit B, attached to and incorporated into
this Agreement. The City or its contractor will construct and complete the
1 of 6
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
November 10, 2013 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Project in accordance with the Designs. The City will ensure construction of the
Project in substantial conformity with Exhibit A and District rules. On
completion of the Project, the City or its contractor will issue a certificate of
substantial completion. The City will maintain a copy of the Designs and other
records concerning the Project for six (6) years from the date the City receives
or completes certification of the Project as complete for the intended purposes.
The District and the State Auditor may examine, audit or copy any such records
upon reasonable notice to the City.
2. Funding
Within 30 days after the City submits the certification of substantial completion,
an invoice or invoices for the Project and receipts of easement and declaration
recordation or registration for each of the Properties as required by this
Agreement and a maintenance declaration as required by District rules, the
District will reimburse the City $21,812.50 or 50 percent of the documented
costs for the Project, whichever is less. The invoice(s) will be accompanied by
documentation of costs incurred in the design, construction and implementation
of the Project and such other documentation as the District reasonably may
request. The District may independently inspect the Project to confirm material
conformance to Exhibit A. No reimbursement will be provided for partial
construction of the Project.
3. Maintenance of the Project
The City agrees to maintain the Project in perpetuity in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the easements and declarations recorded pursuant to
paragraph 1 of this Agreement . The District will work with the city and offer
consultative resources to the City regarding ongoing maintenance
techniques in the name of maintaining the partnership established t
project. If the City fails to maintain any portion of the Project in accordance
with Exhibit B, in addition to any other remedies, the District will have a right for
10 years from the date of certification of substantial completion to
reimbursement by the City of all amounts paid by the District under this
Agreement, unless the District determines that the City was prevented from
maintaining the Project by causes beyond the Citycontrol. Failure to obtain
and retain the necessary property rights (e.g., easements) required by this
Agreement for the Project will not be considered a circumstance beyond the
. in accordance
2 of 6
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
November 10, 2013 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
with Exhibit A through operation of law, including but not limit
necessary property rights through foreclosure, will not be consi
4. Acknowledgment and Publicity
The City, at its cost and in consultation with the District and the property
owners, will create informational and educational signage and associated
supporting structures of a reasonable size and place the signage at locations on
the Properties where the signage is visible from public ways. Any publicly
distributed or displayed printed or electronic documents or othe
regarding the Project will acknowledge the funding provided by the District. The
City will cooperate with the District to seek publicity and media coverage of the
Project and will cooperate with District education efforts related to th.
5. Independent Relationship
The District
the use, maintenance, demonstration and dissemination of information about
innovative approaches to channel restoration and stabilization. The District has
not had and does not have any authority to select, or role in se
design, means, method or manner of performing any work or the person or firm
performing the work. No employee, representative, contractor or consultant
any party to this Agreement has acted or may act in any respect as th
representative of the other party. Any right to review or approve a design, work
in progress or constructed facility under this Agreement by the District or its
agent, representative or consultant is solely for the District
accounting for District funds expended. Neither the City nor the District agrees
to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other, within the meaning of
Minnesota Statutes section 471.59, subdivision 1a.
The City will identify, determine the applicability of and conform to legal
requirements applicable to its activity under this Agreement, including any
District permit requirements.
6. Load Allocation Credit
The terms and
water management plan include, among other requirements, that th
reduce the rate at which phosphorus is contributed to water reso
3 of 6
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
November 10, 2013 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
ER] pounds per [TIME PERIOD]. The
District agrees to credit City for the documented phosphorus load reduction
from the Project for purposes of meeting load reductions allocat
District Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and for ot water-
quality measurement purposes. The portion credited to the City will be equal to
the total load reduction from the Project multiplied by the perc
costs, in accordance with Exhibit A, not reimbursed by the District. The District
will retain credit for the portion of the load reduction equal to the tot
reduction from the Project multiplied by the percentage of the Pcosts, in
accordance with Exhibit A, reimbursed by the District. Measurement and
documentation of phosphorus reductions achieved are the responsibility of the
City, and must be provided to the District, along with such othe
as the District reasonably may request, for the purposes of this
7. Remedies; Immunities
Only contractual remedies are available failure to fulfill the terms of
this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other term of this Agreemenneither
party waives any immunities in tort. This Agreement creates no right in and
waives no immunity, defense or liability limitation with respect to any third
party.
8. Indemnification
The City will hold harmless, defend and indemnify the District, its managers,
employees, agents and representatives against any and all claims
Agreement, except as results from willful or gross negligence.
9. Effective Date; Expiration; Survival of Obligations
The Agreement is effective when fully executed by the parties and expires five
years thereafter or when reimbursement has been paid under parag
whichever occurs first. Obligations that have come into being before expiration
of this Agreement, specifically including but not limited to obl
paragraphs 3, 4, 7 and 8 shall survive expiration.
4 of 6
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
November 10, 2013 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
10. Equal Opportunity
In constructing the Project, the City will ensure that no person was or is
excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the
program, service or activity on the ground of race, color, creed
sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assi
national origin; no person who is protected by applicable federal or state law
rules or regulations against discrimination otherwise has been o
subjected to discrimination.
11. Notices
Any written communication required under this Agreement will be
the other party as follows, except that a party may change its addre
by so notifying the other party in writing:
To District:
Administrator
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
To City:
Administrator
City of Shorewood
ADDRESS
11. Waiver
of any obligation under this
Agreement, or to exercise any option, remedy or right herein, will not waive or
Agreement will not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of that or
any other obligation. A waiver must be in writing and signed by
5 of 6
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
November 10, 2013 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto execute
and deliver this Agreement.
______________________________________
City Attorney
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
______________________________________ Date:
By: ___________________________
Its: ___________________________
______________________________________
District Attorney
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
______________________________________ Date:
By: L. Eric Evenson
Its: Administrator
6 of 6
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
November 10, 2013 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
EXHIBIT A
THE DESIGNS
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
July 31, 2012 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
EAM8/19/2011
Apple Road Channel Stabilization - Engineering Cost Estimate
Shorewood, MN
EAMMileage
$170
Tasks
1. Get topographic, soils, subwatershed boundary2
current and future land use, air photo
2. Calculate 2,5, 10 and 100 year flow, depth, velocity and shea4
at upstream and downstream locations
3. Screen bioengineering alternatives2
4. Lay out two design options on plan and profile.6
5. Estimate quantities and material cost. 4
6. Describe proposed project with work and labor between city an3
7. Walk site to verify designs and count trees for removal.3$15
8. Meet city and watershed staff to discuss options.3$15
9. Prepare design memorandum4
Total hours31$30
Cost labor$5,270
Mileage$30
Total design cost$5,300
Assumptions:
1. Tree removal/thinning will be allowed.
2. The city has access to the channel.
3. channel length approximately 650ft.
Revegetation Plan & Budget
April 16, 2012
Phase I: Fall Seeding $ 2,750.00
Upon completion of the dirt work and placement of the rip rap an
installations will be completed with the same seed mix.
The rip rap installed for vegetated rip rap will be covered with 4 of topsoil and allowed to settle into the
rip rap, creating pockets of soil for plants to grow in. The see
of soil.
The areas outside of the stream channel will also be seeded. Preparation of the site will re
out the leaf layer on the ground to remove the cover and allow lSeed will be hand
broadcast over the top of the soil and will be lightly raked into the base soils. Some of the removed leaf
litter will be broadcast to act as mulch over the new seeds in the wooded areas. Erosion con
will be used as mulch over the seeding done in and near the chan
With both plantings, some germination may occur in the fall, but most of these plants are native and will
not germinate until the spring after they have been exposed to c
dormancy. The plants selected for the seed planting are mostly g
Forbs
Species Common NameSpecies Scientific Name
Arrow-leaved Aster Aster sagittifolius
Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis
Sweet Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium purpureum
White Snakeroot Eupatorium rugosum
Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza claytonii
Wild Golden Glow Rudbeckia laciniata
Early Figwort Scrophularia lanceolata
Grasses
Species Common NameSpecies Scientific Name
Hairy Wood ChessBromus purgans
Sprengel's Sedge
Carex sprengelii
Silky Wild Rye
Elymus villosus
Virginia Wild Rye
Elymus virginicus
Bottlebrush GrassHystrix patula
Phase IIa: Spring Plug Planting $ 750.00
In the following spring, a crew will return to plant plugs of pla
propagate from seed, but compliment the seed mix as a plant comm
basswood forest floor. The planting will focus on bare areas where seed did not germinate with
locations to be field verified. Plants will be planted about 5 apart, within the zones indicate
plan, to allow for natural migration and establishment of coloni Planting these plugs in the spring
when conditions are generally more wet, will help their survivability witho
watering. Ideally no watering is needed, but if the spring is dr
Final plant species selection for the plug planting will be determined after a spring-time inspection of
the seed success and will likely include:
Forbs
Species Common Name Species Scientific Name
Jack-in-the-Pulpit Arisaema triphyllum
Trout Lilly Erythronium albidum
Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum
Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis
False Solomon's Seal Smilacina racemosa
Ferns
Species Common Name Species Scientific Name
Athyrium felix-femina
Lady Fern
Onoclea sensibilis
Sensitive Fern
Phase IIb: Spring Bare-Root Planting $ 250.00
Also in the spring, the crew will plant bare root shrubs, as indicated on the plan. Shrubs will be clustered
in groups of 5 to 9 shrubs along the channel and in the vegetated rip rap where possible to
the banks. Shrub species selected include:
Shrubs
Species Common NameSpecies Scientific Name
Gray DogwoodCornus racemosa
Red Osier DogwoodCornus sericea
Dwarfbush HoneysuckleDiervilla lonicera
Revegetation Total $ 3,750.00
6/5/2012
Apple Road Channel Stabilization - Construction Cost Estimate
Shorewood, MN
Extended
ItemUnitsQuantityUnit PriceAmount
MobilizationEach1$9,500.00$9,500.00
GeotextileSY325$2.00$650.00
Type II riprapTon175$65.00$11,375.00
Type III riprapTon90$65.00$5,850.00
Boulder Ton55$110.00$6,050.00
Sedimentation BasinCY115$10.00$1,150.00
Total$34,575.00
EXHIBIT B
FORM OF EASEMENT AND DECLARATION
Cost-Share Agreement City of Shorewood-
July 31, 2012 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
EASEMENT FOR ACCESS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE, AND
MAINTENANCE DECLARATION
THIS EASEMENT AND DECLARATION is made by and among [PROPERTY
OWNER(S), a married couple/an individual] (Grantor), the City of Shorewood, a statutory city
and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (Grantee), and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, a special purposes local governmental unit under Minnesota Statutes
chapters 103B and 103D (District).
RECITALS
A. Grantor is the owner in fee simple of real property platted and legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (Property);
B. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee the Easement and Declaration described herein to
facilitate the channel stabilization shown in Exhibit B, attached to and incorporated into this
easement and declaration (the Project);
C. Completion of the Project benefits Grantor by stabilizing and improving the Property and
benefits the Grantee and the District by establishing long-term reduction of pollution and
phosphorus in stormwater runoff draining to Galpin Lake and Gideon Bay of Lake Minnetonka
and improving water quality for the benefit of the public; and
D. The parties acknowledge in executing this Easement and Declaration that sufficient
consideration has been paid and received by the parties, and this Easement and Declaration sets
forth obligations that are duly binding on each party.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated into and
made a part of this Easement and Declaration, and one dollar and other good and valuable
consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1
1.Easement
Grant of Easement
a.. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee, its successors
and assigns, easements over, under, upon and across that portion of the Property
shown in and described by Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for
purposes of access, construction, and continuing maintenance of the Project (the
Easement). The Easement includes the right to plant, install stabilization techniques,
alter the existing grades and perform grading or filling within the Easement as
necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the Project. The rights granted hereby
include the right of ingress, egress and passage over and through the Easement to
complete and maintain the Project and the right to lay and maintain temporary
utilities across or above the surface of the Easement for purposes of construction and
maintenance of the Project.
Restrictions on Grantor’s Use of Easement.
b. Grantor shall not use the Easement
area or permit the construction of any improvements within the Easement in any
manner that would or could reasonably be expected to damage or interfere with the
Project. Grantor is not divested of the right to use and enjoy the Property and the
Easement area for other purposes, but such use and enjoyment is subject to the
restrictions stated herein and may not interfere with Grantee’s use of the Easement for
the purposes herein expressed.
c.In the event the Property is damaged by the activities of Grantee or its contractors,
agents or assigns relating to, or arising from, the exercise of any of Grantee’s rights
under this Easement, Grantee will promptly repair or restore the damage to the extent
reasonably practicable. Grantee will repair, seed or plant disturbed or damaged areas
with vegetation suitable for the intended uses of the Easement. Grantor agrees and
acknowledges that Grantee is not responsible for any pre-existing conditions on the
Property, environmental or otherwise, or for any damage to the Property arising out
of or related to such preexisting conditions.
2.Declaration; Grantee’s Maintenance Obligations
a.Grantee will maintain the Project as follows:
i.First year following completion of the Project:
1.Watering will occur as needed to ensure new plantings receive approximately
1” of water per week. When feasible, watering will occur early in the morning
and avoided from 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm.
2.The project area will be inspected for weeds at least once every month.
Weeds will be hand pulled or spot treated with aquatic formulations of
herbicide according to instructions on the herbicide label.
ii.Second year following completion of the Project:
1.Watering will occur as needed to ensure plantings receive approximately 1” of
water per week. When feasible, watering will occur early in the morning and
avoided from 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm.
2
2.The project area will be inspected for weeds at least once every month.
Weeds will be hand pulled or spot treated with aquatic formulations of
herbicide according to instructions on the herbicide label.
3.Upland and streambank plantings will be replaced and seeded areas will be
reseeded as necessary in the spring and fall.
iii.Third year following completion of the Project:
1.The project area will be inspected for weeds at least once every two months.
Weeds will be hand pulled or spot treated with aquatic formulations of
herbicide according to instructions on the herbicide label.
2.Upland and streambank plantings will be replaced and seeded areas will be
reseeded as necessary in the spring and fall.
iv.Thereafter:
1.The project area will be inspected at least annually and any erosion or
structural problems observed will be corrected within 30 days of inspection to
establish and maintain a naturalized, ecologically healthy streambank that is
structurally stable and resistant to erosion.
2.Grantee will submit to the MCWD annually a brief written report that
describes the maintenance activities performed, including dates, locations of
inspection, maintenance activities performed; notes on successful species,
weed problems, disturbances issues (animal or human) and management
needs; and photographs of the project area.
3.Removal of invasive species will occur on an ongoing basis. Weeds will be
hand pulled or spot treated with aquatic formulations of herbicide according to
instructions on the herbicide label.
4.All planted and seeded areas will be maintained in perpetuity free from
mowing or other vegetative disturbance, except as specified herein, fertilizer
application, yard or other waste disposal, and the placement of structures or
any other alteration that impedes the function of the streambank in protecting
water quality, shading the riparian edge, moderating flow into any adjacent
wetland or waterbody, or providing wildlife habitat.
5.Upland and streambank plantings will be replaced and seeded areas will be
reseeded as necessary in the spring and fall of each year in accordance with
the approved plan to maintain the ecological health and function of the
streambank.
b.Violation of any provision of this Declaration is a violation of the Declaration as well
as a violation of the District permit for the Project for which the District may take
action against the Grantee and/or owner of the Property.
3. Signage.
Grantee, at its cost, may place informational and educational signage of
appropriate size and characteristics and associated supporting structures of a reasonable
size at a location on the Property visible to the public. Grantor reserves the right to
review and approve any sign to be placed on the Property pursuant to this provision, such
approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Grantor permits Grantee and District
representatives and assigns to enter the Property at reasonable times to inspect the Project
and monitor or take samples for the purposes of assessing the performance of the Project.
On reasonable notice to Grantor, representatives of the Grantee or the District may
accompany members of the public onto the Property to view the Project from time to
3
time. Nothing in this Easement and Declaration will be construed to create a right of
public access to the Property except as coordinated with Grantor and accompanied by a
representative of Grantee or the District.
4. Insurance
. Grantee will require its agents and contractors to carry worker's
compensation insurance as required by applicable law and liability coverage for injury to
or death of a person or persons and for damage to property occasioned by the
performance of the Project. Grantor will remain solely responsible for maintaining
liability and other insurance for its own uses of and authority over the Property.
5. Running with the Land
. This Easement and Declaration runs in perpetuity with the land
and inures to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns including but not limited to all subsequent owners of any
portion of the Property affected by the Easement and Declaration, and all persons
claiming under them.
6. Severability.
If any one or more of the provisions of this Easement and Declaration, or
the applicability of any such provision to a specific situation, is held invalid or
unenforceable, such provision will be modified to the extent necessary to make it or its
application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other
provisions of this Easement and Declaration and all other applications of any such
provision will not be affected thereby.
7. Governing Law.
The Easement and Declaration will be construed and governed by the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
8. No Waiver of Immunity
. No provision of this Easement and Declaration will be
interpreted as a waiver of any statutory or common law immunity from or limitation of
liability available to Grantee or District, all such immunities and limitations being
expressly reserved by Grantee and District.
9. Recording.
Grantee may record and rerecord this Easement and Declaration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Easement and Declaration with
the intent to be legally bound by its terms as of the date this Easement and Declaration is fully
executed by the parties.
GRANTOR:
[NAME(S) OF PROPERTY OWNER(S)]
By ____________________ and
By _____________________
4
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________, 2013, by ___________
and ____________, husband and wife.
_________________________________________
Notary Public
GRANTEE:
City of Shorewood
__________________________________ Date: ________________
By: Scott Zerby
Its: Mayor
__________________________________ Date: _________________
By: William Joynes
Its: City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________, 2013, by Scott
Zerby, as mayor of the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of the municipal corporation.
________________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________, 2013, by
William Joynes as City Administrator of the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation under
the laws of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the municipal corporation.
________________________________
Notary Public
5
BENEFICIARY:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
__________________________________ Date: ________________
By: L. Eric Evenson
Its: Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________, 2013, by L.
Eric Evenson, as administrator of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a municipal
corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the municipal corporation.
________________________________
Notary Public
This document prepared by:
6
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byways Concept
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood designate a representative to attend an
informational meeting on the Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byways initiative?
Background: Attached is a request from the City of Wayzata Mayor, Ken Willcox, that the City of
Shorewood provide a representative to participate in an initial informational meeting about the Lake
Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway initiative.
For further background, the initial letter sent by Mayor Willcox to the City of Shorewood in May, 2013, is
also attached.
Council Action:
Should Council decide to identify a representative, staff will notify the City of Wayzata with the contact
information, as requested.
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
October 23, 2013
The Honorable Scott Zerby
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Follow up on Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway Concept
The Honorable Mayor Zerby:
On June 4"', I wrote to you to gauge your interest in working with the other thirteen Lake Minnetonka
communities on a Lake Minnetonka regional scenic byways initiative for branding and marketing opportunities.
Since that time, we have been in contact with a representative from MnDOT's Scenic Byway Program to gather
additional information on the process for submitting an application for a state -level scenic byways designation
for the Lake Minnetonka area. We have received word that the commissioners of the program would be
supportive of an application from this region. If approved, only cost implications would be for sign fabrication
and marketing of the designation. The cost of the signs would be dependent on their design and how many are
created for this effort.
By way of background, a state - level scenic byway designation is a tool to recognize important cultural, historic,
natural, recreational, and archaeological locations that have exceptional interest in the state. Typically, a state -
level scenic byway designation is pursued by a partnership of communities and organizations to conduct
grassroots marketing, tourism, and economic development efforts. Similar state -level scenic byway
designations have been implemented along the North Shore, the Minneapolis Grand Rounds, and along the St.
Croix. We view the Lake Minnetonka area as having the same historic and recreational importance to both the
region and the state. We believe there is an opportunity to enhance the Lake Minnetonka brand by showcasing
the area's important amenities and points of interest that are connected on historic roadways throughout our
communities.
As with any endeavor like this, there are many considerations for Lake Minnetonka communities regarding
whether to collaborate in a joint scenic byway designation. Below is my take on of some of the items to
consider:
Potential for collaborative community branding and marketing of regional assets to constituents and
visitors.
Financial commitment for sign fabrication and marketing of designation. The individual communities
can decide for themselves how much marketing they want to make of the scenic byway designation.
Scenic Byways designation does not create additional regulations or obligations on the scenic roadway
itself or amenities that may be tied with it.
Phone: 952 -404 -5300 Tax 952404-5318 e -mail: city@wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org
Mayor:
City of Wayzata
Ken Willcox
600 Rice Street
City Council:
Jack Amdal
Wayzata, MN 55391 -1734
Andrew Mullin
'rom Tanner
Bridget Anderson
City Manager:
Heidi Nelson
Re: Follow up on Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway Concept
The Honorable Mayor Zerby:
On June 4"', I wrote to you to gauge your interest in working with the other thirteen Lake Minnetonka
communities on a Lake Minnetonka regional scenic byways initiative for branding and marketing opportunities.
Since that time, we have been in contact with a representative from MnDOT's Scenic Byway Program to gather
additional information on the process for submitting an application for a state -level scenic byways designation
for the Lake Minnetonka area. We have received word that the commissioners of the program would be
supportive of an application from this region. If approved, only cost implications would be for sign fabrication
and marketing of the designation. The cost of the signs would be dependent on their design and how many are
created for this effort.
By way of background, a state - level scenic byway designation is a tool to recognize important cultural, historic,
natural, recreational, and archaeological locations that have exceptional interest in the state. Typically, a state -
level scenic byway designation is pursued by a partnership of communities and organizations to conduct
grassroots marketing, tourism, and economic development efforts. Similar state -level scenic byway
designations have been implemented along the North Shore, the Minneapolis Grand Rounds, and along the St.
Croix. We view the Lake Minnetonka area as having the same historic and recreational importance to both the
region and the state. We believe there is an opportunity to enhance the Lake Minnetonka brand by showcasing
the area's important amenities and points of interest that are connected on historic roadways throughout our
communities.
As with any endeavor like this, there are many considerations for Lake Minnetonka communities regarding
whether to collaborate in a joint scenic byway designation. Below is my take on of some of the items to
consider:
Potential for collaborative community branding and marketing of regional assets to constituents and
visitors.
Financial commitment for sign fabrication and marketing of designation. The individual communities
can decide for themselves how much marketing they want to make of the scenic byway designation.
Scenic Byways designation does not create additional regulations or obligations on the scenic roadway
itself or amenities that may be tied with it.
Phone: 952 -404 -5300 Tax 952404-5318 e -mail: city@wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org
Potential for additional visitor traffic to individual communities to see points of interest or amenities that
are along the regional scenic byway. Again, this depends on each community's level of marketing of
these amenities.
The participating communities would have to decide how many signs to put along the roadway and
where to place them. If signs are to be placed on County Roads, we would need to secure ROW permits
from the County transportation department.
In terms of next steps in the process, we would like to coordinate a meeting of all the lakeshore communities
and the MnDOT Scenic Byway Program Coordinator to discuss the scenic byway process further, provide
information, and answer any questions. If you would consider designating a representative for your community
to attend this informational meeting to be scheduled before the end of the year, we will communicate directly
with your designated representative. Please send contact information for your representative to Bryan Gadow at
bgadow cewayzata.ore. If you have questions regarding MnDOT's Scenic Byway program, please contact the
Scenic Byway Program Coordinator or visit their website ( http:// www. dot.state.nin.us /seenicbvways/) at the
following:
Ms. Holly M. Slagle
Scenic Byway Program Coordinator
Office of Environmental Stewardship
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Blvd, Mail Stop 620
St. Paul, MN 55155
651- 366 -3623
HoI1v.Slagle a state.inn.us
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/seenicbyways
I would also be pleased to discuss this further with you in the coming weeks. Feel free to contact me at 952-
922 -5569 or KenwillcoxL&wayzata.org.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ken Willcox
Mayor
Phone: 952 -404 -5300 Fax: 952404-5318 email: city @wayz.am.org home page: www.wayzamnug
Mayor:
City of Wayzata
Ken Willcox
600 Rice Street
City Council:
Jack Amdal
Wayzata, NM 55391 -1734
Andrew Mullin
Tom Tanner
Bridget Anderson
City Manager:
Heidi Nelson
Potential for additional visitor traffic to individual communities to see points of interest or amenities that
are along the regional scenic byway. Again, this depends on each community's level of marketing of
these amenities.
The participating communities would have to decide how many signs to put along the roadway and
where to place them. If signs are to be placed on County Roads, we would need to secure ROW permits
from the County transportation department.
In terms of next steps in the process, we would like to coordinate a meeting of all the lakeshore communities
and the MnDOT Scenic Byway Program Coordinator to discuss the scenic byway process further, provide
information, and answer any questions. If you would consider designating a representative for your community
to attend this informational meeting to be scheduled before the end of the year, we will communicate directly
with your designated representative. Please send contact information for your representative to Bryan Gadow at
bgadow cewayzata.ore. If you have questions regarding MnDOT's Scenic Byway program, please contact the
Scenic Byway Program Coordinator or visit their website ( http:// www. dot.state.nin.us /seenicbvways/) at the
following:
Ms. Holly M. Slagle
Scenic Byway Program Coordinator
Office of Environmental Stewardship
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Blvd, Mail Stop 620
St. Paul, MN 55155
651- 366 -3623
HoI1v.Slagle a state.inn.us
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/seenicbyways
I would also be pleased to discuss this further with you in the coming weeks. Feel free to contact me at 952-
922 -5569 or KenwillcoxL&wayzata.org.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ken Willcox
Mayor
Phone: 952 -404 -5300 Fax: 952404-5318 email: city @wayz.am.org home page: www.wayzamnug
10B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Certification of Delinquent Charges
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Michelle Nguyen
Attachments: Certification List
Policy Consideration:
Should the City certify delinquent charges to the County to be collected with the other taxes on the
property?
Background: State statute and city code allow delinquent charges to be certified to the County Auditor.
It is our standard practice to certify delinquent charges to Hennepin County each year. The County will
certify these items to the property taxes and remit payments to us when they are received.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Other collection methods are more expensive and time consuming. There is no guarantee that staff
phone calls or the use of collection agencies will generate the same amount of revenue as certification.
Options: The City Council may choose to:
1.Accept the staff recommendation and adopt the attached resolution.
2.Remove specific accounts from the certification roll and accept the remainder of the accounts
and adopt the amended resolution.
3.Do not adopt the resolution and direct staff to attempt collection through other methods.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Staff will proceed with the certification process to meet Hennepin County and statutory deadlines.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This process contributes to sound financial management through efficient collection of utility bills.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 13-___
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING DELINQUENT CHARGES BE PLACED ON THE
2013 PROPERTY TAX ROLLS
WHEREAS
, Shorewood City Code provides for the City to place delinquent sanitary
sewer charges, water, storm water management utility charges, recycling charges, dry
hydrant charges, and other delinquent charges for city services on the succeeding year property
tax rolls for the specified properties; and,
WHEREAS
, the City Council has scheduled the consideration of the certification of such
charges and has caused notice of such charges to be mailed to the affected property owners; and,
WHEREAS
, the Council has considered such charges at a regular council meeting and
has made a determination that delinquent utility charges exist for the specified properties set
forth below,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
Levy 18698 –Water $8,734.87
Levy 18699 –Sewer $27,992.04
Levy 18700 –Stormwater $7,657.37
Levy 18701 –Recycling $6,312.58
That the Hennepin County Special Assessment Division is hereby authorized to certify the
delinquent charges, on the 2013 property tax rolls, payable in 2014, for the following services:
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood this 12 day of
November, 2013.
_________________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
_________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18698
EXHIBIT AWATER
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
33-117-23-12-008102-180003-00 251.37
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 182.94
31-117-23-14-002603-080005-00 488.13
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 580.69
32-117-23-34-000903-160004-00 725.61
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 1,185.82
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 550.00
32-117-23-43-005403-600215-01 246.42
31-117-23-43-001003-775234-02 307.55
32-117-23-14-001503-930201-00 192.45
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 1,131.72
36-117-23-12-002504-560106-00 729.67
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 419.74
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 114.11
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 393.02
36-117-23-14-005204-889126-00 273.20
25-117-23-43-004404-897103-00 14.38
25-117-23-43-005804-897119-01 93.40
34-117-23-31-001905-005204-01 366.84
34-117-23-31-001505-325001-00 182.53
35-117-23-33-002208-800203-00 305.28
TOTALLEVY NO 18698$ 8,734.87
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18699
EXHIBIT BSEWER
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
33-117-23-12-008102-180003-00 254.87
34-117-23-24-002602-945011-00 64.79
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 314.17
34-117-23-24-003102-945022-05 262.72
31-117-23-14-002603-080005-00 404.92
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 411.26
32-117-23-34-000903-160004-00 470.10
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 411.64
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 423.82
32-117-23-43-005403-600215-01 357.36
31-117-23-43-001003-775234-02 224.95
32-117-23-14-001503-930201-00 281.41
36-117-23-44-002704-130002-00 -
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 357.36
36-117-23-12-002504-560106-00 470.10
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 412.22
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 412.20
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 412.09
36-117-23-14-005204-889126-00 411.37
25-117-23-43-004404-897103-00 52.71
25-117-23-43-005804-897119-01 161.70
34-117-23-31-001905-005204-01 431.71
34-117-23-31-001505-325001-00 391.29
35-117-23-33-002208-800203-00 470.10
33-117-23-12-001410-015202-01 387.67
33-117-23-12-001310-015203-00 357.36
33-117-23-12-001710-015205-00 412.19
28-117-23-33-000710-045207-00 378.89
29-117-23-44-003710-045210-02 357.36
29-117-23-44-003910-045231-00 161.70
34-117-23-44-002310-100001-00 276.55
32-117-23-31-001510-110009-00 254.87
32-117-23-33-003710-110019-00 161.70
33-117-23-42-000110-170004-00 412.23
33-117-23-14-001010-220002-00 388.90
33-117-23-14-004310-220004-01 161.70
32-117-23-21-001410-225207-00 391.29
30-117-23-32-001610-245015-01 161.70
30-117-23-32-001910-245019-00 470.10
30-117-23-33-000310-250006-00 412.16
30-117-23-33-002610-255002-00 413.67
33-117-23-32-003110-260032-00 412.21
25-117-23-34-002510-270213-00 412.21
26-117-23-11-001210-280004-00 409.68
26-117-23-14-004010-290208-00 391.29
34-117-23-43-002310-300017-00 357.36
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-03 161.70
32-117-23-13-002110-330014-01 124.68
32-117-23-13-003810-330023-00 254.87
32-117-23-13-000810-330025-00 412.22
31-117-23-14-000210-365032-00 412.28
26-117-23-14-002410-385204-00 419.92
26-117-23-14-002510-385206-00 154.87
34-117-23-33-002910-425002-00 254.87
34-117-23-33-003710-425003-00 77.00
34-117-23-33-003910-425007-00 412.21
26-117-23-11-002010-435002-01 254.87
26-117-23-11-002110-435004-00 161.70
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-02 210.65
33-117-23-21-003810-470002-98 69.07
25-117-23-33-007110-485230-00 161.70
35-117-23-34-002910-545019-00 481.37
35-117-23-43-000610-545023-00 412.20
26-117-23-11-005010-550204-00 412.20
26-117-23-14-011010-550208-01 391.45
34-117-23-34-002410-607002-01 411.84
36-117-23-31-000710-675011-00 254.87
26-117-23-14-001110-685010-00 412.21
25-117-23-44-004910-705001-00 412.21
30-117-23-24-000410-715004-00 410.71
30-117-23-42-000310-725013-00 413.80
33-117-23-14-003610-745017-01 367.61
33-117-23-24-000610-775244-00 412.21
33-117-23-24-001110-775249-00 357.36
33-117-23-23-003910-775260-00 411.26
32-117-23-14-003110-775273-00 178.35
32-117-23-14-002410-775284-00 63.05
33-117-23-43-000510-863002-01 107.36
33-117-23-43-000610-863004-04 470.10
34-117-23-22-000510-872010-01 161.70
33-117-23-21-004110-905002-02 418.98
33-117-23-22-002010-905010-00 412.21
32-117-23-14-001710-930205-00 412.19
32-117-23-11-000210-930217-00 411.26
32-117-23-13-000410-930226-01 71.35
32-117-23-11-000510-930228-00 161.70
33-117-23-44-003210-940202-00 357.36
33-117-23-34-000610-975233-00 254.87
TOTALLEVY NO 18699$ 27,992.04
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18700
EXHIBIT CSTORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
33-117-23-12-008102-180003-00 55.05
34-117-23-33-004602-423009-00 101.54
34-117-23-33-004402-423012-00 101.54
34-117-23-24-002602-945011-00 65.69
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 37.02
34-117-23-24-003102-945022-05 34.81
31-117-23-14-002603-080005-00 87.47
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 88.83
32-117-23-34-000903-160004-00 71.14
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 115.74
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 93.05
32-117-23-43-005403-600215-01 77.19
31-117-23-43-001003-775234-02 76.31
32-117-23-14-001503-930201-00 77.19
36-117-23-44-002704-130002-00 76.34
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 38.61
36-117-23-12-002504-560106-00 101.54
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 89.06
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 89.06
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 89.03
36-117-23-14-005204-889126-00 90.69
25-117-23-43-004404-897103-00 7.98
25-117-23-43-005804-897119-01 24.47
34-117-23-31-001905-005204-01 65.31
34-117-23-31-001505-325001-00 84.52
35-117-23-33-002208-800203-00 101.54
36-117-23-11-002409-254301-00 64.55
33-117-23-12-001410-015202-01 83.73
33-117-23-12-001310-015203-00 77.19
33-117-23-12-001710-015205-00 89.06
28-117-23-33-000710-045207-00 81.85
29-117-23-44-003710-045210-02 77.19
29-117-23-44-003910-045231-00 34.92
34-117-23-44-002310-100001-00 89.05
32-117-23-31-001510-110009-00 78.10
32-117-23-33-003710-110019-00 45.47
33-117-23-42-000110-170004-00 89.05
35-117-23-33-003910-197001-00 188.17
33-117-23-14-001010-220002-00 106.66
33-117-23-14-004310-220004-01 34.92
32-117-23-21-001410-225207-00 84.52
29-117-23-33-001610-225233-01 55.05
30-117-23-32-001610-245015-01 34.92
30-117-23-32-001910-245019-00 172.66
30-117-23-33-000310-250006-00 89.05
30-117-23-33-002610-255002-00 89.06
33-117-23-32-003110-260032-00 115.90
25-117-23-34-002510-270213-00 115.90
26-117-23-11-001210-280004-00 88.51
26-117-23-14-010710-285013-01 76.55
26-117-23-14-010510-285017-00 57.34
26-117-23-14-010810-285018-00 76.55
26-117-23-14-004010-290208-00 84.52
34-117-23-43-002310-300017-00 100.47
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-03 39.61
32-117-23-12-002710-330009-00 39.88
32-117-23-13-002110-330014-01 101.40
32-117-23-13-003810-330023-00 55.05
32-117-23-13-000810-330025-00 89.08
31-117-23-14-000210-365032-00 89.07
26-117-23-14-002410-385204-00 90.69
26-117-23-14-002510-385206-00 55.05
34-117-23-33-002910-425002-00 55.05
34-117-23-33-003710-425003-00 62.19
34-117-23-33-000910-425006-00 110.02
34-117-23-33-003910-425007-00 89.06
26-117-23-11-002010-435002-01 55.05
26-117-23-11-002110-435004-00 53.48
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-02 27.54
33-117-23-21-003810-470002-98 7.46
25-117-23-33-007110-485230-00 34.92
35-117-23-34-002910-545019-00 103.97
35-117-23-43-000610-545023-00 89.06
26-117-23-11-005010-550204-00 89.06
26-117-23-14-011010-550208-01 84.54
34-117-23-34-002410-607002-01 88.96
36-117-23-31-000710-675011-00 71.66
26-117-23-14-001110-685010-00 89.06
25-117-23-44-004910-705001-00 89.06
30-117-23-24-000410-715004-00 89.03
30-117-23-42-000310-725013-00 89.07
33-117-23-14-003610-745017-01 40.30
33-117-23-24-000610-775244-00 115.90
33-117-23-24-001110-775249-00 77.19
33-117-23-23-003910-775260-00 88.83
32-117-23-14-003110-775273-00 88.09
32-117-23-14-002410-775284-00 24.39
33-117-23-24-002810-790003-01 87.47
33-117-23-43-000510-863002-01 77.19
33-117-23-43-000610-863004-04 101.54
34-117-23-22-000510-872010-01 34.92
33-117-23-21-004110-905002-02 45.37
33-117-23-22-002010-905010-00 89.06
32-117-23-14-001710-930205-00 89.06
32-117-23-11-000210-930217-00 88.83
32-117-23-13-000410-930226-01 20.08
32-117-23-11-000510-930228-00 69.85
33-117-23-44-003210-940202-00 100.47
31-117-23-13-001610-955002-00 87.47
33-117-23-34-000610-975233-00 71.66
TOTALLEVY NO 18700$ 7,657.37
MUNIC CODE 26LEVY NO 18701
EXHIBIT DRECYCLING
PID NO.ACCOUNT NO.TOTAL PRINCIPAL
33-117-23-12-008102-180003-00 50.97
34-117-23-24-002602-945011-00 131.18
34-117-23-24-003302-945014-01 68.33
34-117-23-24-003102-945022-05 64.46
31-117-23-14-002603-080005-00 80.79
32-117-23-44-001503-085013-00 82.00
32-117-23-34-000903-160004-00 94.02
32-117-23-24-002403-507001-00 82.10
32-117-23-43-003703-600210-00 91.71
32-117-23-43-005403-600215-01 71.47
31-117-23-43-001003-775234-02 54.88
32-117-23-14-001503-930201-00 71.47
36-117-23-44-002704-130002-00 72.53
25-117-23-33-008004-270203-03 71.47
36-117-23-12-002504-560106-00 94.02
25-117-23-44-005604-705010-00 82.14
25-117-23-44-002604-710111-00 82.13
25-117-23-44-006304-886005-00 82.13
36-117-23-14-005204-889126-00 83.70
25-117-23-43-004404-897103-00 10.54
25-117-23-43-005804-897119-01 32.34
34-117-23-31-001905-005204-01 86.31
34-117-23-31-001505-325001-00 78.15
35-117-23-33-002208-800203-00 94.02
33-117-23-12-001410-015202-01 77.46
33-117-23-12-001310-015203-00 71.47
33-117-23-12-001710-015205-00 82.13
28-117-23-33-000710-045207-00 75.77
29-117-23-44-003710-045210-02 71.47
29-117-23-44-003910-045231-00 32.34
34-117-23-44-002310-100001-00 82.15
32-117-23-31-001510-110009-00 73.51
32-117-23-33-003710-110019-00 32.34
33-117-23-42-000110-170004-00 82.14
33-117-23-14-001010-220002-00 98.66
33-117-23-14-004310-220004-01 32.34
32-117-23-21-001410-225207-00 78.15
30-117-23-32-001610-245015-01 32.34
30-117-23-32-001910-245019-00 117.67
30-117-23-33-000310-250006-00 82.14
30-117-23-33-002610-255002-00 82.14
33-117-23-32-003110-260032-00 82.14
25-117-23-34-002510-270213-00 82.14
26-117-23-11-001210-280004-00 81.99
26-117-23-14-004010-290208-00 78.15
34-117-23-43-002310-300017-00 71.47
34-117-23-31-002810-325005-03 52.83
32-117-23-13-002110-330014-01 106.39
32-117-23-13-003810-330023-00 65.48
32-117-23-13-000810-330025-00 82.14
31-117-23-14-000210-365032-00 82.14
26-117-23-14-002410-385204-00 83.70
26-117-23-14-002510-385206-00 50.97
34-117-23-33-002910-425002-00 64.94
34-117-23-33-003710-425003-00 82.00
34-117-23-33-003910-425007-00 82.13
26-117-23-11-002010-435002-01 50.97
26-117-23-11-002110-435004-00 54.88
33-117-23-21-003810-470001-02 50.97
33-117-23-21-003810-470002-98 13.79
25-117-23-33-007110-485230-00 32.34
35-117-23-34-002910-545019-00 96.26
35-117-23-43-000610-545023-00 82.13
26-117-23-11-005010-550204-00 82.15
26-117-23-14-011010-550208-01 78.23
34-117-23-34-002410-607002-01 82.11
36-117-23-31-000710-675011-00 50.97
26-117-23-14-001110-685010-00 82.14
25-117-23-44-004910-705001-00 82.14
30-117-23-24-000410-715004-00 82.13
30-117-23-42-000310-725013-00 82.14
33-117-23-14-003610-745017-01 81.55
33-117-23-24-000610-775244-00 82.14
33-117-23-24-001110-775249-00 71.47
33-117-23-23-003910-775260-00 82.00
32-117-23-14-003110-775273-00 81.63
32-117-23-14-002410-775284-00 34.07
33-117-23-43-000510-863002-01 71.47
33-117-23-43-000610-863004-04 94.02
34-117-23-22-000510-872010-01 32.34
33-117-23-21-004110-905002-02 83.70
33-117-23-22-002010-905010-00 82.14
32-117-23-14-001710-930205-00 82.13
32-117-23-11-000210-930217-00 82.00
32-117-23-13-000410-930226-01 14.28
32-117-23-11-000510-930228-00 46.16
33-117-23-44-003210-940202-00 71.47
33-117-23-34-000610-975233-00 50.97
TOTALLEVY NO 18701$ 6,312.58
10C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Special Assessment Policy
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Bill Joynes
Policy Consideration:
Should the City establish a policy for assessment of water connection charges?
Background: State statute allows assessments to be certified the County Auditor for collection over a
number of years on the property tax bill. We do not have a policy regarding assessments, but have been
approached by the owners of 27010 Edgewood Road about assessing this water connection. The
owners petitioned the city for the improvement and have waived their right to contest an assessment.
Staff reviewed the process used in previous projects. In the Wedgewood/Mallard/Teal assessment, the
costs were assessed over a 15 year period at an interest rate of 6.5%. In the St. Alban’s Road
assessment, the project was assessed over a 5 year period at an interest rate of 7%.
In reviewing other cities practice, most have a set time period, generally not exceeding 15 years for
assessments to be repaid. The length sometimes varies on the dollar amount of the individual
assessment. Ie: less than $5,000 - 5 years, less than $10,000 - 10 years and over $10,000 – 15 years.
The interest rate is generally pegged to a benchmark like the corresponding Treasury bill rate plus an
add-on of 1-2%. Currently, the rates for Treasury bills are 1.32% for the five-year and 2.57% for the ten-
year according to Bankrate.com. This would calculate to assessment interest rates of between 2.32% to
4.57%. This seems advantageous to both the property owner and the city.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
If we assess this project, we will essentially be loaning the property owners the amount of the
connection – approximately $15,000. With an added percentage on the interest rate, this would be a
higher return than is generally available from other authorized investments.
Options: The City Council may choose to:
1.Establish a policy that allows staff to proceed with these assessments based on policy
2.Have staff continue to bring each request up individually.
3.Decide not to offer assessment as an option for individual water connections.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that a policy be set at 2% over the current T-Bill rate for a period of up to 10 years.
Next Steps and Timelines:
If approved, staff will proceed with the assessment.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This process contributes to sound financial management through providing improved city services.
Certification for Chanhassen
This is a Shorewood property served by Chanhassen Water Department.
35- 117 -23 -33 -0039 $949.47
Date: November 12, 2013
To: Mayor Zerby
Council Members
From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Re: September, 2013 General Fund. Monthly Budget Report
The 2013 General Fund continues to track about where we would expect. Revenues are a little
ahead and expenditures are a little behind 2012, but not by any amount that would cause concern
at this point in the year.
The City Council may wish to consider amending the budget in Administration and City
Engineer. These changes would reflect the decisions made at the end of last year and at the
retreat to contract for services rather than hire employees in those positions.
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
• Licenses & Permits — We have experienced excellent revenues this year based on the
minor subdivisions that have been approved in the past year.
• Miscellaneous Revenues — This is the category where we budgeted the revenues from
water tower cell phone leases. Most of those are paid early in the year, so we should be
ahead of last year since this is the first year we have budgeted for all the cell tower leases
in the General Fund.
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
• Administration — This budget is over in support services primarily because of the shift to
a contractual service with Midwest Government Advisors for Mr. Jaynes services. This
leads to a corresponding decrease in Personnel which is under budget.
• Snow and Ice — This budget exceeds the prior year because the snow season was
significantly more active and longer than what we have recently experienced.
• Recreation Programs -- This budget is higher than last year primarily because of salary
expense. We actually had an ice skating season that required rink attendants while no
rink attendants were hired in 2012 because of the warm weather and poor ice conditions.
Ms. Grout is also coding more of her hours to this activity than was anticipated at budget
time.
Please contact me or Mr. Jaynes if you have any questions.
Attachment: September Budget Spreadsheet
Monthly Budget Report
September 30, 2013
EXPENDITURES
YTD
YTD
2013
% of 2013
Expected
Variance
9,615
2012
Sept
Adopted
Annual
% of 2013
(Negative)
Year to Date Overview
Actual
2013
Budget
Budget
Budget
or Positive
REVENUE
374
2,000
18.7%
Support and Services
50,237
57,215
Property Taxes
2,430,212
2,427,909
4,763,319
51.0%
50.3%
Licenses and Permits
127,791
148,453
124,200
119.5%
95.7%
Intergovernmental
73,481
70,726
70,401
100.5%
100.0%
Charges for Service
52,074
25,303
35,150
72.0%
88.0%
Fines and Forfeitures
45,968
38,055
57,000
66.8%
67.0%
Miscellaneous
57,800
179,991
213,900
84.1%
52.0%
TOTAL
2,787,326
2,890,437
5,263,970
54.9%
50.6%
124,877
EXPENDITURES
311,768
180,329
359,671
50.1%
Department
14,282
9,615
18,450
52.1%
Council
43,093
84,537
42,175
200.4%
Personnel
12,595
12,595
16,800
75.0%
Materials and Supplies
233
374
2,000
18.7%
Support and Services
50,237
57,215
72,450
79.0%
Transfers
47,700
Total
63,065
70,184
138,950
50.5% 69.7% 26,664
Administration
Personnel
311,768
180,329
359,671
50.1%
Materials and Supplies
14,282
9,615
18,450
52.1%
Support and Services
43,093
84,537
42,175
200.4%
Capital Outlay
370
-
Total
369,513
274,481
420,296
65.3% 71.3% 25,190
Finance
Personnel
128,168 100,873 132,929 75.9%
Materials and Supplies 7,932 8,188 8,400 97.5%
Support and Services 9,033 11,002 11,600 94.8%
Capital Outlay - 322 -
Total 145,133 120,385 152,929 78.7% 70.7% (12,264)'
Professional Services 168,520 184,611 203,390 90.8% 86.0 %' (9,696);
Planning and Zoning
Personnel 141,891 131,032 170,666 76.8%
Materials and Supplies - 292 650 44.9%
Support and Services 3,205 4,190 7,400 56.6%
Capital Outlay - - 200 0.0%
Total 145,096 135,514 178,916 75.7% 69.0% (12,062)';
Municipal Building - City Hall
Materials and Supplies 29,284 47,197 22,130 213.3%
Support and Services 144,162 140,924 164,800 85.5%
Capital Outlay 2,441 - -
Transfers - - 100,450 0.0%
Total 175,887 188,121 287,380 65.5% 2 7.3 %i (109,666);
Police
Materials and Supplies - -
Support Services 742,521 763,437 1,015,077 75.2%
Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 168,849 170,823 235,437 72.6%
Total 911,370 934,260 1,250,514 74.7% 75.06/6 3,626
Fire
Support Services 248,990 259,296 349,582 74.2%
Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 208,429 215,741 287,643 75.0%
Total 457,419 475,037 637,225 74.5% 75.0% 2,882
Inspections
Personnel 93,476 89,760 120,588 74.4%
Materials and Supplies - - 200 0.0%
Support and Services 3,235 3,885 5,300 73.3%
Total 96,711 93,645 126,088 74.3% 71.3 %: (3,744)''
City Engineer
Personnel
64,126
460 92,549
0.5%
Materials and Supplies
144
- 200
0.0%
Support and Services
12,076
51,462 11,220
458.7%
Capital Outlay
-
- -
Transfers
Total
76,346
51,922 103,969
49.9% 65.3% 15,970
Public Works Service
Personnel
321,968
321,616
428,775
75.0%
Materials and Supplies
98,908
115,840
171,300
67.6%
Support and Services
92,950
75,062
139,750
53.7%
Transfers
-
-
772,500
56.7% 46.3%, (16,522);
Total
513,826
512,518
1,512,325
33.9% 48.2% 216,423
Snow and Ice
Personnel
18,499
36,223
56,662
63.9%
Materials and Supplies
10,247
21,369
45,000
47.5%
Total
28,746
57,592
101,662
56.7% 46.3%, (16,522);
Parks Maintenance
Personnel
85,976
59,293
103,358
57.4%
Materials and Supplies
15,725
14,459
19,300
74.9%
Support and Services
23,643
26,688
30,910
86.3%
Transfers
-
-
-
Total
125,344
100,440
153,568
65.4% 69.7% 6,597
Recreation Programs
Personnel
30,734
41,532
36,360
114.2%
Materials and Supplies
1,171
4,818
1,500
321.2%
Support and Services
14,205
11,420
20,145
56.7%
Transfers
-
-
42,000
0.0%
Total
46,110
57,770
100,005
57.8% 69.7% 11,933
Unallocated - - 0.0%
Total Expenditures 3,323,086 3,256,480 5,367,217 60.7% 58.8% (100,556)
Net Revenue less Expenditures (535,760) (366,043) (103,247)
Note: The balanced budget includes the use of $103,247 of fund balance in Transfers in the Revenue section.
i►A 10405 M y_orrl�j►
Date: November 12, 2013
To: Mayor Zerby
Council Members
From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Re: September, 2013 Quarterly Investment Report
The City's cash reserves have been invested in both cash flow type of investments to meet
ongoing expenditure needs and longer -term securities with higher returns than money market
funds. It is important to remember our investment priorities in order of concern:
1. Safety — preserving principal;
2. Liquidity — having funds available when needed to pay expenses;
3. Yield — earning market returns for the amount of risk we are willing to accept.
With the investments that the City currently in the portfolio, and with our philosophy of holding
investments to maturity, we are exposed to minimal risk of principal loss. The only expected
change is when investments are marked to market and gains or losses are recognized at year end.
In general, the city has only had three months where cash flow is positive — June, July, and
December. Those months are when we receive tax settlements which are just prior to scheduled
bond payments. The rest of the months need about $500,000 on average to cover operating
costs. This means that the City should have a mix of callable and non - callable investments with
both short-term cash flow needs being met and longer maturities targeting major cash needs over
the five year maximum investment horizon.
We are still occasionally finding investments in the four year and under time frame that return
over 1.0 %. I have purchased several high coupon bonds at a premium that are returning over 2%
to maturity. These bonds will have the premium amortized over the next several years. I have
purchased Certificates of Deposit to specific months for cash flow needs.
We have held a significant amount of cash and money market while we keep looking for
investments with a reasonable yield. With wire transfer fees, the cost to move money may be
higher than the interest we can earn in the short term. The most significant risk in this
environment is getting stuck with investments at a very low rate when interest rates start to
increase. Staff will invest these funds to increase the portfolio returns, while maintain flexibility
to cover expenditures.
We have reduced our cash position through the fall as we pay down contracts on significant
projects in both street reconstruction and trails.
Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions.
Attachment: September, 2013 Investment Summary
N
O
m M
rno o r o
r o 000000 noo 000lDOmocoo
Ln Lf)
CO O Ln O Ln O O O Ct N O O O O M Ln t0 Ln I, O
CD lO
tifl Ln Ln CD N
O O r 4 N O O Ln m CD Lf) O O Ln ri N O N W Lf)
Ct t
Ln N N N M
Ln m m O M O M m N m O Co N m tD Ct tiD Ct t,
N
Ct O O n N
N m M n c-i ri (11 ri Ct ri N O n Ct r, ri n Ct LD
E-.
Lt} Ln M Ct
rl M N 00 lD Ch N r- & Lr N O) O Ct V1 N ri LD
C
O O
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 M O CY O O O O O O
O O
O v) O N m N o0 M O Ln O M N W m M Ct l0 O O Ln � M O
'6 N
O O
Ln n O l6 N W rl N O Ol r4 4 Ol N Ct Ln O N ri W Ln
(1)
0
O
v
c-I O 1.0 O a> lD n O 0) N 00 00 00 Ln O `-' O to ri Lo
_
Cr ri rH M O rH 0) 0) H m lD lD 0) �T 00 Ln N Ln
v
m
00 N N ri n 00 O 1p O CY rl LD 00 'c}' rl N rl Lf)
C m
D CD
M m
O O O m O m O O O O m 0 Ct O O 0 0 cc
t\ n
O O O O) 00 lD O O m It w O l0 Ln O m O 00 O
N m
M M
Ln O O M Ln n tD O CY O h O N O1 O N N M CY
r♦
m o
Ct d'
W Ct w to w LD N N N C) Ct O N O to O) 00 Lo 00
m lD lD Ln W O Ln N 00 O tD n O) lD rl tO 00
rl ci
H r�
ri rH
ri lO lD n CY rl N m n m ri O 00 00 N Ct 00 LD tO
-fie O
N N
O h O m O 00 m r, H r- d' H r, N M Lf) Ln O) 1-1
00
O O
Ln Ct O c-I M H M N M 00 M l0 N Ln Ln N N N M
m Q)
r rl
rl
M M
O O
O O O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O
0)
n
O O
O L) O 1\ O M O Ln O N r1 O n N O) O O O Ln Cf O
rn
�"i
m m
C) C)
O N O I" M O) Ln P O Ln 0) t0 O O Ct Ln o O O Lf) O)
O
Ct Ct
ri ri
h M N Ln n 0) Ln rI n n lD r1 d' U) d' O) N Ct ri
L' o Ln N Ln lfl (:: lll C Ct Ct M lc N Ln 00 N Ct M
N\
H H
M Ct CT t0 N M H to n 0) dl O) ri O 00 N lD Ln rl
O
N N
m N O O) O) I" Ct lD O N N O h N ri Ln Ln O) ri
i\
O)
O O
Ct Ct O �--� N rl M N M 00 M lD N Lf) Ln N N N M
Ct CY
0) to cf' lD Ct 0 0 Ln d'
O Ln O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
m m
N Ln O) Ln O) O O N Ln
O O) O O N Ln Ct Ln o ri Ln O O O
01 cN-i
t� t\
Ct Ct ri It H io to m W
N M t0 O M Ct O O) O N N N Ln Ct
C C:)
w t0
N m iD Ln LD r n Ct m
00 Ln N N 1\ n O O Ln ri O) 00 i, 00
N N
i, m r, m r, H H to m
O) LD O Ln W N W r C) M to r o 00
>
(7) O)
Ln r- Ct r- Ct I- r- M N
ri N N M (- i\ (Y W N O) Ct 00 o CD
.F,
00 00
r1 O) Ln 0) Ln m O Ln CO
O O) Ln fl, N ri t" N M M Ln Ln Lt) c-i
Y
OQ 00
N o
Ln ri M N N m 00 Ln Ln Ln N N N M
�
rt ri
ri N
£2
N N M M N N N
M M O dti It Ln Ol O) Q) V7 N rl O CD l0 O rH N Ln Ct
m W S 00
�
U
= F- F- F-
Ln Ln Q Q
H ri > U Q Ln Ln O Q 0_ 0 U N
N N W rl 00
O O O
to lD L9
M N Ln C) I� Ln Ln F, M M N rl rl
00 H 00
O) 00
lO lD `i �
O O 00 00 -1 H
M Ct Ln lD W `� `� Ln M O lfl
M ICY
.r -I -i-i � n M M M
c-1 ri O) O) 00 M Ct Ln Ln 0 r, ^ Ln 0 LLn M
M M d' Ct LD LD 00
ri .-I
LD -I N Ct N ^ 00 W M a)
(1)
M m m M M M M
rl n 00 Ct 00 Ln n Ln M LD Il M n Ct t0 M Ct LD M Ln Ct
@
rl ri rl ri ri ri ri
ri H ci r1 H H ri rl H ri rI rl r1 r1 rl rH rH ri ri ri H
0
O O O O O o 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
+T+
N N N N N N N
r`i rH -i rH Ln if Lr
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O t,0 O c�-I M M H H N H H M O H H Ln H H e\i e\-I H
L_
N N N M1 \ \\
o lO to
\ \\ N\ N Ct CY t.0 M d\' H\ N N\ 0000 N 0) N O
N 0) Ct 00 00 r 11 O) r ri ri
m
rl
O O Ln O O N oo lD Ln 0) M o Ln Ct O) to r1 00 ri O L!)
C
Ln l0 O lO n Ct 00 01 W O rl Ln N N W m O) M r1 M 'c1'
Q
O 00 Q N ri Ln Lf) d' Ct M Lf) Ct H M Ln M rH H CY H ri CY
C
m
U
0 0 0 0 Ln Ln Ln
'L
Ln M M Ln N N N
r1 rl ri ri ri r1 ri
O
�
N
Y M
E
�°'
o �' °—' m o o
Q
C L X 1] X Q cu C X U
@
3
N
? @ O
yr
U
Y• L CO Q -r- Ln S
W % m O U Cl) V) 0
T U U U
OA
Q m
E
cu
X m C Q
F-
S 0 0 S S S
m ?= g 0
Z m S U CM L
O
co Y Y
C C C
c'QO O�
X C N
.c m C
C E m
O
m = Z Z U F- 0 C
W •s_ C O U N 07 QC} F-
m W
(L
Z 75 c
-a
>•
V} } Y Y i2 f2 Q
O 4- t cL 0 m G C
W N C i C (n N
O
O
W C C m m m
>. Z E E m m
O
O
E D
C Q O � m O o '� } L °-A w w N N U
fl t C C 3 •Q) N Ln
3
w
0
0 0
U U U
N d O F F w w w
c� v v
N
m
U
N m 0) —
>a Z U> m o Y o o c C C N o + + m
N W W O U i3 w S S =_= z z r a n n F
U v C) 0 C?
y
N M
Ln
O
tto
Q
O rl
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
>_ U U U U U U U
Cl
O
2
N
U
Ct
N
O
Lr) �D0
mot
m -i ro0r, 000 C:) C) 000 r,
1-1
r, 1n O
M
00 1-1 N cl In r` O 1-0 r-i O N V) d'
iT
M O
W
to ri 00 r` lf) 00 M to ct N M
N
M CO Ll)
00
l0
w U)
r` N N U'1 N r` M N ri lD O
In Ln at -I CO W 00 d' lD C7
O � d' r` r`
r`
(3 C)
N 61 lD O O O) Lf) ct W M ct 1.n GO
00
00
H r, M
m
M c--i c-I c-1 c-I c-I c-1 06
M
(.0 ci
�m
M O r- O CO lD O N 00 r-I 00 r{
0
tf)
O O 00 lD
M
ct
o 0 o m m io rn r, iD m Ln
ri
Z3 in
c-I c-I c-I
O n N O Ch Cl ri N r` r` 1-I
01
0 0 0
W M M C-i l�0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N O
m N N N
N l0 W �F
O
- J
\
N N \
N r r-i r^ W ri h 111 rH ci r-I M c-I c-i N
\ \ \ \ \ O O \ \ � 0 \ \ d' N
N
C
to
ri (N Il) Ln O) 1-1 H m Ln ri ri
L
� l6
�
ri ri
O
r1 O l0 O 'ct V) O �t rl M O
O
l0
r` O O) O d , lD O N m m 0
r`
N m
O
Lr)
IH r, l0 O tT rl O r, 00 lf) O
M
co O
00
a>
l0 N ri O 00 1.f) O lD fV 0 0
O d' 0) O Lr) 00 O M r` r" O
Lr)
to
\
M
N I.n O) Lr' O CO ill 00 1.6 l0 O
V)
O
O
N O M It d' to d' d' N N O
to
00 m
01
m N (N N N N N 61 N i.n
tf)
m m
r
M
E
Ln
r-I O O d' lD 00 Il) 00 00 I.n O O
V)
N
ri
r` O O O M O 0 0 Ol r` O Ln
Ln
r'')
H
O O Oi O O o0 00 m O o0 00
4
co
rl
ID "" O m m m N O N V' O O
LD
> C)
(T
O O C) O Ln lD 3 M (D 00 1n
I.n
*' \
O
00
d'
N Ln 0) 1l) O to 00 l0 r 4 d'
N O m' t V' to �t �t 0) (N 0)
M
N
m
r`
ri M N N N N N N 00 N 'ct
Ln
C
7
O Y D
O c~
.c co c0 O O c
CO W m .Y Y Q m Y v n
C3 z
G
CrJ .1 i-+ c r tD O C N O
O O O
Ln
00 0 0 0 ri O O l0 a' Ln
ct
LO O O
r�
0 0 0 0 cr O O Q) T lD
1n
Q) N r, 1.f) O
D O r, (3) It
O
in
Ln 00 N 00 M 00 r� lD O1 r`
O d' 00 lD m O N H 00 Ln
Ln
M
O d'
00
00 CY (3) r, O lf) d* O; Ln 00
M
] In O O'
l0
M O m O r` ri V) O) O lO
tD
r-! 00 N O
N
6) O M O M O O M V' to
N
Y ci to O
ri
Ln fit' N c-i N cq m N N N
r`
m
U +T
a)
rn
ca
a
a to lD
'C, N Q :
r� m Ln O N M -i W m O O N r` O r,
X 0 N CL u u- CC m to m r, m M N
J
=7 Q N
U C� l0 E-
X Ln Q CL m Y --� --� m CL M W(
O N O m 1L O �-- m> --I d' O to X
N Or d
m �
I- N 1L
In Ln at -I CO W 00 d' lD C7
rq
N 1)
o m
Q) rl 00 N O M O N v) to Ol N M
O LO
(.0 ci
�m
M O r- O CO lD O N 00 r-I 00 r{
0
M
Y M M r`
M M M M M M m ct �T Ln tD to r"
c-I c-I c-I
ri 1-1 ri r1 1-1 1-1 1-1 r1 ci ri rd ri ri r-i r-1
0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N \
N r r-i r^ W ri h 111 rH ci r-I M c-I c-i N
\ \ \ \ \ O O \ \ � 0 \ \ d' N
ate+ ri c-i
ri (N Il) Ln O) 1-1 H m Ln ri ri
f6
ri ri
to to Ln
O O O to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O O to
C (3� d' r`
I.n I.n to d' O O 'cr M r` O M ri to O CD
Qr-i r-i O
N N N O N -i O O O c H O i-i ct m O
O
O
U
A
�
m
U
E
E
3
V)
d b0
w
LU
6
Q
Gl
N
z z Y
c C7
w
0 CO
x U c~
w
aA C m
U w
Y
O
N y N
x :� N ..Y O A
co Y
C
7
O Y D
O c~
.c co c0 O O c
CO W m .Y Y Q m Y v n
C3 z
G
CrJ .1 i-+ c r tD O C N O
O
m
U Q
<
O z
O
O m c 0) -� O N E
NO
(n
O0 E 'n a 'N c0 '_^ @ O z
U �
N in m i
C7 00 Y v) Q� Q m Z O in u cn L.
O
®
pq
C
M
i-
tL
O \
N
m
U +T
a)
rn
ca
a