The URL can be used to link to this page

08-11-14 Reg Council Mtg agendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2014 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Zerby Hotvet Siakel Sundberg Woodruff B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes, July 28, 2014 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 28, 2014 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 B. Adopt the Codification of the Ordinances Approved in 2013 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report on Senior Community Services by Deb Taylor, CEO B. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2015 Budget Presentation by Police Chief Bryan Litsey 7. PARKS Attachments Minutes Minutes Claims List Clerk's memo, Ord., Resolution Administrator's memo, Police Chief Litsey's memo CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — AUGUST 11, 2014 Page 2 of 2 8. PLANNING A. Report on August 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeting B. Update on Zoning Text Amendment for Lower Density for Senior Housing C. Report on Safe Routes to Schools process 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Bids and Consider Award of Construction Contract for Sunnyvale Lane Roadway Improvement Project B. Waterford Place Request for Speed Limit Reduction 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trails Schedule 2. June Monthly Budget Report 3. Valleywood Lane Update B. Mayor and City Council 13. ADJOURN Attachments Planning Director's memo Steps to Creating a Safe Route to School Plan Engineer's memo, Resolution Director of Public Works' memo, Resolution Trails Schedule Finance Director's memo CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 . 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952 - 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mnmtiis • cityhallgci.shorewood.mn.tiis Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, August 11, 2014 7:00 p.m. A 6:00 PM Work Session is scheduled this evening. Agenda Item 93A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item 9313: This item is approval of the ninth supplement (S -9) to the City Code Book, which includes all Ordinances passed in 2013 and early 2014 (No's. 500 -510). American Legal Publishing has provided the replacement pages to the City Code Book for this supplement. Council action includes Adoption of an Ordinance to enact and adopt the Supplement to the Shorewood City Code Book, and Adoption of a Resolution approving a summary publication of said Ordinance. Agenda Item 94: Matters from the Floor—members of the public have an opportunity to address the Council on an issue not on the agenda; no Council action will be taken. Agenda Item 95: There are no public hearings scheduled for this evening. Agenda Item 96A: A presentation on Senior Community Services (SCS) will be provided by Deb Taylor, CEO of SCS. Agenda Item 9613: Police Chief Bryan Litsey will provide a presentation on the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2015 Budget. Agenda Item 97: There are no Park items this evening. Agenda Item 98A: Planning Commissioner Jennifer Labadie is scheduled to report on the August 5 Planning Commission meeting. Agenda Item 9813: Staff has forwarded examples of senior housing projects on properties approximately the same size as Smithtown Crossing. We also researched and continue to research what some other smaller communities allow for senior housing density. Agenda Item 98C: The process for the Safe Routes to Schools Program is attached for your consideration. Agenda Item 99A: A resolution accepting bids and awarding the construction contract for the Sunnyvale Lane Roadway Improvement Project is provided for Council's consideration. Agenda Item 9913: Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to lowering the speed limit to 25 mph on Waterford Place. Executive Summary — City Council Meeting of August 11, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 910: There are no items of general/new business this evening. Agenda Item 911: There are no items of old business this evening. Agenda Item 912.A.: The Trail Schedule is attached for Council information; the June Monthly Budget Report is attached; and an update on Valleywood Lane will be provided at the meeting. Agenda Items 91213: Mayor and City Council Members may report on recent activities. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JULY 28, 2014 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff, Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown, and, City Engineer Hornby Absent: City Administrator Joynes, City Clerk Panchysbyn B. Review Agenda Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. 2015 — 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, Director DeJong noted the Mayor and several members of Council suggested starting discussions about the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) earlier than they have started the past few years. He stated the CIP is a planning document. It goes out 10 years with the focus being on the first five years. That information is included in the City's Financial Management Plan. The discussion during this meeting will focus on changes staff has identified for 2015'— 2019 when compared to the 2014 — 2018 adopted CIP. There will also be discussion about some unresolved issues that are not included in the CIP and that staff needs direction on. That direction will impact the CIP and the 2015 tax levy. DeJong explained there are two changes to the Equipment Replacement CIP for 2015. There is the addition of a Trail Plow for an estimated cost of $160,000 as recommended by Director Brown. The plow will come with mowing attachments. The lead time for the plow is nine months out. That purchase eliminates the need for the replacement of the Ford tractor /mower which was scheduled for 2015 for an estimated cost of $84,000. That results in an approximate increase to this CIP of $76,000 not including the trade in value for the tractor. Director Brown explained many communities are going to the type of plow he has recommended. The City of Edina has five of them. The City of Hopkins has some also. The machine is four feet wide. Plowing roadways is the City's priority during the snow season. The snow is plowed on to the boulevards first. Then the trails get plowed. That can take 2.5 — 3 days and some residents complain about that. The machine proposed can move at a reasonable speed very efficiently. He has resisted recommending that the City purchase a single - purpose machine for many years. He went to look at the plow after he found out a boom attachment can be purchased for the machine. Currently staff rides on an open machine (there is no cab). One operator has been hit by debris. The operator has to drive the mower into the ditches and sometimes the mower gets stuck. The proposed machine can stay on the roadway and the operator can ride CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 2 of 8 enclosed. Staff thought plowing the Smithtown Road west sidewalk with the wing -plow would work okay. Unfortunately, it caused some damage to the curbs and the surface. Mayor Zerby asked staff to comment on the nine month lead time from order to receipt. Director Brown stated that is what he has been told. He then stated he spoke with a vendor who intends to order six of them and he offered to reserve one for Shorewood. The vendor thought he would not have any problem selling it if Council does not approve that purchase. Councilmember Hotvet asked if the trail plow can be used on all types of trail,/ sidewalk surfaces. Director Brown stated it will work on concrete, asphalt or gravel surfaces. Mayor Zerby asked if it will work on the LRT. Brown responded yes. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the purchase was made in 2015 would the City be able to take advantage of the sales tax exemption. Director DeJong clarified the City is already eligible for that exemption. Councilmember Siakel stated if Council is committed to responding to people wanting trails then staff has to have the tools and equipment to do the job. The trail- plow seems to be a reasonable purchase. Councilmember Sundberg concurred and stated she thought it would be a prudent use of funds. Councilmember Hotvet stated the purchase is less expensive than rewiring a damaged trail each year. Director DeJong explained there are two changes 1 62"d Street to Cathcart Park have been added in bring the Street Reconstruction Fund into a deft financial resources. Eureka Road North was also number of years it had been planned as a Minne have been mostly paid for with MSA funding. standards it has to be paid for out of the Street l Strawberry Lane / West 62" Stormwater Management CII trail along Strawberry Lane / ber Woodru 014 or 2015 his next also been 4e Street Reconstruction CIP. Strawberry Lane / West wig for an estimated cost of $1,365,000. That would state in 2019 if something is not done for additional ded in 2019 for an estimated cost of $260,000. For a a State Aid (MSA) road and the improvement would cruse the roadway will not be reconstructed to State construction Fund which is funded through tax levies. lded in 2019 to the Trail Construction Fund and to the ;ost of $345,000. It would cost around $800,000 for a ,re to be constructed as a standalone project. to be done with Enchanted Lane. There is no funding in the ong stated he has that highlighted as an unresolved issue on Woodruff explained that during 2010 Council had extensively discussed the possible reconstruction of Star Circle and Star Lane. The reconstruction had been scheduled for 2011. The property owners along those two roadways were extremely vocal about not wanting that done. They thought it was not necessary and a waste of money. That project was terminated. Those roadways are in the 2015 Street Reconstruction CIP for an estimated cost of $453,000. He suggested doing something less than reconstruction for those roadways and save maybe one -half of the cost. There is also a line item in the Water CIP and in the Stormwater Management CIP for those two roadways. Some of that may not be necessary. Woodruff then explained that during 2007 Council had extensively discussed the possible reconstruction of Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road. The reconstruction had been scheduled for 2008. The property owners along those roadways were extremely vocal about not wanting that done. The property owners along Glen Road were adamant about not granting the City any easements. That entire project was terminated. A mill and overlay of some of the roadways was done. Amlee Road and Manitou Lane are back in the 2016 Street Reconstruction CIP for a combined amount of approximately $650,000. He thought CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 3 of 8 there were less than 16 houses along those two roadways. There is no thru traffic on those roadways. He does not think that is a worthwhile expenditure. He thinks something much less expensive could be done while still meeting the needs of those residents. There is also a line item in the Stormwater Management CIP for those two roadways and some of that may not be necessary. Woodruff stated the money saved by cutting back on the projects he just mentioned could be used to help fund Strawberry Lane / West 62"d Street improvements. Mayor Zerby asked how Amlee Road fits into the 20 -year Pavement Director Brown explained that when the underlying soils become sa is not as cost effective to do a mill and overlay when that is the ca in five years that surface will look the same as it did before the w very similar. The decision flow chart used to help in deciding wh reconstructed takes the condition of the underlying soils into cons, reconstruction necessary from an engineering perspective. Counc- overlay done. But that may not be the best investment dollar for c few years out of it. Plan (PMP). rated the soils start to move around. It A nice surface will be put down and was done. Pavement reclamation is ier a roadway should be reclaimed or ;ration. Soils that move around make could decide just to have a mill and lar for asphalt. The City would get a Engineer Hornby explained that during the first few months of spring and summer he had contact with quite a few residents from the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road area. He thought there is a desire to have drainage improvements. There are some lots that are landlocked: The stormwater has nowhere to go. When it overflows it ends up in houses. He noted a handful of residents were very willing to donate easements and work with the City on a solution. Councilmember Siakel stated Strawberry Lane needs; significant improvements. It should be done right. It would be nice if that could be done sooner than 2019, including the sidewalk. She suggested revisiting the 20 -Year PMP to see if the priorities could be adjusted in order to fit Strawberry Lane in sooner. She noted the City just redid two roadways without extending watermain because residents did not want to be assessed for that extension. She asked if the reconstruction of those two roadways could have been pushed out. Or, did they get reconstructed because of their placement in the PMP. Director Brown clarified the 20 -Year, PMP is based on a philosophy set by Council. He explained the roadways were rated based on the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) System. He rerated the City roadways, with the exception of those on the Islands, last fall. The philosophy was to maintain roads to a rating ,of four or better. The ratings help set the priorities in the PMP. That is why those two roadways were reconstructed. Councilmember Siakel; clarified she was not criticizing previous decisions that were made. She asked if there is a less expensive option that would meet the true needs of the neighborhood. She noted that she does not claim to be a roadway improvement expert. She asked if there would be value in reassessing the PMP. She stated she views Strawberry Lane, Summit Avenue and Enchanted Lane as the priorities. Councilmember Sundberg stated if a neighborhood is adamantly opposed to a roadway improvement she asked if that is taken into account when making a decision about what to do. Director Brown stated the 20- Year PMP is based on technical analysis. Staff leaves the politics to Council. Sundberg stated if a roadway improvement is put off because of residents' opposition she asked what the ramifications are to the City. Brown explained the City ends up spending additional funds to patch. He noted the City has a responsibility to make sure there is safe travel. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Director Brown stated that 50 percent of the people want a roadway reconstructed and 50 percent don't. Council and staff get caught in the middle when there is a roadway that continually has band aid repairs made to it. Residents eventually start to complain that the City only makes band aid repairs to their roadway. When the City decides to again reconstruct it the other portion of the residents show up to oppose that. That is what happened with Star Lane and Star Circle. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council makes the political decision after considering technical input from the engineers and resident input. He noted that in some cases there is no right answer. He then stated that Strawberry Lane is a 2019 funding issue. He suggested putting that funding issue off. He then suggested having serious discussion about what to do with Star Lane /Star Circle and Amlee Road /Manitou Lane. He clarified he is not proposing any CIP budget changes at this time with the exception of funding for Enchanted Lane. He stated there is a lot of money in the Street Improvement Fund and that will not be exhausted in the next 18 months. Therefore, there is enough existing money knowing that the money needs to be replaced. Councilmember Siakel asked if the real issue for Star Lane /Star projects was the watermain extension that was proposed as part of some of the opposition had to do with the proposed 'design of the roadway, curbing, cul de sacs and so forth. Councilmember Woodruff stated from his perspectiv opposed spending their tax dollars to reconstruct the on the number of cars that travelled the roadways.' condition. He suggested making another run at it. He of stormwater management issues in the Amlee Roa time those roadways were considered those issw reconstructed. The residents ''along Glen Road were stormwater issues could not be addressed without re( He does not recollect 1 Mayor Zerby stated to make more expen,, to ultimatch, save all asked discussion. ig'Amlee Road has decayed to icil needs to de to Circle and Enchanted Lane with ects. Mayor Ze For example, anitou Lane larified that width of the for Star Lane and Star Circle a number of residents oadways. They did not think it was necessary based wome of them did not think it was in that bad of a hen stated it is his understanding there are a number and Glen Road area. Based on discussions the last could only be addressed if the roadways were p in arms about reconstruction. They were told the nstructing the roadway. The residents accepted that. nd Manitou Lane being as vocal. certain level it will more quickly become necessary le if reconstruction or reclamation needs to be done that roadway improvements are funded out of the General to rerate the roadways being talked about and bring that to Council for Councilmember Woodruff suggested discussing Star Lane and Star Circle in a work session. He noted that watermain extension has not been taken off of the table. Mayor Zerby stated that multiple times he has stated that anytime watermain extension is going to be considered that discussion should begin two years in advance of construction starting. He noted that a work session discussion about this is most appropriate. Zerby asked to move on to something else. Director DeJong highlighted what staff thinks are a number of unresolved issues. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 5 of 8 ➢ Park Improvement CIP — The Park Improvement CIP reflects $523,000 for improvements to Badger Park with $118,000 of it being in 2014. The engineer's estimate is over $1 million regardless of which concept is chosen. He thought it is unlikely the $118,000 budgeted for 2014 will be spent because a decision has not been made about what improvements should be made. ➢ Equipment Replacement CIP — The purchase of a snow plow in 2015 has been added for an estimated cost of $160,000. That will be partially offset by the elimination of a tractor /mower replacement for $84,000. ➢ Street Reconstruction CIP — Shady Island Road and Enchanted Island are only scheduled for seal coat in 2017. They are scheduled for a mill and overlay in 2023 and 2024 respectively. Strawberry Lane / West 62"d Street improvements are now projected to be a reconstruction instead of a mill and overlay. Eureka Road North improvements will not be to MSA standards and therefore will be fully paid for by the City. The only upcoming MSA projects are trails. The trail along Strawberry Lane will not be eligible because that roadway is not MSA eligible. Nor is West 62"d Street MSA eligible. ➢ Trail CIP — The Strawberry Lane trail has been added to'the Trail CIP in 2419 because the cost to build the trail when Strawberry Lane is reconstructed reduces the trail cost significantly. ➢ Stormwater Improvement CIP — Stormwater improvements in the Strawberry Lane / West 62"d Street areas are included in 2019 CIP although undecided. Eureka Road North area improvements are undecided and not in the CIP. There is nothing included in the CIP for improvements to address the stormwater management issues in the Shorewood Oaks development, Freeman Park and adjacent areas to the northwest that have recently been discussed. Mayor Zerby stated there have been a couple of years. He asked how much in park dedication fe received $55,000 in 2013 and the budget projectii on lots that do not currently have a house on them. Councilmember Woodru DeJong clarified they go into that Fund from the C Woodruff Improvement Fund was al transferred into the Fund fro Therefore, there is almost $5 of $325,414 includes the app Director DeJong expla Fund includes the $ I I Fund is approximately he thought the lent Fund and 2014-2019. projects over the last couple of Director DeJong stated the City That anticipates six new houses n fees go into the General Fund. Director noted there is a $42,000 transfer into that g's „staff memorandum stated the 2013 year -end balance in the Park ately, $213,000. At the beginning of 2014 about $280,000 was roceeds,of the sale of the City -owned property right behind City Hall. in the Fund. Director DeJong clarified that the 2014 transfer in budget e $287,000 from the proceeds plus the $42,000. the $133,000 for park capital improvements in the 2014 Park Improvement r Badger Park Improvements. The projected 2014 year -end balance in the 0 and an additional $42,000 will be transferred in at the beginning of 2015. Councilmember Siakel stated the City ought to be able to get some Badger Park improvements done with that amount of money if they are broken apart. Mayor Zerby noted that the Park Improvement CIP has $70,000 for field improvements, $175,000 for parking and road improvements, and $157,000 for Park Amenities. Siakel asked if a decision has been made about the orientation of the field in Badger Park. Director Nielsen stated the Park Commission still prefers the north/south orientation. Nielsen noted the engineers have been directed to create a Concept 1.5 plan and that the Commission will discuss that concept during its August 19 meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Councilmember Hotvet stated that she served as the Council Liaison at the Park Commission meetings January — June 2014. It is her understanding that the Commission would like to get improvements to the field started soon. She asked when a decision about orientation has to be made. She thought field improvements are a top priority for spending some of that money. Councilmember Sundberg expressed concern about doing much to Badger Park before the direction for the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) is known. Planning for the Park and the SSCC should be done simultaneously to ensure there is a harmonious fit. She noted she might needlessly be worrying about that. Councilmember Hotvet expressed concern about continually moving improvements to the field off. She stated establishing turf is a multi -stage process. Councilmember Siakel stated based on discussion it seems that if there is going to he a field in Badger Park it will basically be in the same location. It just needs to be reconstructed. She noted'she can support moving forward with that reconstruction. She stated that before any other major improvements are made there needs to be a decision about the SSCC. Councilmember Woodruff suggested considering doing the field and the parking lot in 201 Councilmember Siakel noted it was more than just the park parking entrance to the SSCC was included in parking and,road improvements. considered that a detail and suggested a reasonable placcholder for included in the 2015 CIP. The discussions about sneciAcs can be Woodruff then stated that the amounts in the CIP & will be based on what Director Nielsen has stated. Di Woodruff suggested plugging'the current amounts ini Councilmember Siakel stated there will a surplus in policy maximum) at the end of 2014, She noted that that to help fund,t e purchase of the snow plow for b Councilmember Woodruff state on Badger Park improvements' could probably figure out hove nd to zero. He there will be another $50,000 there would be $5 ,uuu in Da received in ten years. DeJ CIP. that needs to be improved. The auncilmember Woodruff stated he ring and road improvements be ad after the budgeting process. of what the current cost estimate ed the amounts if the CIP are old. oral" Fund reserves (reserves above the 60 percent would be comfortable spending about $80,000 of because it is a one -time purchase. he has old the Park Commission that if the City needs to spend $500,000 1 2015, noting that he does not think that is the case, staff and Council Lo come hp with that. He noted that he does not want to run the Park tared that another $42,000 will be transferred into the Fund in 2015 and .'park dedication fees. Director DeJong cautioned against assuming that dedication fees because the $55,000 in 2013 was the highest amount Councilmember Siakel stated there was discussion about the safe routes to school (SRTS) grant opportunity a number of years ago. A trail along Strawberry Lane connects with the Minnewashta Elementary School. She asked staff to provide an update on the SRTS grant program during Council's next meeting. She would like to know: what the grant consists of, what has to be done to apply for it; is there a staff member in place who will execute that; and, how long it will take to put a SRTS plan in place and prepare an application. Mayor Zerby noted that Director Nielsen has stated that the Planning Commission has been discussing SRTS. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Director DeJong explained that Director Brown has informed staff that the inspection of the West Water Tower (the one near the Minnewashta Elementary School) has been completed. During the inspection it became apparent that there was ice damage caused by last winter's extreme cold. Those repairs, in addition to the planned rehabilitation work on the Tower, will necessitate an extended time out of service. Therefore, the rehabilitation and painting project needs to be postponed until spring of 2015. The Radio /ISP Communication project will also be postponed until after the Water Tower project is complete. He reiterated that the 2010 discussion about extending watermain along Star Lane and Star Circle as part of the proposed reconstruction project was very contentious. He stated that it may be better to do just a mill and overlay rather than reconstructing the two roadways. He noted that three or four property owners have indicated they have arsenic issues in their well water. The rest were adamantly opposed to municipal water being installed. DeJong explained that Eureka Road North is scheduled for reclamation in 2419. That precludes a full sewer system being installed. The types and costs of improvements needed to addressat least some of the stormwater management issues in that area are not known at this time. Director Brown explained he and Engineer Hornby have taken con issues in the Shorewood Oaks area, the Strawberry Lane area, Pe, from there out towards Grant Lorenz Road. The stormwater ultift adjacent to Grant Lorenz Road and out to Edewood Road. The ! flat. About one year ago staff started to discuss a potential major area. That would be a comprehensive approach. New developme factored in. That type of system would be very expensive: gut, it,; rs for many years about stormwater rcl'e area and the areas downstream crosses Smithtown Road and flows i those areas are extremely istem to address that entire ion opportunities would be for the long term. Engineer Hornby explained the area to the east of Eureka Road South over to a little west of Cathcart Drive has been very problematic especially over the last couple of years. Because the area is so flat, it will take some major facilities, to get the stormwater out of there. From an engineering perspective it would be best to try and combine those areas into one stormwater management system. It may be difficult to do that because of the flat grade but at least it should be considered. A drainage study needs to be done that covers that area. The coal should be to drain the stormwater to the north. Mayor Zerby asked if staff intends to involve the MCWD in the study. Engineer Hornby responded yes and stated the MCWD should be,, involved early on. Hornby explained that once stormwater is put into pipes rather than into open channels the ability to filtrate it is taken away. Therefore, the goal would be to use basins to control volume and rates and possibly recharge some of the local groundwater table. Having the MCWD involved would be a good idea. Director Brown stated that from his perspective this will likely result in the Freeman Park wetland project resurfacing as part of the effort. It would be a key component. Zerby noted that Shorewood 'taxpayers pay a significant amount of tax that goes to the MCWD. It would be nice if some of that could come back to the City to help with stormwater management improvements which would help out the MCWD as a whole. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like staff to write a direction statement with very high level costs and then have a serious discussion between Council and staff. He then stated that about seven years ago the then Council approved an analysis that included a list of prioritized the drainage problem areas within the City. Some of the problematic stormwater management areas that have been discussed were included in that list. Others were not. A number of the problem areas have been addressed over the last few years. He suggested creating a long -term stormwater management plan somewhat like the 20 -Year PMP. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 8 of 8 Director Brown stated the answers Councilmember Woodruff is looking for will not be known until a drainage feasibility study is done. Councilmember Woodruff suggested funding for the feasibility study be included in the 2015 budget. Mayor Zerby stated he appreciated discussing the CIP early in the budget process and he would like to do that going forward. 3. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of July 28, 2014, at 6:57 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JULY 28, 2014 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel; , Sundberg,, and Woodruff, Attorney Keane; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn B. Review Agenda Mayor Zerby asked that Item 3.13 be removed from the agenda. Hotvet moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 14, 2014 Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of July 14, 2014, as presented. Motion passed ,5/0., B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 14, 2014 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motion Contained on the Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. New Liquor License Request from MGM Liquor Location: 5660 County Road 19 (This item was removed from the agenda at Mayor Zerby's request.) Motion passed 510. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 2 of 12 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR James Begun, 5955 Boulder Bridge Lane, explained his and his wife Jean's property is located in Boulder Bridge Farms subdivision off of Smithtown Road. They have lived there for 17 years. He explained they have had a problem over the years that has gotten worse. It is a drainage pond that abuts the back of their property and three other adjacent properties that regularly floods. The floods have increased in magnitude and quantity in recent years to the extent that it has damaged their property. The pumping out of that pond by the City causes noise disruption in their neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. They are worried about their property value, disruption to the neighbors and their home flooding. Their home did flood this year and they think the rising water level in the pond contributed to that. Mr. Begun routed two photographs taken on June 2, 2014, from their back deck showing the overflow from the pond. He noted that pond does overflow several times during the, spring and sometimes during the fall. But, not to the level shown in the photographs. He stated their worry, about potential flooding causes them undue stress. He explained when the City pumps the pond out the neighbors complain about the noise so the pump is turned off at certain times of the day which prolongs the pump out process. Mr. Begun noted that in recent weeks they have had,good discussion with City staff. He stated he hopes the City and the residents can come up with a permanent plan that protects their property values, keeps the peace and quiet in the neighborhood, benefits the surrounding properties that use the drainage pond, and helps contribute toward better stormwater management for the City. Mr. Begun thanked Council for allowing him the opportunity to speak about this problem. Mayor Zerby noted that he and Director Brown and Engineer Hornby have spoken about the problem quite a bit. Director Brown explained staff met,ith Mr. Begun and his attorney. They discussed a feasibility study that had been done in 2004. Staff recommends updating that feasibility report. That could be done relatively easily. Staff would then brim it before Council for its consideration. Mayor Zerby explained that previous Councils had, thought the cost to correct the problem was too high for the number of residents in the area. It does seem to be an ongoing problem that needs to be resolved for the long -term. There is -no place, for the overflow to go. He stated he would like to meet with representatives from the association to talk,about how to move a project forward jointly. He asked staff to refresh the feasibility report. Councilmember Sondberg stated she supports having staff update the feasibility report. She asked if staff thinks there will be a lot of these types of problems going forward because of all of the rain this year. Engineer Hornby stated that in a previous Council meeting packet he had included a copy of a map indicating where the priority problem drainage areas were. There are quite a few of them. They are primarily in areas that had not experienced water levels like they did this year. What people heard tonight is not much different than what staff has heard from other residents. Councilmember Sundberg stated she is aware of other property owners who are having major water problems. She suggested the City look into the problem drainage issues, noting she assumes staff has already been doing that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 3 of 12 Councilmember Siakel stated numerous residents have come before Council to talk about record high water levels. She then stated it would be helpful if staff would educate her about the background on this problem and the first step in doing that is to update the feasibility report. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Zoning Text Amendment for Lower Density for Senior Housing Director Nielsen explained that over the past several years Shorew elderly housing. The City's Comprehensive (Comp) Play recomf carried out to encourage elderly housing. The City Ordinance ad( relatively well. It does not address apartments, assisted living or pi with discussions about the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment A staff to draft an ordinance amendment to address those types of elde kept the City from getting elderly housing projects is the quite low' housing. The City's density is well below what surrounding cities Fa a public hearing on the proposed amendment during is July 1, 2014, d has discussed several aspects of ided some measures which were sses cottage style elderly housing ibly care facilities. In conjunction i the Planning Commission asked housing. One of the issues that has nsity restrictions it has for elderly W. The Planning Commission held He highlighted the proposed changes to Section 1201.03 Subd.24.b. related to conditional uses for elderly housing. The first change starts with the R -3A, -313 and R -3C zoning districts which are multiple family housing districts. There are not any R -3A and R-313 districts currently. A developer would have to apply for those two districts. The R -3C District is residential commercial; it is a transition zoning district. There are a number of properties zoned A -3C. For those three zoning districts the recommendation is to increase the density from 10 units�per acre to 12 units per acre. The next change is regarding ealculating density. The recommendation is to count assisted living units as one -half unit. Most of the people living in those types of units are not driving cars much if at all. Care providers are generating most of the traffic. The next group of,changes is relative to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. The proposed changes are premised on a project that meets the goals, objectives and guidelines of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Developers would have to earn the proposed changes through their development. One recommendation is to allow the density in that area to go up to 15 units per acre (he thinks that is still on the tow side a little bit). Another is for projects that include a mixture of commercial and residential uses; the area of the entire site may be used to calculate the density. And, the last is to possibly allow the density for adjacent parcels within the Redevelopment Study Area to be transferred to the project site. The property the City owns is one parcel away from the main body of the redevelopment district. There is a property with one house on it between that district and the City -owned property that may or may not be part of a project. The R -IC zoning for the City -owned parcel would allow for up to 8 units per acre. This last change would allow for seven units of density for that parcel to be transferred to a project. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 4 of 12 The last two changes have to do with parking. The proposal for elderly housing is to require two parking spaces per unit for townhouse or cottage style housing. For apartments, one and one -half parking spaces per unit would be required plus proof of parking demonstrating the ability to provide two spaces per unit. That second proposed change is to protect against the outside chance that the apartment style elderly senior housing would eventually no longer be for elderly housing; maybe it becomes multiple family and that requires two spaces per unit. Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the proposed changes. Mayor Zerby noted that he is a little bit uncomfortable with the changes proposed relative to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. To him that seems like spot zoning. He asked why the zoning would not be changed to, for example, R -3A. Director Nielsen explained the recommendation for that Area is to develop it as a planned unit development (PUD). It is currently zoned commercial up to the residential property. Elderly housing requires a PUD. Staff does not recommend rezoning it to R -3A or R- 3B and noted that would be more of a spot zoning. The size of that Area is only about four acres in size depending on where the boundary is. It would be a little bigger if the two residential properties are included. The changes proposed create incentives for building elderly housing in that Area. Zerby stated there are other areas in the City that could meet some of the same requirements. For example, Shorewood Ponds could be redeveloped as a higher density usage. Director Nielsen noted that is already developed as senior housing. Nielsen stated if that were to be redeveloped some of the same things could possibly apply. Director Nielsen stated if Xcel Energy were to move from its current site i CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 5 of 12 zoned R -C that could possibly be affected by the proposed amendment. It hits hard at Smithtown Crossing. Mayor Zerby stated the elderly housing standards comparison included in the meeting packet only shows cities much larger than Shorewood. He asked staff to find out what the City of Deephaven's standards are and noted there is the St. Therese senior housing development being built there. Zerby then stated at 15 units per acre that means 60 units could be built on the Smithtown Crossing site. Director Nielsen noted that would be the maximum unless assisted units were also included because they count a one half unit. Zerby also stated if it all the units were assisted living that means 120 units could be built there. Zerby noted that without having seen a visual of what that proposed ordinance amendment. he cannot support the Councilmember Siakel stated there is a need for more of this type of housing. It is }st a matter of where. She asked if the Minnetonka Country Club site could possibly some time provide an opportunity for that. She questioned if elderly housing is the best fit for the Smithtown Crossing Area. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective it is the best spot in Shorewood for higher density-It has municipal water and it is located next to a collector street and minor arterial street. Director Nielsen noted that Shorewood Ponds is, located next to Eureka Road which is a very substandard collector street. It is not a great place to get on to' Highway 7. Mayor Zerby asked about the potential where the car stated that site is shallow and developers have indicate( Councilmember Sundberg asked if similar types of q asked during the Planning Commission's meeting. Director Nielsen stated the proposed a Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study are located. Director Nielsen that site work. to those asked during this meeting were implementation of the Comp Plan and the Councilmember Woodruff stated from his,perspective the proposed ordinance changes are consistent with that ,has been talked about during the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study process and after that study was completed. He requested that in Item 8.e that "... the following provisions may apply" be changed to the following provisions apply ". To him that implies there is some choice. Director Nielsen clarified the choice is on the City's part. Woodruff stated he did not think there should be any latitude for the City in applying the three items. Councilmember Siakel asked if there is any sense of urgency that action has to be taken on the proposed ordinance during this meeting. Director Nielsen responded no. She noted that she is also struggling with the density issue. Director Nielsen stated he can provide Council with sketches from one developer for another site who showed 60 plus units. He then stated 60 units are about the minimum a developer can build for a senior housing project and be able to pay for it. Mayor Zerby asked to find comparables for smaller cities. Director Nielsen stated he will find out what Deephaven and Victoria do and noted that Tonka Bay and Excelsior do not have senior housing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 6 of 12 Councilmember Siakel stated she would like additional information. Director Nielsen clarified that if Council does not want to move forward with this he is okay with that. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council should take action on this the next time it is on the agenda; either up or down. Director Nielsen commented there had been one developer who had done a senior housing project in conjunction with a VFW. 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Bids and Consider Award of Construction Contract for the 2014 Sealcoat Project, City Project 14 -05 Engineer Hornby stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum from him which identifies which roadways are included in the 2014 Sealcoat Project: They are: West 62"d Street, Afton Road, Arbor Creek Lane, Beverly Drive, Blue Ridge Lane, Brentridge Drive,, Brynmawr Place, Cajed Lane, Cathcart Drive, Church Road, Edgewood Road, Elmridge Circle, Glen Road, Grant Lorenz Road, Harding Avenue, Harding Lane, Howards Point Road, Kathleen Court, Kelsey Drive, Mallard Lane, Maple Avenue, Maple Ridge Lane, Marsh Point Circle, Marsh Point Court, Marsh Point Drive, Noble Road, Oak Ridge Circle, Peach Circle, Pine Bend, Smithtown Circle, Smithtown Road, Smithtown Way, Strawberry Court, Strawberry Lane, Teal Circle, Virginia Cove, Woodside Lane,, and Woodside Road. He noted the project is a collaborative project with the City of Victoria again this year. He also noted that earlier in the day the bid tabulation was emailed to Council and a hardcopy was placed at the dais this evening. He stated the low,bid for Shorewood is $292;784 dollars and the bid was from Allied Blacktop Company. The Capital lnprovement Program has slated $270,000 for sealcoating in 2014. Hornby noted staff recommends awarding the bid to Allied Blacktop Company which did the work in 2013. Mayor Zerby noted that he was pleased�,to see that the bid was lower than the Engineer's opinion of cost. Hotvet moved,, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -065, "A Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the 2014 Seal Coat Project, City Project No. 14 -05, to Allied Blacktop Company for an Amount Not To Exceed $292,784 ". Motion passed 510. 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Bee Safe City Resolution and Proposal for Clover Plantings Attorney Keane explained that since Council's July 14, 2014, meeting he and Administrator Joynes have met with representatives from the Shorewood bee community to finalize a Bee -Safe resolution and they researched nationally what other communities have done. The resolution was tailored for Shorewood and the representatives have totally supported it. A copy of the resolution is included in the meeting packet for Council's consideration. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 7 of 12 Mayor Zerby stated he has had several discussions with Patricia Hauser with the Humming for Bees group on this topic. The resolution has come a long way since it was first drafted. He expressed his appreciation for Attorney Keane's and Administrator Joynes's efforts as well Ms. Patricia Hauser's and Mr. Jeff Dinsmore's efforts. He stated he thought the resolution is strong enough yet acceptable enough so other cities would take and use it as their resolution as well to help promote bee -safe policies. He thought the resolution addresses everything that has been talked about. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought the resolution contains what is needed. She asked Ms. Hauser if she thinks so also. Ms. Hauser nodded her head yes. Councilmember Woodruff stated he finds the resolution acceptable. It does some good things and he does not think it hampers the City in any major way. Councilmember Sundberg commended the Humming for Bees, group for having an impact. She then stated the homeowners association she belongs to is going to be pursuing something similar. Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -066, "A Resolution `Bee -Safe' Policies and Procedures" and approving the planting of clover for the sites identified in Cathcart Park, Freeman Park and the South Shore Skate Pi rL Motion passed 510. There was a very loud round of applause from the contingent of the Shorewood bee community present. Patricia Hauser. 5805 Minnetonka Drive. thanked Council for the leadershin'role it has chosen to take for Shorewood, the State of Minnesota, all of the other municipalities that may choose to follow Shorewood's lead and most especially for bees and other pollinators; She stated that when residents see what the City is doing, including planting clover,, hopefully they will also become bee friendly. She provided each member of Council with, a gift from the Humming for Bees group — a bee pin and a pocket guide to the rusty patched bumblebee garden. She thanked Council for its service and noted she looks forward to working with Council in the future. B. Letter to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Requesting Video Broadcasfin >g of the Board's Regular Monthly Meetings Mayor Zerby stated Councilmember Siakel has requested Council consider sending a letter to the Minnehaha , Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requesting the MCWD Board of Managers video broadcast it regular monthly meetings. A letter was drafted by staff and a copy was included in the meeting packet. Councilmember Siakel' stated "after Council's last regular meeting she had asked Mayor Zerby and Administrator Joynes to consider writing a letter to the MCWD Board, which Council would weigh in on, asking the MCWD to video broadcast it regular monthly meetings. She then stated that the City has a very good relationship with the staff at the MCWD and it is prudent for the City to maintain a level of cooperation and communication with that staff. She noted that she has heard from some constituents that they are frustrated with the lack of transparency by the Board. She stated there have some changes in staff at the MCWD and some Board action that has gotten the attention of a number of people. Council should be paying attention to what is happening at the MCWD as well. Siakel explained that she recently attended a MCWD Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting. She tried to find an agenda for that meeting on the MCWD's website. She could not find one. She went CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 8 of 12 anyway. During the meeting a member of the CAC spoke about the last meeting and a Boardmember referencing the meeting minutes did not reflect the record. Another member referenced that the website had not been updated with minutes since March 15. The MCWD has a significant budget and a significant impact on the communities the MCWD serves. Many of those cities videotape their council meetings; Shorewood does. The MCWD should also. She thought it prudent to ask for more transparency from the MCWD Board. Siakel noted that the letter drafted by staff has wrong title for the recipient. Executive Director Jeff Spartz should be changed to Interim District Administrator Jeff Spartz. She asked Council to endorse sending the letter. There are other cities that also want more transparency on the part of,the MCWD Board. Mayor Zerby noted the MCWD has direct taxation authority. He st,- significant amount of money toward funding the MCWD. The MCI to those taxpayers. After seeing the letter he forwarded a copy Independence. Those councils have already endorsed sending a siry the Excelsior Council is going to consider sending a letter in the Wayzata Council will do so also. the residents of Shorewood pay a Board should be more transparent to the Cities of Minnetrista and letter. It is his understanding that v near future and he thought the Zerby explained the MCWD recently purchased, remodeled and Moved into a new facility. It has a state of the art recording system. It has the same type of cameras as are in the Council Chamber. Video recording the meetings would not add significant expense. The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) would broadcast the video if,provided with a copy. For a small fee the LMCC would broadcast it through the internet. He encourages the MCWD to do that as well. Councilmember Woodruff stated he supports sending the letter. He thinks broadcasting the MCWD Board's regular meetings is a greatidea. He also thinks it should be available on the internet. He stated a number of the cities served by the MCWD are not served by the LMCC or Mediacom. He thought it prudent to recommend, soinething that is more widely available. He suggested the letter be more specific about what video broadcasting is. The letter references the LMCC but the name written out is incorrect. The word Cable should be replaced wit)i Communications. Mayor Zerby stated, the MCWD could place the video recordings on its website for viewing. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would prefer the letter say that and if the MCWD wants to put it on the LMCC website also then that would be fine. oodruff suggested a similar letter should be sent to the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed Councilmember Sundberg asked if there has been discussion with the MCWD about the transparency concerns. Mayor Zerby responded not as a Council. Zerby stated he has had that discussion and he thought Councilmember Siakel has had that discussion. Sundberg asked what the MCWD's reaction has been. Zerby stated the MCWD Board has not commented on that. Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, endorsing sending the letter from Mayor Zerby to the Interim District Administrator of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requesting that the MCWD Board of Managers consider the future video broadcasting of the Board's regular monthly meetings subject to changing the recipients title to Interim District Administrator, changing Cable Commission to Communications Commission, and to specifically request that the video recording also be available for on- demand viewing on the internet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 9 of 12 Tom Geng, 4530 Enchanted Drive, stated he has attended a number of MCWD Board meetings as well as CAC meetings over the last few months. He then stated it is his understanding that the MCWD Board has taken this issue up from time to time over the last several years and most recently last summer after staff moved into the new facility. He noted the meeting room where regular Board meetings are held is equipped with state of the art audio and video recording equipment including three cameras. He stated there has been a lot of Board resistance to televising its regular meetings. During discussion last summer he has been told that Manager Cassel had said that if the meetings were ever televised he would resign from his position on the Board. There was also push back from Managers White, Miller and Shekleton. On one hand they floated the argument that televising or broadcasting the meetings might lead to grandstanding. At the same time they also argued that they believed that their discussions would be more candid and free if they were not recorded. That cuts right to the issue of transparency that Councilmember Siakel has brought forward. Councilmember Sundberg thanked Mr. Geng for his c couple of watershed boards herself and she stated she is cannot understand why a board would not want to be bogus. Councilmember Siakel stated that making video recordings 1 available via the internet and television will help clear things up. Motion passed 510. C. Draft Request For Proposals Engineer Hornby noted a renewable energy alte draft RFP notes that sj specific City facilities f energy alternatives to alternatives can also be decisions about whether or be submitted to him. He c when selecting which prop Councilmember Sundberg be the key focus. She exr limited to City facilities or draft RFP. She stated the s she noted that she has served on a that kind of reaction. She stated she )arent. She thought the excuses are Board's regular meetings readily ive Study the meeting packet contains a copy of'a draft request for proposals (RFP) for ve study for Council to comment on and give direction on. He explained the c manufacturers or vendors should not submit a proposal. It identifies the could be considered for renewable energy applications. It identifies renewable ,ide r, solar energy, wind energy and geothermal energy. It notes other led. The scope of the RFP' also includes preparation of a financial analysis for �es. The study outcome will provide Council information to help it make .ot to move forward with practical alternative energy options. Proposals are to irified that this is not a situation where low -cost will be the deciding factor ;alto move forward with. )hed against restricting the study to only City facilities and noted that will d that if the consultant considers solar gardens that would not have to he requested a little more clarity about what the City is asking for in the results should assess the various alternative resource opportunities in the community. It should also clearly identify cost projections and benefit projections. She noted that she is not interested in the City pursing cutting edge technologies that have not been proven yet. Engineer Hornby stated he will refine the RFP so the language is more direct. Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the request for proposals for an alternative energy alternatives study subject to the refinements suggested. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 10 of 12 Councilmember Woodruff asked if the facilities would include only Fire Station 1 which is located in Shorewood. Engineer Hornby clarified the intent is to do that. Councilmember Siakel stated the study should be limited to facilities located in the City. Councilmember Hotvet asked if there is a reason the City's two water towers are not included. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought they should be included. Hotvet suggested not limiting the facilities to those on the list in the RFP. Councilmember Sundberg suggested specifying a due date in the RFP. Engineer Hornby suggested 30 days. Motion passed 510. 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trail Schedule Mayor Zerby noted that the meeting packet contains a copy ofthc Trail Schedule. Engineer Hornby explained that the plans for the Galpin Lake Road trail segment have been uploaded. Comments are still coming in from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) regarding the functional group's review of the City's plans. Therefore, there will be an addendum. Bids will be opened on August 7 and Council will be asked to award the contract on August 11. Mayor Zerby asked if the Minnchaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has approved the plans yet. Engineer Hornby responded not yet; Hornby explained that construction is scheduled to start on August 25 and he believes the Cify,will have that approval by then. The submittal should be made this week. Engineer Hornby noted that the wetland impacts are much lower than he had anticipated at the start of the project. He explained,that quite `a bit of retaining wall has been added to the plans to try and reduce the impacts. The intersection with Mayflower Road will be realigned to pull the roadway away from the wetland,to get the trail in.,bme realignment was done on Galpin Lake Road near Highway 7; it was moved a lane width to the west to try and straighten it out a little bit to make room for the trail around the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) lift station. The amount of right -of -way (ROW) that needs to be-acquired has been reduced because of that. The City will need right of entry for two properties; the owners of those two properties appear to be receptive to doing that. Other Councilmember Siakel asked if things are on track for the MCES forcemain project and the Valleywood Area Improvements Project. Engineer Hornby explained MCES plans to finish the segments of its forcemain project on Covington Road and Excelsior Boulevard this fall. MCES will put in storm sewer for Shorewood. The City had to make a modification due to a telephone conduit that was in place at the outlet structure catch basin. Once work begins on refining the roadway work will begin on the retaining wall. Two gas mains will have to be relocated as part of the project. He then explained the bids for the Sunnyvale Lane improvements will be considered during Council's August 11. Bids will be opened on August 7. He went on to explain there CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 11 of 12 has been a one month delay in the Valleywood Lane / Valleywood Circle improvements due to the need to relocate some utilities. The next step in that project is to install curb and gutter and that is scheduled to start the week of August 4. Mayor Zerby stated an email had been forwarded to Council from the contractor for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project indicating that it is trying to find a new landscaping subcontractor to finish up the landscaping restoration. He asked staff if there is any new information about that. Engineer Hornby responded he does not have any new information on that. Hornby explained some minor grading work needs to be completed, the City is working with one resident to install a retaining wall to mitigate some drainage issues, and the final turf establishment needs to be done. Zerby stated be has seen some random piles of dirt in the project area. Hornby explained that is left over from the previous landscaping subcontractor. Councilmember Hotvet asked staff if it thinks there should be scale projects in order to complete them faster. For example, punch list work has been finished. Engineer Hornby explained project the contractor has completed 95 percent of the punch that in about one week. The City withholds final payment explained staff had discussed if liquidating damages should be were some weather delays and there were some delays that been a couple of claims that came in from subcontractors; the some changes made to the end part of large no final payment will be made until the final that for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk list work. The contractor" s, crew completed until the work is completed. Hornby then considered.,. That is still a possibility. There cause any issues to delay the project. He also noted the contractor as possible. Director Brown stated staff is waiting to hear about a management Agency (FEMA). Public Works has open still gravel there. contractors. He noted there have nied them because the City did not €its to complete the project as soon i from the Federal Emergency back up to two lanes. There is Mayor Zerby asked Director Brown to comment on the Highway 7 / County Road 19 intersection project. Brown explained the detour, and lane closures have been -- removed. The foundations for the signal poles have been poured. That project should move along quite rapidly now. Councilmeiber Woodruff "asked that staff identify a positive approach to putting down a permanent surface on Enchanted Lane irrespective of what FEMA decides. The surface cannot remain as is. Director Brown noted Public Works has ho intention of doing that. He explained Public Works will either remove that material or pave over the gravel. That will be done irrespective of what FEMA says. Woodruff asked if it will be dome before snow falls. Brown responded yes. Mayor Zerby noted that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is interested in working with the City to ensure it is done properly. Director DeJong explained the issues with the PFM Financial Services regarding the purchasing card program have been resolved. The City should receive the purchasing cards soon. Staff is still wrapping up the last of the conversion to the new financial system. The first users group meeting for Springbook is on July 29 in the City of Chanhassen. He will attend that. The training for employee self - service time entry and payroll viewing components of the new system will be completed this week. Mayor Zerby asked for an update on ID cards. Director Brown stated the first round of ID cards has been produced and he will pick those up tomorrow morning. Once they have been proofed they rest will be produced. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2014 Page 12 of 12 Director DeJong stated there was some discussion recently by some of the South Lake Mayors about potentially paying off the bonds for the public safety facilities early. He provided the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee and the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Governing Board some information about that. He explained the bonds are callable February 1, 2016. There is a potential to refund the bonds at that time. The interest rates on the bonds are high 3s to low 4s for the remaining years of the bonds. There is a potential for interest savings if the bonds are refunded. Director Nielsen noted the Park Commission's next meeting will be on August 19 rather than August 12. He then noted that during its August 5 meeting the Planning Commission will pick up where the City left on the GreenStep Cities initiative. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Woodruff stated that three to four years ago staff started an energy audit. He asked what the status of that is. Director Nielsen stated it needs to be updated and that it should be done annually, and he noted that former Administrator Heck had responsibility for that initiative. Councilmember Hotvet stated she will attend a Scenic Byway . initiative meeting on July Councilmember Siakel stated she attended an EFD Board meeting on July 23. The Board recommended forwarding the proposed 2015 EFD Operating Budget and the 2015 — 2015 EFD Capital Improvement Program to the five member cities for discussion during an August 13, 2015, joint work session of the member City Councils. The recommended overall budget reflects a 1.37percent increase when compared to the approved 2014 overall budget. 13. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Adjourning at 8:18 P.M. Motion nassed 510. Christine Freeman, Recorder M Jean Panchyshyn, City,Cler City Council Regular Meeting of July 28, 2014, Scott Zerby, Mayor t #3A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council i Item Regular Meeting Title/ Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: August 11, 2014 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid? Background: Claims for council authorization. 60620 & ACH 22,986.26 Pending Checks & ACH 250,069.70 Total Claims $273,055.96 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending July 26, 2014. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. Accounts Payable Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 08/07/2014 - 11:38AM Check Number Check Date Amount 3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Line Item Account 0 07/28/2014 Inv August -2014 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/14/2014 PR Batch 00001.07.2014 Dental - Non Union - AUGUST 700 -00- 2184 -0000 478.89 Inv August -2014 Total 478.89 0 Total: 478.89 3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Total: 478.89 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 07/28/2014 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 Federal Income Tax 700 -00- 2172 -0000 4,103.24 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 FICA Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 2,863.89 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 FICA Employer Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 2,863.89 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 Medicare Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 669.77 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 Medicare Employer Portion 700 -00 -2174 -0000 669.77 Inv Total 11,170.56 0 Total: 11,170.56 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,170.56 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 Line Item Account 60620 07/28/2014 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700 -00 -2176 -0000 2,025.00 Inv Total 2,025.00 60620 Total: 2,025.00 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 Total: 2,025.00 AP -Check Detail (8/7/2014 - 1.1:38 AM) Page I Check Number Check Date Amount 11 - MN DEPT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 07/28/2014 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 State Income Tax 700 -00 - 2173 -0000 1,866.01 Inv Total 1,866.01 0 Total: 1,866.01 11 - MN DEPT OF REVENUE Total: 1,866.01 9 - PERA Line Item Account 0 07/28/2014 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 MN -PERA Deduction 700 -00- 2175 -0000 2,850.82 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 MN PERA Benefit Employer 700 -00 -2175 -0000 3,306.93 Inv Total 6,157.75 0 Total 9 - PERA Total: 6,157.75 1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account 0 07/28/2014 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/28/2014 PR Batch 00002.07.2014 Health Savings Account 700 -00- 2183 -0000 1,288.05 Inv Total 1,288.05 0 Total: 1,288.05 1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: 1,288.05 Total: 22,98626 AP -Check Detail (8/7/2014 - 11:38 AM) Page 2 Shorewood Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 41,048.59 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101 -13 -4101- 0000 6,849.18 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -13- 4103 -0000 429.00 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -13- 4121 -0000 496.56 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4122 -0000 552.00 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13 -4151 -0000 26.29 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 1.01 -15- 4101 -0000 4,224.08 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 1 01 -15- 4121 -0000 306.24 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4122 -0000 317.79 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4151 -0000 17.34 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -18 -4101 -0000 5,413.95 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -18- 4121 -0000 392.51 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 10148- 4122 -0000 389.21 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4151 -0000 25.54 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -24- 4101 -0000 3,595.39 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -24- 4121 -0000 260.67 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4122 -0000 253.27 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4151 -0000 22.55 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -32- 4101 -0000 9,616.58 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -32- 4121 -0000 697.22 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4122 -0000 710.23 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4151 -0000 588.31 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -52- 4101 -0000 3,077.22 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -52 -4103 -0000 900.00 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -52- 4121 -0000 223.09 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52 -4122 -0000 299.65 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4151 -0000 157.35 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -53- 4101 -0000 711.88 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -53- 4103 -0000 360.00 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -53- 4121 -0000 51.62 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4122 -0000 81.99 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4151 -0000 1.88 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 41,048.59 41,048.59 PR - G/L Distribution Report (07/28/2014 - 12:50 PM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 201 Southshore Center 201 -00 -1.010 -0000 0.00 1,412.25 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201 -00- 4101 -0000 778.05 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 201 -00- 4102 -0000 102.38 0.00 OVERTIME 201 -00- 4103 -0000 370.00 0.00 PART -TIME 201 -00- 4121 -0000 63.83 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4122 -0000 95.67 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4151 -0000 2.32 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,412.25 1,412.25 FUND 601 Water Utility 601 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 5,498.41 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601 -00- 4101 -0000 4,526.82 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 601 -00- 4102 -0000 177.60 0.00 OVERTIME 601 -00 -4121 -0000 341.07 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4122 -0000 346.08 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4151 -0000 106.84 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,498.41 5,498.41 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 5,586.70 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611 -00- 4101 -0000 4,696.50 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 611 -00- 4102- 0000 85.20 0.00 OVERTIME 611 -00- 4121 -0000 346.65 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4122 -0000 354.04 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4151 -0000 104.31 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,586.70 5,586.70 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 247.57 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621 -00- 4101 -0000 215.47 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 621 -00- 4121 -0000 15.62 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4122 -0000 16.48 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE FUND Total: 247.57 247.57 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 1,792.09 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631 -00- 4101 -0000 1,542.80 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 631 -00 -4121 -0000 111.85 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4122 -0000 117.25 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE PR - G/L Distribution Report (07/28/2014 - 12:50 PM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 631 -00- 4151 -0000 20.19 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,792.09 1,792.09 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700 -00 -1010 -0000 52,395.16 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700 -00- 2170 -0000 0.00 28,622.87 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700 -00- 2172 -0000 0.00 4,103.24 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2173 -0000 0.00 1,866.01 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2174 -0000 0.00 7,067.32 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700 -00- 2175 -0000 0.00 6,157.75 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2176 -0000 0.00 2,025.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2177 -0000 0.00 1,072.92 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700 -00- 21.79 -0000 0.00 192.00 SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE 700 -00 -2183 -0000 0.00 1,288.05 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT FUND Total: 52,395.16 52,395.16 Report Total: 107,980.77 107,980.77 PR - G/L Distribution Report. (07/28/2014 - 12:50 PM) Page 3 Fund Dept General Mun Bldg General Admin General Admin General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Mun Bldg General Park Maint Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept SSC Non -Dept General Park Maint General Pub Works General Mun Bldg Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Sewer Non -Dept Sewer Non -Dept General Planning Check Total: 139.11 Vendor: 112 AMERICAN LEGAL PUBLISHING CORPORATI Check Sequence: 2 0100092 S -9 Folio Supplement -2014 203.00 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4400 -0000 0100093 2014 S -9 Supplement Pages 1,372.00 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4400 -0000 Check Total: 1,575.00 Vendor: 123 BLUE -TARP FINANCIAL INC Check Sequence: 3 4061080906 Straps - Chains -Hooks 55.11 08/11/201.4 1.01 -32 -4245 -0000 Check Total: 55.11 Vendor: 129 LAWRENCE BROWN Check Sequence: 4 BradMason -Reg Commercial Vehicle Recertification -Brad Mason at'. 95.00 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4331 -0000 Radio Mic Replacement Radio Mic 50.90 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 Check Total 145.90 Vendor: 134 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS Check Sequence: 5 6974- 231183 Shock 97.48 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 6974 - 231318 Wire 26.38 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 6974 - 231545 Batteries 74.60 08/11/201.4 101 -32- 4221 -0000 6974- 231779 Cables & Batteries 111.38 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 6974- 231937 AC Pro 82.78 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 6974 - 231981 Cables 87.30 08/11/2014 101 -32 -4221 -0000 Check Total: 479.92 Vendor: 136 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Check Sequence: 6 07312014 24200 Smithtown. Rd - 06/20 -07/23 71.93 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4380 -0000 07312014 5755 Country Club Rd - 06/20 -07/23 20.18 08/11/2014 101 -19- 4380 -0000 07312014 5745 Ctry Club & 25200 Hwy- 7- 06/20 -07/23 40.51 08/11/2014 '101 -52- 4380 -0000 0731.2014 20405 Knighsbridge Rd - 06/20 -07/23 23.32 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 07312014 28125 Boulder Bridge - 06/20 -07/23 49.26 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 79456885- 072514 5735 Country Club Rd - 06/20 - /07/23 41.78 08/11/2014 201•00 -4380 -0000 86501806- 072514 20630 Manor R.d - 06/20-07/23 13.51 08/11/2014 101 -52 -4380 -0000 Check Total: 260.49 Vendor: 137 CENTURY LINK Check Sequence: 7 9524702294 -JL14 952- 470 - 2294 -PW 60.31 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4321 -0000 9524706340 -JL14 952- 474 - 6340 -CH 123.65 08/11/2014 101 -19- 4321 -0000 9524709605 -JL14 952- 474 - 9605 - Amesbury 75.34 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 9524709606 -JL14 952- 474 - 9606 - Amesbury 75.34 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Check Total: 334.64 Vendor: 143 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Check Sequence: 8 0731201.4 018505- 000 - 07/31/14 14.00 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4263 -0000 07312014 018505- 001 - 07/31/14 1,871.64 08/11/2014 601 -00 -4263 -0000 Check Total: 1,885.64 Vendor: 144 CITY OF EXCELSIOR Check Sequence: 9 00201319 Quarterly Sewer Usage - 1 st Qtr 9,059.78 08/11/2014 611 -00- 4386 -0000 00201320 Quarterly Sewer Usage - 2nd Qtr 9,059.78 08/11/2014 611 -00- 4386 -0000 Check Total: 18,119.56 Vendor: 158 CUB FOODS - SHOREWOOD Check Sequence: 10 08/05/2014 Planning Commission Foods 26.61 08/11/2014 101 -18- 4245 -0000 Check Total: 26.61 Fund Dept General Mun Bldg General Admin General Admin General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Mun Bldg General Park Maint Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept SSC Non -Dept General Park Maint General Pub Works General Mun Bldg Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Sewer Non -Dept Sewer Non -Dept General Planning Accounts Payable rrrmw Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Lit User: Mnguyeni<y of Printed: 08/07/2014 - 11:34AM Shorewood Batch: 00001.08.2014 - COUNCIL - 08112014 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Vendor: 514 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC. Check Sequence: 1 1. 1- 081497 Skid Steer Hydraulics 48.55 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 48.55 Vendor: 167 ECM PUBLISHERS INC Check Sequence: 12 123177 Ord. No. - 514 1.01.08 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4351 -0000 General Admin 125295 Public Accuracy Test 26.60 08/11/2014 101 -1.3- 4351 -0000 General Admin 1.25488 Public Accuracy Test 19.28 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4351 -0000 General Admin Check Total: 146.96 Vendor: 513 ECONO SIGNS, LLC. Check Sequence: 13 10- 916042 Road Work Signs 513.70 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 513.70 Vendor: 487 EGAN Check Sequence: 14 JC10103703 Signal Relamp 310.00 08/11/2014 1.01 -32 -4400 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 310.00 Vendor: 183 PATRICIA FASCHING Check Sequence: 15 PostOffChan Post Office- Chanhassen 16.80 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4331 -0000 General Admin Check Total: 16.80 Vendor: 186 FERGUSON WATERWORKS No.2516 Check Sequence: 16 0090898 Water Meters 2,284.88 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4265 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check 'Total: 2,284.88 Vendor: 192 G & K SERVICES Check Sequence: 17 July -2014 P.W. 961.18 08/11/2014 101 -32 -4400 -0000 General Pub Works July -2014 SSCC 51.00 08/11/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept July -2014 C.H. 94.68 08/11/2014 101 -19- 4400 -0000 General Mun Bldg Check Total: 1,106.86 Vendor: 200 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Check Sequence: 18 117819 July Rent 164.45 08/11/2014 611 -00 - 4400 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 117819 July Rent 164.50 08/11/2014 631 -00- 4400 -0000 Storm Non -Dept 117819 July Rent 164.45 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 493.40 Vendor: 211 HAWKINS INC Check Sequence: 19 3625068 -RI Chlorine 50.00 08/11/2014 601 -00 -4245 -0000 Water Non -Dept 3626593 -RI Water Chemical 584.07 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4245 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 634.07 Vendor: 436 MARK HODGES Check Sequence: 20 07/28/2014 -EDA Video Tape -EDA Meeting - 07/28/14 60.00 08/11/2014 101 -11- 4400 -0000 General Council 07/28/2014 -Vide Video Tape Service - 07/28/14 60.00 08/11/2014 101 -1 1- 4400 -0000 General Council Check Total: 120.00 Vendor: 224 INFRATECH Check Sequence: 21 PR140508 Jet Storm Line with High Pressure 822.50 08/11/2014 631 -00 -4400 -0000 Storm Non -Dept Check Total: 822.50 Vendor: UB *00003 Wendy Jacobs Check Sequence: 22 Refund Check 26.41 08/11/2014 631 -00- 2010 -0000 Storm Non -Dept Refimd Check 26.41 08/11/2014 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Recycling Non -Dept Refimd Check 61.62 08/11/2014 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Ref nd Check 61.62 08/11/2014 601 -00- 2010 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 176.06 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Mnguyen 09IShorewood City of Printed: 08/07/201.4 - 11:34AM Batch: 00001.08.2014 - COUNCIL - 08112014 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acet Number Vendor: 243 KLM ENGINEERING INC Check Sequence: 23 5246 Inspection West Water Tower - Smithtown Tower -Ch 4,793.50 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4303 -0000 Check Total: 4,793.50 Vendor: 482 KUTAK ROCK LLP Check Sequence: 24 1958165 Public Improvement Project - May 536.50 08/11/2014 404 -00 -4620 -0003 1.958166 Land Use & Development - May 1.54.00 08/11/2014 101 -16- 4304 -0000 1958167 Acquatic Invasive Species Agree -May 37.00 08/11/2014 101 -16- 4304 -0000 1958494 Southshore Center - May 1,480.00 08/11/2014 1.01 -16- 4304 -0000 1958530 Purchase 5660 County Rd 19 - May 1,924.00 08/11/2014 450 -00- 4304 -0000 1965335 General Corporate - May 1,850.00 08/11/2014 101 -16- 4304 -0000 1974527 Aquatic Invasive Species Agree -June 55.50 08/11/2014 101 -16- 4304 -0000 Check Total: 6,037.00 Vendor: UB *00002 Linden Hills Development, LLC Check Sequence: 25 Refund Check 29.84 08/11/2014 61.1 -00- 2010 -0000 Check Total: 29.84 Vendor: 445 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP Check Sequence: 26 31215 General Matters-Feb Svc 1,850.00 08/1.1/201.4 101 -16- 4304 -0000 31216 Public Improvement Projects - Feb Svc 222.00 08/11/2014 404 -00 -4620 -0003 31217 Land Use & Development - Feb Svc 88.00 08/11/2014 1.01-16- 4304 -0000 Check Total: 2,160.00 Vendor: 289 MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC Check Sequence: 27 PV #3- Proj13 -01 PV #3- Project 13 -01 -2013 Street, Drainage & Utility 82,642.32 08/11/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0003 Check Total: 82,642.32 Vendor: 307 MEREDITH KAYE MOORE Check Sequence: 28 Kite -2014 Kite Making Class - Freeman Park 25.00 08/11/2014 101 -53- 4246 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 308 REBECCA MOORE Check Sequence: 29 Kite -2014 Kite Making Class - Freeman Park 25.00 08/11/2014 201 -00- 4246 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 313 MICHELLE NGUYEN Check Sequence: 30 July -2014 Mileage - July 99.68 08/11/2014 101 -15- 4331 -0000 Check Total: 99.68 Vendor: 322 OFFICE DEPOT Check Sequence: 31 721027196001 Election Supplies 114.69 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 721100510001 Election Supplies 71.52 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 724503191001 Envelopes & Labels 101.11 08/11/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 Check Total: 287.32 Vendor: 324 OMEGA INDUSTRIES Check Sequence: 32 14610 Weed Whacker 359.00 08/11/2014 101 -52- 4240 -0000 Check Total: 359.00 Vendor: 240 KENNETH POTTS, PA Check Sequence: 33 JULY -2014 Prosectrution Svc - July 2,500.00 08/11/2014 101 -16- 4304 -0000 Check Total: 2,500.00 Fund Dept Water Non -Dept Street Cap Non -Dept General Prof Svcs General Prof Svcs General Prof Svcs Comm Infr Non -Dept General Prof Svcs General Prof Svcs Sewer Non -Dept General Prof Svcs Street Cap Non -Dept General Prof Svcs Street Cap Non -Dept General Recreation SSC Non -Dept General Fin General Admin General Admin General Admin General Park Maint General Prof Svcs Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Mnguyen City of Printed: 08/07/2014 - 11:34AM Shorewood Batch: 00001.08.2014 - COUNCIL - 0811201.4 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Vendor: UB *00004 Premier Access Services Check Sequence: 34 Refired Check 38.33 08/11/2014 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 16.43 08/11/201.4 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Refired Check 16.43 08/11/2014 631 -00- 2010 -0000 Check Total: 71.19 Vendor: 108 REPUBLIC SERVICES No.894 Check Sequence: 35 0894- 003558113 Recycling Svc - August 13,741.20 08/11/2014 621 -00 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 13,741.20 Vendor: 354 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Check Sequence: 36 120681 Rake 2299 08/11/2014101 -52- 4240 -0000 120777 Roundup 24.99 08/11/2014 101 -52- 4245 -0000 120790 Sign Supplies 33.92 08/11/2014 101 -52- 4245 -0000 Check Total: 81.90 Vendor: 364 SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC. Check Sequence: 37 INV28852 Go Live Expense- 06/22 - 06/27 2,126.73 08/11 /2014 403 -00- 4640 -0004 Check Total: 2,126.73 Vendor: 299 STATE OF MINNESOTA- DEPARTMENT OF TR Check Sequence: 38 P00003368 Smithtown Road Testing Service 41.54 08/11/2014 406 -00 -4620 -0001 Check Total: 41.54 Vendor: 368 STONESCAPES Check Sequence: 39 4387 Garden Maint. - July 210.00 08/11/2014 101 -19- 4223 -0000 Check Total: 210.00 Vendor: 376 THE MULCH STORE Check Sequence: 40 16041 Brush Disposal - July 155.00 08/11/2014 101 -32 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 155.00 Vendor: 381 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS Check Sequence: 41 002014002398 Shwd Valley 2013 St Rehab - July Svc 684.09 08/11/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0003 Check Total: 684.09 Vendor: 511 CATHERINE TURNER Check Sequence: 42 SSCC Exp Box Fan for SSCC 17.05 08/11/2014 201 -00- 4245 -0000 Check Total: 17.05 Vendor: 389 UNITED LABORATORIES Check Sequence: 43 INV090112 Parks Supplies 847.66 08/11/2014 101 -52- 4245 -0000 Check Total: 847.66 Vendor: 390 UPS Check Sequence: 44 OOOOYF0671304 Water Test Pick Up 50.43 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4208 -0000 Check Total: 50.43 Vendor: 421 VERIZON WIRELESS Check Sequence: 45 9729082688 L.S. Phones - Acct985338397- 06/22 -07/21 190.20 08/11/2014 611 -00 -4321 -0000 Check Total: 190.20 Vendor: 398 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS INC Check Sequence: 46 869293803430 Closing Date 07/24/14 3,247.44 08/11/2014 101 -32 -4212 -0000 Check Total: 3,247.44 Fund Dept Sewer Non -Dept Recycling Non -Dept Storm Non -Dept Recycling Non -Dept General Park Maint General Park Maint General Park Maint Equip Repl Non -Dept Trail Non -Dept General Mun Bldg General Pub Works Street Cap Non -Dept SSC Non -Dept General Park Maint Water Non -Dept Sewer Non -Dept General Pub Works Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Mnguyen City of Printed: 08/07/2014 - 11:34AM Shorewood Batch: 00001.08.2014 - COUNCIL - 08112014 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Vendor: 415 WARNER CONNECT Check Sequence: 47 29919404 5 Dell - Optiplex 7010 SFF Core i5 & 1 Monitor 4,705.00 08/11/2014 403 -00 -4640 -0000 Equip Rep] Non -Dept 29919431 Install 5 Dell - Optiplex 7010 SFF Core i5 945.00 08/11 /2014 403 -00- 4640 -0000 Equip Repl Non -Dept 29919431 Printer at SSCC 101.25 08/11/2014 101 -1.9- 4321 -0000 General Mun Bldg Check Total: 5,751.25 Vendor: 401 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN Check Sequence: 48 667698 - 1593 -1 5735 Country Club Rd - Aug 191.21 08/11/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 6676988- 1593 -9 24200 Smithtown Rd - Aug 447.55 08/11/2014 '101 -32- 4400 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 638.76 Vendor: 405 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE Check Sequence: 49 728085 Tires Trailer 240.88 08/11/201.4 101 -32- 4221 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 240.88 Vendor: UB*00005 Keith D. Wilcock Check Sequence: 50 Refund Check 4.41 08/11/2014 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Refund Check 1.89 08/11/2014 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Recycling Non -Dept Reftmd Check 1.89 08/11/2014 631-00- 2010 -0000 Storm Non -Dept Check Total: 8.19 Vendor: 327 WINDSTREAM Check Sequence: 51 57565434 Boulder Bridge Well Svc 54.17 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept 57565434 Badger Well Service 110.13 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4395 -0000 Water Non -Dept 57565434 West Water Tower Service 54.17 08/11/2014 601 -00 -4321 -0000 Water Non -Dept 57565434 Parks Service 159.86 08/11/2014 '101 -52- 4321 -0000 General Park Maint 57565434 PW Service 51.52 08/11/2014 101 -32 -4321 -0000 General Pub Works 57565434 CH Service 122.85 08/11/2014 101 -19 -4321 -0000 General Mum Bldg Check Total: 552.70 Vendor: 408 WM MUELLER & SONS INC Check Sequence: 52 1.94787 Road Maint 928.00 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 1.94931 Road Maint 932.64 08/11/2014 101-32 -4250 -0000 General Pub Works 195042 Road Maint 927.42 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 195204 Road Maint 232.00 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 195313 Road Maint 927.42 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 195434 Road Maint 811.42 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 195625 Road. Maint 1,857.16 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 195730 Road Maint 2,205.1.6 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 195731 Road Maint 807.63 08/11/2014 1.01 -32 -4250 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 9,628.85 Vendor: 410 WSB AND ASSOCIATES INC Check Sequence: 53 01459- 690 -22 Smithtown Rd Trl - June 14,542.50 08/11/2014 406 -00- 4620 -0001 Trail Non -Dept 01459- 700 -21 MCES Forcemain - June 1,445.25 08/11/2014 611 -00 -4680 -0001 Sewer Non -Dept 01459- 760 -14 Valleywood Area St - June 12,733.75 08/11/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0003 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459- 810 -13 Gaipin Lk Rd Trl - June 19,083.75 08/11/2014 406 -00 -4620 -0002 Trail Non -Dept 01459 -830 -8 Smrunit Woods Development - June 588.00 08/11/2014 101 -31- 4303 -0000 General Engineering 01.459 -850 -6 Sunnyvale Ln Improvements - June 6,254.25 08/11/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0004 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459 -860 -4 Lift Station No. I I Rehab - June 5,428.00 08/11/2014 611 -00- 4680 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 01459 -870 -6 Gen Eng Svc - June 4,000.00 08/11/2014 101 -31- 4400 -0000 General Engineering 01459 -880 -4 Pass Thru - Minnewashta School Addition Plan Revi 73.50 08/11/2014 1.01 -00- 3414 -0000 General Non -Dept 01459 -890 -5 Wellhead Protection Plan Amend -June 261.00 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4303 -0000 Water Non -Dept 01459 -900 -4 Misc. Engineering Support-June 841.25 08/11/2014 101 -31- 4303 -0000 General Engineering 01459 -910 -1 Sealcoat Project -June 895.50 08/11/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0006 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459 -920 -1 DataLink Implementation -June 616.50 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4303 -0000 Water Non -Dept 01459 -920 -1 DataLink Implementation -June 616.50 08/11/2014 631 -00- 4303 -0000 Storun Non -Dept 01459 -920 -1 DataLink Implementation -June 616.50 08/11/2014 611 -00- 4303 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 01459 -930 -1 Mill & Overlay - June 230.00 08/11/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0005 Street Cap Non -Dept 02092 -710 -8 MS4 Svcs - June 1,757.75 08/11/2014 631 -00- 4302 -0005 Storm Non -Dept Check Total: 69,984.00 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Mnguyen Printed: 08/07/2014 - 11:34AM Batch: 00001.08.201.4 - COUNCIL- 081120'14 Invoice No Description Vendor: 411 XCEL ENERGY Stmt #420540231 Street Lights - 05/22 -07/08 Stmt #420540231 Amesbury Svc - 05/22 -07/08 Stmt #420540231 Boulder Bridge Svc - 05/22 -07/08 Stmt #420540231 S.E. Area Svc - 05/22 -07/08 Stmt #420540231 Parks- 05/22 -07/08 Stmt #420540231 C.H. Svcs - 05/22 -07/09 Stmt #420540231 P.W. Bldg Svc - 05/22 -07/09 Stmt#420540231 P.W. Street Lights Svc - 05/22 -07/08 Stmt #421246104 24253 Smithtown Rd - 06/23 -07/23 Stmt #421267007 5735 Country Chub Rd - 06/23 -07/23 Stnnt#421576906 5700 County Rd 19 - 06/26 -07/28 Strut #421576906 5700 County Rd 19 - Unit light- 06/26 -07/28 Check Total: 13,146.22 Total for Check Run: 250,069.70 Total of Number- of Checks: 54 • ••=i Amount Payment Date Acet Number Fund Dept Check Sequence: 54 733.77 08/1.1/2014 611 -00- 4380 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 99492 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Water Non -Dept 1,968.01 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept 3,385.47 08/11/2014 601 -00- 4398 -0000 Water Non -Dept 376.38 08/11/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 General Park Maint 450.01 08/11/2014 101 -19 -4380 -0000 General Mun Bldg 542.10 08/1.1/201.4 101 -32- 4380 -0000 General Pub Works 3,416.46 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works 205.77 08/11/2014 601 -00 -4395 -0000 Water Non -Dept 844.15 08/11/2014 201 -00- 4380 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 40.08 08/11/201.4 101 -32 -4399 -0000 General Pub Works 189.10 08/11/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Adopt the Codification of the Ordinances Approved in 2013 (Supplement 9) Meeting Date: August 11, 2014 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: William S. Joynes, City Administrator Attachments: Ordinance, Resolution Background: On November 22, 2004, Council adopted Ordinance No. 409, which approved the Municipal Code Book recodification provided by American Legal Publishing and the League of Minnesota Cities. With this recodification, the Code Book was current through Ordinance No. 401 passed on February 23, 2004. Eight supplements have been completed since the initial recodification. These eight supplements included Ordinance No's 474 -499. The ninth supplement (S -9) to the City Code Book includes Ordinance No.'s 500 -510, which includes ordinances approved through February 2014. American Legal Publishing has provided copies of the replacement pages to the City Code Book for this S -9 supplement. The attached Exhibit A provides an outline of the sections /pages of the Code Book that have been updated. The attached Ordinance accepts the replacement pages, which includes Ordinance No's 500 -510. The Code Book is available on the City's Web site in a searchable format, via a link to American Legal Publishing Corporation. Financial or Budget Considerations: The total cost for 72 pages of S -9 is $1,372. Funds exist in the Administration budget (41300) for this expense. Recommendation / Action Requested: Adoption of an Ordinance to enact and adopt the 2014 S -9 Supplement to the Shorewood City Code Book, provided by American Legal Publishing Corporation; and Adoption of a Resolution approving a summary publication of said Ordinance. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will update all of the city code books with the new pages Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing quality public service. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. 515 AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE 2014 S -9 SUPPLEMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA WHEREAS American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, has completed the seventh Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood, which supplement contains all ordinances up through and including Ordinance No. 510 of a general and permanent nature enacted since the prior supplement of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Shorewood to accept these updated sections, as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. That the ninth supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood as submitted by American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, is hereby accepted. Section 2. This ordinance adopting the 2014 S -9 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances shall take effect upon publication in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 1 lth day of August, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk SHOREWOOD, Sheet Instruction 2014 S-9 Supplement REMOVE L PAGES INSERT NEW PAGES Title page Title page 1 901011124 * • 17,18 TABLE p CONTENTS 1 through 4 1 through 4 TITLE 200. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 201 -19 201 -2 201 -15 201-2 202 -11 202 -2 202-19 202 -2 TITLE 1200- ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 1.201 -98A, 1201 -9 1201 -8A$ 1201 -95 REMOVE OLD PAGES 1301-3 through 1301-8 1301-11,1301-12 3, 4 15,16 21 through 28 "INIK N I KYA 1301-3 through 1301-8 1301-11, 1301-12 3, 4 151 16 21 through 28 N CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14 -067 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 515 The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. 515 approved by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, on August 11, 2014: An Ordinance Enacting, Codifying and Adopting the 2014 S -9 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, which contains Ordinance No.'s 500- 510, approved since the codification of the 2013 S -8 Supplement. A printed copy of the Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the Office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 1 lth day of August, 2014. ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Scott Zerby, Mayor #6B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Budget Presentation Meeting Date: August 11, 2014 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Reviewed by: Attachments: South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Proposed 2015 Budget and 2015 Financial Obligation Background: Police Chief Bryan Litsey will provide a presentation on the proposed 2015 SLMPD Budget and Financial Obligation. Attachment 1 is the Proposed Budget. Attachment 2 is the 2015 Financial Obligation. Council Action The Coordinating Committee recommended approval of the 2015 Operating Budget. Council may determine to approve the proposed budget as submitted or with recommended changes. 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 o" o W � d a- TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Serving Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay BRYAN LITSEY Chief of Police 24150 Smithtown Road Office (952) 474 -3261 Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Fax (952) 474 -4477 MEMORANDUM Kristi Luger, Excelsior City Manager Dana Young, Deephaven City Administrator Representing City of Greenwood Bill Joynes, Shorewood City Administrator Joe Kohlmann, Tonka Bay City Administrator Bryan Litsey, Chief of Police July 29, 2014 - Tuesday 2015 Operating Budget Coordinating Committee Recommendation As you are aware, the Coordinating Committee for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department ( SLMPD) passed by a majority vote (3/1) a recommended operating budget for 2015. This took place at their quarterly meeting held on July 16, 2014. This culminates what has been a comprehensive budget process with the Coordinating Committee, which is chronicled on the SLMPD website at www.southlakepd.com. This is also where council members desiring to view and download documents disseminated during the aforementioned process should be directed. The recommended operating budget has been attached for your convenience. The portion supported by member city contributions equates to a 2.6 percent increase over 2014. This is less than what staff initially proposed and the impetus behind the dissenting vote by Committee Member Scott Zerby who favored the staff proposal. This reduction was primarily achieved by eliminating the increase transfer amounts advocated by staff to bolster the balances in the technology, insurance, equipment and vehicle funds to more sustainable levels. The recommended budget now goes to your respective city councils for consideration prior to the September 1 st deadline. Approval of all four member cities is required to avoid the budget being determined by the default provision in the Joint Powers Agreement. Please let me know in advance if you would like me to be present when your council takes action on this matter. Cc: Coordinating Committee Members 2015 OPERATING BUDGET COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Wednesday - July 16, 2014 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2015 OPERATING BUDGET Projected Expenses COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Wednesday - July 16, 2014 ITEM CATEGORY AMOUNT 50100 Salaries - Full -Time $1,298,700 50200 Salaries - General Overtime $37,900 50230 Salaries - Reimbursed Overtime $59,500 50300 Salaries - Part -Time $99,100 50500 Social Security & Medicare $31,200 50600 PERA Pensions $221,800 50700 Insurance Benefits $243,500 51000 Contracted Services $22,800 52100 Equipment Leases $34,300 52200 Repairs & Maintenance $49,800 52300 Utilities $64,400 52400 Janitorial & Cleaning $11,300 52500 Printing & Publishing $3,200 52800 Care of Persons $100 53000 Supplies $77,200 54000 Uniforms & Gear $14,800 54500 Training & Development $15,000 56000 Insurance $56,000 56100 Subscriptions & Memberships $3,200 57000 Special Projects $12,600 58000 Capital Outlay $72,000 59000 Undesignated Allocation $0 TOTAL PROJECTED EXPENSES $2,428,400 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2015 OPERATING BUDGET Projected Revenues COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Wednesday - July 16, 2014 ITEM CATEGORY AMOUNT 40110 Court Overtime $5,000 40120 Excelsior Park and Dock Patrol $21,500 42100 State Police Officer Aid $96,000 42200 State Training Reimbursement $4,500 43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000 43200 Administrative Requests $4,000 43400 Special Policing Details $48,400 44000 Investment Income $5,000 46400 Forfeitures $2,000 46500 Grant Reimbursements $25,000 46600 Other Reimbursements $3,000 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUES $221,400 Expenses in Excess of Revenues $2,207,000 PROJECTED COST TO MEMBER CITIES $2,207,000 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2015 OPERATING BUDGET COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Wednesday - July 16, 2014 Projected Contributions from Member Cities - Year 2015 Reallocation Formula (2012 -2016) MEMBER CITY TOTAL AMOUNT % SHARE $ SHARE $ INCREASE OVER 2014 Excelsior $2,207,000 28.0532% $619,134 $15,962 Greenwood $2,207,000 8.4747% $187,037 $4,822 Shorewood $2,207,000 48.4887% $1,070,145 $27,589 Tonka Bay $2,207,000 14.9834% $330,684 $8,527 2015 Total Contributions from Member Cities $2,207,000 % SHARE 2014 Total Contributions from Member Cities $2,150,100 The funding formula used to determine each member city's $2,150,100 percentage contribution toward the operating budget is based on an $603,172 $17,085 arbitration ruling in 2006. Every five years the funding formula is $2,150,100 8.4747% subject to adjustment based on the criteria set forth in this ruling. $5,162 Shorewood The 2012 operating budget was the first time since the ruling took 48.4887% $1,042,556 effect that the funding formula was subject to adjustment. An Tonka Bay $2,150,100 administrators group established by the Coordinating Committee $322,157 $9,124 worked on the reallocation formula that was subsequently 1 $2,150,100 sanctioned by the member cities and incorporated into the 2012 operating budget. The reset funding formula is not subject to change again until 2017. Dollar Increase Over 2014 $56,900 Percentage Increase Over 2014 2.6% Contributions from Member Cities - Year 2014 MEMBER CITY TOTAL AMOUNT % SHARE $ SHARE $ INCREASE OVER 2013 Excelsior $2,150,100 28.0532% $603,172 $17,085 Greenwood $2,150,100 8.4747% $182,215 $5,162 Shorewood $2,150,100 48.4887% $1,042,556 $29,529 Tonka Bay $2,150,100 14.9834% $322,157 $9,124 Totals 1 $2,150,100 $60,900 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2015 OPERATING BUDGET COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Wednesday - July 16, 2014 Proposed Contributions from Member Cities Reallocation Formula (2012 -2016) Total Amount - $2,207,000 $1,200,000 48.4887% $1,000,000 $800,000 — 28.0532% $600,000 $400,000 14.9834% $200,000 8.4747% $619,134 $187,037 $1,070,145 $330,684 $0 Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2015 OPERATING BUDGET COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Wednesday - July 16, 2014 PENDING TRANSFERS TO SPECIAL FUNDS Line Item Operating Budget Expenses Transfer Amount Assigned Funds Category Sub - Category 52100 Equipment Leases Communications Records Management $28,000 Technology 52200 Repairs & Maintenance Building Maintenance $0 Firearms Range 56000 Insurance N/A $56,000 Insurance 57000 Special Projects Reserve Unit $1,000 Reserve Officer 58000 Capital Outlay Vehicle 1 $70,000 Vehicle 58000 Capital Outlay Equipment 1 $2,000 Equipment Total 1 $157,000 Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey - July 2014 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 24100 - 24150 Smithtown Road, City of Shorewood "Building For Today With A Vision For Tomorrow" South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2015 Financial Obligation Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey - Distributed July 2014 Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility • 21b 2015 FINANCIAL OBLIGATION f PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY Wt/ Prepared by Bryan Litsey, Chief of Police PRELUDE The financial considerations of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) consist of the annual operating budget and the long -term debt service obligation for the police portion of the public safety facility. These two components are addressed separately in the current Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The SLMPD operating budget is subject to annual approval, which is proportioned between the member cities using percentages established through the most recent amendment to the JPA. The SLMPD portion of the debt service owed on the public safety facility is a long -term obligation of each member city. The amount due by each city is based upon a tax capacity formula (ad valorem), which is subject to annual adjustments to reflect changes in property values. Included as part of this document are spreadsheets reflecting what the annual debt service payments will be for each member city in 2015. These are collected by the SLMPD and subsequently remitted to the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) for payment of the bonds and interest. The sources for the data used on the spreadsheets are so noted. See Appendix A. DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS The Shorewood EDA is the fiscal manager for the debt service owed on the lease - revenue bonds issued for construction of the public safety facility. This complex serves as headquarters for both the SLMPD and the Excelsior Fire District (EFD). The first issuance of lease - revenue bonds to finance the project occurred in September 2002. The second issuance of lease - revenue bonds for the "clean up" financing occurred in April 2003. In accordance with the SLMPD Joint Powers Agreement, as amended in February 2002, each member city is obligated for its annual share of the debt service based on tax capacity (ad valorem). The debt service owed by the member cities commenced in 2003 with interest only payments required on the bonds. This schedule changed in 2004 to include principal and interest payments for the remaining term of the bonds. Historically low interest rates toward the latter part of 2006 provided an attractive incentive to refinance the aforementioned lease - revenue bonds issued in 2002 and 2003. It was calculated that such a transaction, referred to as a crossover advance refunding issuance, could yield more than $300,000 in total savings to the SLMPD. The savings to the EFD was even greater given their issuance of bonds also included the construction of a substation in 2015 Financial Obligation Public Safety Facility Page 2 of 2 Deephaven. The Shorewood EDA, acting through Northland Securities, initiated refinancing of the bonds in December 2006 after receiving authorization from the appropriate units of government. The savings derived from this refinancing were first realized in 2009 and continue thereafter until the refunding bonds mature in 2023. CPA Stuart Bonniwell, who is the SLMPD auditor, prepared the attached spreadsheets to help illustrate the cost saving benefits of this transaction. See Appendix B. BUILDING PRESERVATION Deciding on a strategy to fund and manage capital replacement costs as the building ages continues to be in a state of uncertainty. This is critically important in order to ensure the long -term functionality of the facility as well as preserve this community asset. Currently, general maintenance and minor repairs of the building are accounted for in the operating budget. Many of these expenses are a shared cost with the EFD. The SLMPD also maintains building maintenance and capital funds for building expenses not incorporated into the operating budget. Neither fund has a consistent source of revenue to sustain adequate fund balances. The building maintenance fund occasionally receives a boost from operations through transfers of surplus revenues when available. Nevertheless, the fund balance remains marginal at best with no reliable source of funding. The building capital fund was established using proceeds remaining from the construction of the facility. There is presently no dedicated source of funding to increase the fund balance as building components need to be replaced. Previous efforts to support these funds through member city contributions haven fallen short, with the last major initiative taking place in 2012. This is unfortunate and exposes the SLMPD, EFD and member cities to future unfunded liabilities. CONCLUDING REMARKS It is hard to believe that as of January 2015 eleven years will have elapsed since the SLMPD relocated to its present facility. This top -notch facility has served the organization well and will continue to do so for years to come. It is the source of immense organizational and civic pride and represents the tremendous value placed on public safety by members of the South Lake Minnetonka community. It is a testament to what can be accomplished through visionary leadership and a spirit of cooperation. This community asset not only enhances the delivery of public safety services, but strengthens the working relationship between the SLMPD and the EFD. I could go on, but suffice it to say that this capital investment is greatly appreciated by both organizations. South lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility Debt Service Payments Year 2015 Police Portion $419,000 3 ;horewood $225,181 53.74% 2015 FINANCIAL OBLIGATION for PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY Appendix A SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY - POLICE PORTION 2015 DEBT SERVICE AMOUNTS Amount Due to the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) - $419,000 Member City Tax Capacity (1) Percentage (2) Share of Cost (3) Excelsior $4,617,810 15.58% $65,282 Greenwood $3,276,363 11.06% $46,319 Shorewood $15,928,354 53.74% $225,181 Tonka Bay $5,815,790 19.62% $82,218 TOTAL $29,638,317 100.00% $419,000 NOTATIONS 1 (1) 2014 Tax Capacity Figures - Hennepin County Assessor's Office - (Data Run: July 11, 2014) 1 1 (2) Percentages Rounded Based Upon Tax Capacity (Ad Valorem) Formula (3) Total Debt Service Costs Validated with the Shorewood EDA - (Includes Anticipated Fiscal Agent Fees) Facility Debt Obligation Independent of the SLMPD Operating Budget SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY - POLICE PORTION 2015 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS Amount Due to the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) - $419,000 NOTATIONS 1 (1) Allocation of debt service based on tax capacity figures provided by the Hennepin County Assessor's Office 1 (2) Total debt service costs validated with the Shorewood EDA (3) Quarterly payment figures rounded for consistency of payment amounts 2015 Debt Service Payments (3) Member City Share of Debt Service (1) First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter Excelsior $65,282 $16,321 $16,321 $16,321 $16,321 Greenwood $46,319 $11,580 $11,580 $11,580 $11,580 Shorewood $225,181 $56,295 $56,295 $56,295 $56,295 Tonka Bay $82,218 $20,555 $20,555 $20,555 $20,555 TOTAL (2) $419,000 NOTATIONS 1 (1) Allocation of debt service based on tax capacity figures provided by the Hennepin County Assessor's Office 1 (2) Total debt service costs validated with the Shorewood EDA (3) Quarterly payment figures rounded for consistency of payment amounts SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Public Safety Facility - Police Portion Debt Service Payments - Years 2003 to 2015 Year2003 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $37,949 14.60% Greenwood $24,329 9.36% Shorewood $151,906 58.42% Tonka Bay $45,817 17.62% TOTALS $260,001 100.00% Year2004 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $69,121 14.98% Greenwood $43,917 9.51% Shorewood $265,599 57.54% Tonka Bay $82,969 17.97% TOTALS $461,606 100.00% Year2005 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $63,796 14.26% Greenwood $43,133 9.64% Shorewood $259,404 57.97% Tonka Bay $81,115 18.13% TOTALS $447,448 100.00% Year2006 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $62,300 14.03% Greenwood $44,950 10.12% Shorewood $254,593 57.31% Tonka Bay $82,357 18.54% TOTALS $444,200 100.00% Year2007 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $64,090 14.50% Greenwood $45,305 10.25% Shorewood $249,509 56.45% Tonka Bay $83,096 18.80% TOTALS $442,000 100.00% SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Public Safety Facility - Police Portion Debt Service Payments - Page 2 Year2008 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $64,025 14.52% Greenwood $47,394 10.75% Shorewood $244,003 55.33% Tonka Bay $85,578 19.40% TOTALS $441,000 100.00% Year2009 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $61,081 14.27% Greenwood $47,649 11.13% Shorewood $232,940 54.43% Tonka Bay $86,330 20.17% TOTALS $428,000 100.00% Year 2010 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $59,034 13.99% Greenwood $47,901 11.35% Shorewood $228,066 54.04% Tonka Bay $86,999 20.62% TOTALS $422,000 100.00% Year 2011 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $57,936 13.69% Greenwood $47,263 11.16% Shorewood $230,066 54.35% Tonka Bay $88,035 20.80% TOTALS $423,300 100.00% Year 2012 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $58,111 14.03% Greenwood $45,469 10.98% Shorewood $225,132 54.37% Tonka Bay $85,388 20.62% TOTALS $414,100 100.00% SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Public Safety Facility - Police Portion Debt Service Payments - Page 3 Year 2013 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $59,907 14.28% Greenwood $47,294 11.28% Shorewood $227,764 54.31% Tonka Bay $84,435 20.13% TOTALS $419,400 100.00% Year 2014 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $62,962 14.92% Greenwood $45,629 10.81% Shorewood $229,763 54.45% Tonka Bay $83,646 19.82% TOTALS $422,000 100.00% Year 2015 Member City Police Facility Debt Service Police Facility Percentages Excelsior $65,282 15.58% Greenwood $46,319 11.06% Shorewood $225,181 53.74% Tonka Bay $82,218 19.62% TOTALS $419,000 100.00% 2015 FINANCIAL OBLIGATION for PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY Appendix B SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT - DEBT SERVICE SAVINGS Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Original Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2007B Series 2002B and 2003B (Payment Schedule) (Bond Payments Refinanced) Payment Date Principal 8/1/2016 Estimated 2/1/2017 $ 315,000 8/1/2017 2/1/2018 325,000 8/1/2018 Total 2/1/2019 340,000 8/1/2019 Savings 2/1/2020 355,000 8/1/2020 $ 66,336 2/1/2021 365,000 8/1/2021 364,976 2/1/2022 385,000 8/1/2022 6,360 2/1/2023 400,000 $ 2,485,000 $ 420,813 $ 2,905,813 $ 2,515,000 $ 565,428 $ 3,080,428 $ 174,615 Exhibit Prepared by CPA Stuart Bonniwell, SLMPD Auditor - (Updated July 2014) Estimated Future Interest Total Principal Interest Total Savings $ 49,976 $ 49,976 $ 66,336 $ 66,336 $ 16,360 49,976 364,976 $ 305,000 66,336 371,336 6,360 43,913 43,913 58,605 58,605 14,693 43,913 368,913 320,000 58,605 378,605 9,693 37,575 37,575 50,398 50,398 12,823 37,575 377,575 340,000 50,398 390,398 12,823 30,775 30,775 41,573 41,573 10,798 30,775 385,775 355,000 41,573 396,573 10,798 23,675 23,675 32,293 32,293 8,618 23,675 388,675 375,000 32,293 407,293 18,618 16,193 16,193 22,160 22,160 5,968 16,193 401,193 400,000 22,160 422,160 20,968 8,300 8,300 11,350 11,350 3,050 8,300 408,300 420,000 11,350 431,350 23,050 $ 2,485,000 $ 420,813 $ 2,905,813 $ 2,515,000 $ 565,428 $ 3,080,428 $ 174,615 Exhibit Prepared by CPA Stuart Bonniwell, SLMPD Auditor - (Updated July 2014) SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT - DEBT SERVICE SAVINGS Estimated Debt Service Savings Realized from Refinancing of Original Bonds Estimated Debt Service Savings by City: Member Contribution By Year: Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay Total 2009 14.27% 11.13% 54.43% 20.17% 100.00% 2010 13.99% 11.35% 54.04% 20.62% 100.00% 2011 13.69% 11.16% 54.35% 20.80% 100.00% 2012 14.03% 10.98% 54.37% 20.62% 100.00% 2013 14.28% 11.28% 54.31% 20.13% 100.00% 2014 14.92% 10.81% 54.45% 19.82% 100.00% 2015 15.58% 11.06% 53.74% 19.62% 100.00% Savings Allocated Among 34,260 $ 174,615 Cities By Year: 2009 $ 2,992 $ 2,334 $ 11,414 $ 4,230 $ 20,970 2010 3,517 2,853 13,586 5,184 25,140 2011 2,605 2,123 10,342 3,958 19,028 2012 3,261 2,552 12,635 4,792 23,240 2013 2,595 2,049 9,868 3,658 18,170 2014 2,680 1,942 9,782 3,561 17,965 2015 4,282 3,040 14,770 5,393 27,485 $ 21,932 $ 16,893 $ 82,397 $ 30,776 $ 151,998 Future Savings Based on Current Percentages: 2016 $ 3,540 $ 2,513 $ 12,210 $ 4,457 $ 22,720 2017 3,799 2,697 13,105 4,784 24,385 2018 3,995 2,836 13,782 5,032 25,645 2019 3,365 2,388 11,605 4,237 21,595 2020 4,243 3,012 14,636 5,344 27,235 2021 4,196 2,979 14,475 5,285 26,935 2022 4,066 2,887 14,026 5,121 26,100 $ 27,204 $ 19,312 $ 93,839 $ 34,260 $ 174,615 Assumption: Allocation of savings based on funding percentages applicable for 2009 through 2015. Note: Savings realized by each member City will change as the funding percentage is adjusted annually. Figures presented above are exclusive of fiscal fees. Exhibit Prepared by CPA Stuart Bonniwell, SLMPD Auditor - (Updated July 2014) #8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Proposed Zoning Amendment — Senior Housing Meeting Date: 11 August 2014 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Attachments: Exhibit A — Shingle Creek Commons Exhibit B —Mill Pond Gables Exhibit C —Oak Ridge Estates Exhibit D — Birchwood Exhibit E — Deephaven Woods Policy Consideration: Should the City amend the Zoning Code, allowing higher density for senior housing projects? Background: At its last meeting, the City Council raised questions regarding a proposed zoning text amendment that would allow higher density for senior housing projects. The Council asked to see what projects involving the proposed revised densities might look like and asked for additional information regarding what other cities allow. The attached exhibits illustrate various senior housing projects in the Metropolitan Area, with their respective number of units and site sizes. Exhibit A — Shingle Creek Commons: 75 senior apartments on 2.37 acres; 31.6 units per acre Exhibit B — Mill Pond Gables: 48 senior apartments on 2.5 acres; 19.2 units per acre Exhibit C — Oak Ridge Estates: 67 assisted living on 2.59 acres; 25.9 units per acre Exhibit D — Birchwood: ? units on 3.7 acres Exhibit E — Deephaven Woods: 78 senior, asst. liv, mem care on 4.16 acres: 18.75 units per acre We researched some smaller communities in the area. Neither Tonka Bay or Greenwood have provisions for senior housing (or any kind of multiple - family). Excelsior allows 36 units per acre and Deephaven, as noted above, allows up to 18.75 units per acre. In discussing the amendment with the Mayor, he suggested that it may be a good idea to revisit the whole topic of the need for senior housing in Shorewood. If the Council agrees with that, staff can arrange to have Mr. Rick Fenske, an expert on senior housing, at a future study session (possibly the 25 August meeting). Finally, with respect to the use of "may" vs "shall" in the proposed amendment, this is deliberate. It must be remembered that the recommendation in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study is that the area be developed through Planned Unit Development which inherently involves negotiation. The Study goes on to state "In this regard, there are a number of ways that the City can reduce regulatory obstacles and even incite or reward development built to the higher standards envisioned by this study. The greater a project complies with the City's vision for the area, the greater the incentive with respect to zoning flexibility and even participation in the project." Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Options: Adopt the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; modify the amendment; or study further. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff's recommendation remains to approve the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission, but otherwise seeks direction from the Council. Next Steps and Timelines: If the Council wishes to revisit the need for senior housing in Shorewood, staff will attempt to arrange for a presentation by Rick Fenske at the 25 August work session. Page 2 I M-1 0 0 tOd L`4 --At Ak I mpo 2A Go3sIe earth I Exhibit A Shingle Creek Commons Goo,gle earth feet 10 meters 5 1 it "'y , ,( • - _ . iy�• r off ✓• .+ .F + Tom. t k _ ±� err Ir ..... I . . . . . ery --mom earth feet meters Goosle, earth feet 300 Exhibit B meters Mill Pond Gables ISM t4� I Goo ,gIe earth feet 10 meter 4 Go3(gle earth feet so Exhibit C meters ioo Oak Ridge Estates Page 1 of 1 http: / /obeo.com/tourimages /67 /671560 /frontyard_1200.jpg 8/6/2014 '1e 16600 92nd Ave N, Osseo, . M N 55311, -0�10 Nj ©2014 Goggle 'Cook ea r t h Go3gle earth feet rneters# 10 14 Ah +# l Page 1 of 1 http: / /obeo.com/tourimages /67 /671560 /frontyardl_1200.jpg 8/6/2014 ' "' 182�24�� -18 GU [.�;..��I8�i"'•"'I -_ 18128.'g. I T'^��3P',p�J -•.� 3365 � 15002 7 50 17740 SITE PLAN .1810.. .. - •. RN. N E MINTONKA BLVD s. ... .. - .�'.._ •S_::: MTNNFTn NKA:RI Vn . -,. _...,. .._. .r. * PHASE 2 U 305, 'W ,17925 r � C >I/ ■ `folI§p 18315 '3 , S fi(2 _ a , 'F PHASE 2 10 TOWNHOMES 20 UNITS P r 11813 ; w 4, b �i Z F t GUEST PARKING MEMORY CARE COURTYARD i, I EL PLAYGROUND SOCCER FIELD 1� Deephaven Woods Senior Living St. Therese Senior Housing, LLC DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA TO I MMU f�yARDDEEN� _l T7 _ 41GUE5T PARKING I qLOOPED WATER MI I I i30 1 OPTIONAI) EMPLOYEq PARKING zs J RETENTION POND ,MODIFY IF NEEDED) 1� h PHASE 1 ASSISTED LIVING 78 UNITS / 2-STORY I i I 0 50 (op ZdP US % ' Exhibit E Deephaven Woods ELEVATIONS Q� NORTH ELEVATION Q 'I. NORTH ELEVATION vas =ro WEST ELEVATION "°' Deephaven Woods Senior Living St. Therese Senior Housing, LLC DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA KRAUS- ANDERSON- CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Steps to Creating a Safe Routes to School Program Starting a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is an opportunity to make walking and bicycling to school safer and more accessible for children, including those with disabilities, and to increase the number of children who choose to walk and bicycle. On a broader level, SRTS programs can enhance children's health and well - being, ease traffic congestion near the school and improve air quality and improve community members' overall quality of life. The steps outlined in this section are meant to provide guidance by providing a framework for establishing a SRTS program based on what has worked in other communities. Some communities may find that a different approach or a reordering of these steps works better for them. Bring together the right people Identify people who want to make walking and bicycling to school safe and appealing for children. Sharing concerns, interests and knowledge among a variety of community members with diverse expertise can enable groups to tackle many different issues. Consider whether the group wants to plan for SRTS in a single school, district -wide or at another level. Each has potential benefits; for example, a school district -wide group could create policies that would impact all schools while a school - specific group could work on detailed issues relating to that school and dedicate more resources to that one location. Look for existing groups where an SRTS program is a natural fit, such as a city or school district safety committee, PTA, school site council, groups that represent the disabled, wellness council or a pedestrian and bicycle advisory board. If there are no appropriate groups to take on the issue, form an SRTS coalition. When asking for participation explain why SRTS is needed and tell people specifically how they can help. For more information on forming an SRTS coalition, see the National HighwaV Traffic SafetV Administration's (NHTSA) Safe Routes To School Toolkit. Involve children in the SRTS program to learn what is important to them with respect to their journey to school and around their neighborhood. Ask them questions like: Do they like being driven everywhere by their parents? Would they rather walk and bicycle around their neighborhoods? What do they think about their route to school? What would they change about their trip to school? A special effort should be made to query students with disabilities about what is important to them about their journey to school as well. Communities with flourishing SRTS programs have attributed their success in part to a program champion — someone who has enthusiasm and time to provide leadership for the group and keep things moving. However, a champion can not do it alone, he or she will need support. Building the next generation of leaders along the way will assure that the program continues. This is particularly important when the champion is a parent who is likely to move on when their child transitions to another school. Potential Coalition Members Different communities will find different organizations and individuals ready to be involved. This list is not exhaustive, but is intended to provide ideas for the creation of a well - rounded group that represents a wide range of interests and expertise that are related to SRTS. School: • Principal and other administrators. • Parents and students, including those with disabilities • Teachers (physical education or health teachers are a good place to start). • PTA /PTO representative. • School nurse. • School district transportation director. • School improvement team or site council member. • Adult school crossing guards. • Special Education teacher. Community: • Community members. • Neighborhood or community association members. • Local businesses. • Local pedestrian, bicycle and safety advocates. • Groups representing people with disabilities. Local Government: • Mayor's office or council member. • Transportation or traffic engineer. • Local planner . • Public health professional. • Public works representative. • Law enforcement officer . • State or local pedestrian and bicycle coordinator. Hold a kick -off meeting The kick -off meeting has two main goals: to create a vision and to generate next steps. One approach is to ask each participant to share a vision for the school five years in the future. Responses are often statements, such as: "a school with fewer cars at the entrance," "more active children" and "safe walkways." This focuses the group on the positive — what they would like to have — rather than what is wrong. Another way to create a positive vision is to ask people to share a positive memory of walking or bicycling to school when they were young. Provide a presentation on SRTS programs including issues and strategies related to engineering, enforcement, education, encouragement and evaluation. The group can then discuss the appropriate next steps and best way to work toward their vision. This may include forming committees to separate out the tasks. Forming Committees Coalitions sometimes create committees to take on the major tasks, allowing members to focus on a specific activity related to their skills and interest. Some possible SRTS committees include: Mapping and information gathering committee Obtains maps, collects information about where children live, the routes they take to school and the condition of the streets along the way, including accessibility barriers for children with disabilities. Outreach committee Collects input from parents, teachers and students, and publicizes the program to the school and community. Education and encouragement activities committee Works closely with school administration and teachers to put education and encouragement activities in place, gathers materials for activities and solicits donations for programming and prizes. Enforcement and engineering committee Develops recommendations for enforcement and engineering solutions. Works closely with local government and other resources to find funding and make improvements. Traffic safety committee Identifies unsafe drivers' behavior and develops an education campaign to increase awareness. Gather information and identify issues Collecting information can help to: • Identify needed program elements. • Provide a means to measure the impact of the program later. First, look at walking and bicycling conditions for students. This can be done by observing or mapping the routes that lead to school. Collecting traffic counts and speed and injury data can help identify driver - related safety issues. Walking around the school as a group to observe arrival or dismissal time can be one of the best ways to reach a collective understanding of the issues, inculding safety and accessibility, and potential solutions. Finding out about existing policies that may make it easier or more difficult to walk or bicycle to school can also be useful. For example, a school may not allow children to bicycle to school. Understanding and addressing underlying issues for a policy may be addressed by the SRTS plan. Second, determine how many children currently walk or bicycle to school. The school may already know this. Parent surveys can also be used to understand parents' attitudes towards walking or bicycling to school and identify barriers to walking and bicycling that need to be addressed. See the NCSRTS Resources for Student In -class Travel Tally and Parent Survey forms to use. SRTS coalition members can lend expertise in locating data sources and can help collect the necessary information. Identify solutions Solutions to issues identified by the group will include a combination of education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement strategies. Safety is the first consideration. If it is not safe for children to walk and bicycle to school, then they should only be encouraged after problems are addressed. Some problems will require engineering solutions; others may require education, encouragement, enforcement or a combination of strategies. Here the expertise of the different partners is especially valuable. It is likely that the coalition will generate a long list of potential ideas and solutions. The next step will be easier if the list is prioritized. Are some issues more critical to address than others? Are there "quick wins" that the group can identify that would help to generate additional enthusiasm early in the program? Make a plan The SRTS plan does not need to be lengthy, but should include encouragement, enforcement, education, and engineering strategies; a time schedule for each part of these strategies; a map of the area covered by the plan; and an explanation of how the program will be evaluated. Strategies that can be implemented early will help the group feel successful and can build momentum and support for long -term activities. Be sure to include fun activities; that is what encouragement is all about. Fund the plan Parts of a SRTS program will cost very little money. For example, most International Walk to School Day coordinators say they spend less than $100 on their events. There are many low -cost engineering solutions that can be put into place in a relatively short amount of time such as new signs or fresh paint on crosswalks. On the other hand, some changes, such as new sidewalk construction, may need large amounts of capital. There are several places to seek funding for SRTS program activities including: • Federal programs: SAFETEA -LU (including funds allocated to SRTS), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Surface Transportation Program, Recreational Trail Program and others. • State SRTS programs. • Environmental and air quality funds. • Health and physical activity funds. • County and city funding. • Philanthropic organizations. For more information about these funding resources, see Legislation and Fundinp,. Act on the plan Reidville Elementary, Spartanburg, South Carolina. There are things that can be done right away without major funding, so some parts of the SRTS plan can start right away while waiting on other parts. Hold a fun - filled kick -off event and invite the media. For example, participate in International Walk to School Day or celebrate a Walking Wednesday. If the school is located too far for children to walk from home, identify places where families can park and walk part of the way. If improvements are needed before children can walk to school, start walking activities before, during or after school right on the school grounds. Enforcement, education, encouragement and engineering strategies will all come together as pieces of the plan are implemented. Evaluate, make improvements and keep moving After the program begins, careful monitoring will identify which strategies are increasing the number of children safely walking and bicycling to school. Proper adjustments can be made as this and other new information is gathered. One simple evaluation measure is to re -count the number of walkers and bicyclists and compare this number to the findings in Step 3 (the baseline count). See the Evaluation chapter of this Guide for more information on how to measure impact. The coalition also needs to consider how to sustain energy and interest in the program so that children continue to walk and bicycle to school safely. Key strategies for keeping the program going include: • Identifying additional program champions. • Letting people know about the successes: Get visibility for activities through local media and school communications and publicize your activities. Making the work fun and positive makes it more likely that people will want to continue and others will want to become involved. • Encouraging policy changes: These might be school, school district or local government policies that support children walking and bicycling to school. For example, local planning departments may promote new school construction within walking and bicycling distance of residential areas. School district adoption of a safety curriculum means that the pedestrian and bicycle education will continue to be provided to children. • Creating a permanent committee: A permanent committee within the PTA, school site council or other group means that SRTS will continue to receive attention and energy. A SRTS program has the potential to improve walking and bicycling conditions near a school and spread interest into other parts of the community. Coalitions that persist in their efforts and make measurable improvements based on their evaluation will be rewarded with safer places for children to walk and bicycle and more children choosing safe routes to school. #QA MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Resolution Accepting Bids and Award of Construction Contract for Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 14 -01. Meeting Date: 8/11/2014 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract Background: The City Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the Sunnyvale Lane Improvement Project, City Project 14 -01 on May 12, 2014. The proposed improvements include sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration improvements to manholes, street reconstruction, storm sewer and restoration. During the plan preparation phase the sanitary sewer was found to have several areas of deflected (or squashed) pipe, resulting in replacement of the sanitary sewer in the project plans. The watermain extension that was in the feasibility report was eliminated from the project by the City Council, with input of neighborhood residents. The project bid opening is at the City of Shorewood City Hall on Thursday, August 7, 2014. The bid results will be presented to the City Council at the regularly scheduled meeting on August 11, 2014, with a bid tabulation, recommendation letter, and a revised Resolution authorizing award of the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The resolution will be in the format included in this Council Agenda item with the inclusion of the successful bidder and contract amount. Financial or Budget Considerations: The Capital Improvement Plan budget in the Street Reconstruction, Sewer, and Stormwater Management Funds is $490,000. Options: 1. Approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder for the Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 14 -01. 2. Reject all bids for the Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 14 -01. 3. Take no action on this item at this time. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommendation for Council action will be provided in a letter with the Resolution accepting bids and consideration of awarding the construction contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder for the Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 14 -01, on Monday, August 11, 2014. 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 DRAFT CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE SUNNYVALE LANE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 14 -01 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as the Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 14 -01, bids were received, opened on August 7, 2014, tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that bidder in compliance with the specifications. is the lowest NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 14 -01, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 11'' day of August, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk WSB ANOMNMW Assail", Int. P.tigineerh7g'�i!±Yi7ning` errviroYia7?EP1t2ti "Cit165FTCFf:iICY?i August 7, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements City of Shorewood WSB Project No. 1459 -85 Dear Mayor and Council Members: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel 763 - 541 -0800 Fax: 763 -541 -1700 Bids were received for the above - referenced project on Thursday, August 7, 2014, and were opened and read aloud. Two bids were received. The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. Please find enclosed the bid tabulation indicating the low bid as submitted by GMH Asphalt Corporation, Chaska, Minnesota in the amount of $416,068.55. The Engineer's Estimate was $438,298.00. We recommend that the City Council consider these bids and award a contract in the amount of $416,068.55 to GMH Asphalt Corporation based on the results of the bids received. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, PE Project Manager Enclosures cc: Gary Hams, GMH Asphalt Corporation 31r St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal opportunity Employer wsbeng.00m K: \IIIJ59A50 \Admin \G,rvaM1'wlnn Atlmm \1J59 -9S LlY1 REGlno WI8 %Ii.JOe PROJECT: Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements OWNER: City of Shorewood, MN WSB PROJECT NO.: 1459 -85 Bids Opened: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Bid Security Contractor Addendum No. 1 Total Bid 1 GMH Asphalt Corporation X X $416,068.55 2 Northdale Construction Co., Inc. X X $453,805.53 Engineer's Opinion of Cost $438,298.00 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on August 7, 2014. Denotes corrected figure K9 014 5 9- 8 501AdmWC0bStmvVab Adm1ntl459 -85 Bid Tab Summary- 080714 01459 -85 - Project Bid Abstract WSB Qxuc itrfc.r, 11c. Project Name: SHOR -2014 Utility & Street Improvements - Sunnyvale Ln Client: City of Shorewood Bid Opening: 81712014 11:00 AM WSB Project Bid Abstract Contract No.: Project No.: 01459 -85 Owner: St. Paul Denotes corrected figure Page I of 3 8/7/2014 Project: 01459 -85 - SHOR -2014 Utility & Street Improvements - Sunnyvale Ln Engineers Estimate GMH Asphalt Corporation Northdale Construction Co., Inc. Item No. I Item Units Quantity I Unit Price JTotal Price I Unit Price JTotaIPrice Unit Price ITotal Price A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 IMOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $33,500.00 $33,500.00 $18,970.00 $18,970.001$28,740.00 $28,740.00 2 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 10 $400.00 $4,000.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $550.00 $5,500.00 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 10 $400.00 $4,000.00 $250.00 $2,500.001 $550.00 $5,500.00 4 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 90 $7.00 $630.00 $7.50 $675.00 $10.00 $900.00 5 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SO YD 27 $10.00 $270.00 $10.00 $270.00 $10.00 $270.00 6 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SO YD 244 $7.00 $1,708.00 $5.50 $1,342.00 $10.00 $2,440.00 7 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SO YD 1667 $5.00 $8,335.00 $4.00 $6,668.00 $5.00 $8,335.00 8 2104.509 REMOVE SIGN EACH 1 2 $50.001 $100.00 $80.00 $160.00 $55.00 $110.00 9 2104.509 REMOVE MAIL BOX SUPPORT EACH 1 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $55.00 $55.00 10 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 17 $5.00 $85.00 $10.001 $170.00 $5.00 $85.00 11 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 272 $5.00 $1,360.00 $3.50 $952.00 $5.00 $1,360.00 12 2104.601 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES LUMP SUM 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 13 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH 8 $150.00 $1,200.00 $85.00 $680.00 $165.00 $1,320.00 14 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) (P) CU YD 336 $14.00 $4,704.00 $26.85 $9,021.60 $20.00 $6,720.00 15 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 1740 $20.00 $34,800.00 $26.85 $46,719.00 $20.00 $34,800.00 16 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CU YD 1740 $20.001$34,800.00 $14.90 $25,926.00 $28.65 $49,851.00 17 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW (CV) CU YD 100 $20.00 $2,000.00 $40.00 $4,000.00 $35.00 $3,500.00 18 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SO YD 2408 $5.00 $12,040.00 $1.75 $4,214.00 $2.15 $5,177.20 19 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD STA 1 6.25 $250.00 $1,562.50 $350.00 $2,187.50 $250.00 $1,562.50 20 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 20 $150.00 $3,000.00 $140.00 $2,800.00 $150.00 $3,000.00 21 2130.501 WATER MGAL 70 $50.00 $3,500.00 $50.00 $3,500.00 $50.00 $3,500.00 22 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED) TON 1087 $24.00 $26,088.00 $23.10 $25,109.701 $17.98 $19,544.26 01459 -85 - Project Bid Abstract Page 2 of 3 23 12357.502 11311 TUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON 1 93 $3.50 $325.501 $7.001 $651.001 $3.85 $358.05 24 12360.501 ITYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) TON 240 $90.00 $21,600.00 $96.15 $23,076.00 $104.50 $25,080.00 ct: 01459 -85 - SHOR -2014 Utility & Street Improvements - Sunnyvale Ln Units .502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON .503 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) 3.0" THICK SO YD .602 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH .602 ADJUST HYDRANT AND VALVE BOX EACH .501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 8618 LIN FT .507 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT SO YD .601 MAIL BOX (TEMPORARY) LUMP: .602 MAIL BOX EACH .602 MAIL BOX SUPPORT EACH .601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP: .531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C EACH .602 F &I SIGN PANELS TYPE SPECIAL EACH .501 CONIFEROUS TREE 8' HT B &B TREE .502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B &B TREE .502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT .530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH .540 FILTER LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER BIOROLL LIN FT .602 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH .505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN (INCL. TOPSOIL & FERT.) SO YD .523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 2 SO YD .560 HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER TYPE 5 POUNC Total A. STREET IMPF SEWERIMPROVEMENTS .501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (SANITARY) LIN FT .501 REMOVE SANITARY SERVICE PIPE _ LIN FT .509 REMOVE MANHOLE (SANITARY) EACH .601 DEWATERING LU .509 AGGREGATE BEDDING (CV) CU .601 GRANULAR FOUNDATION AND /OR BEDDING CU .601 SANITARY SEWER BYPASS PUMPING LUMP .602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH .602 ICHIMNEY SEALS EACH .602 8 "X4" PVC WYE EACH .603 4" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 26 LIN FT Engineers Estimate GMH Asphalt Northdale Construction Corporation Co., Inc. antity, Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price 230 $90.00 $20,700.00 $91.30 $20,999.00 $96.80 $22,264.00'. 361 $40.00 $14,440.00 $27.00 $9,747.00 $44.20 $15,956.20' 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 $300.00 $600.00 $300.00 $600.00. 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,795.00 $2,795.00 $2,284.75 $2,284.75 1320 $15.00 $19,800.00 $16.00 $21,120.00 $14.85 $19,602.00'. 116 $60.00 $6,960.00 $45.50 $5,278.00 $64.55 $7,487.80''. 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 205.001 $205.00 $220.00 $220.00', 1 $100.00 $100.00 $30.00 $30.00 $38.50 $38.50'1 1 $150.00 $150.00 $175.00 $175.00 $165.00 $165.00 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 2 $30.00 $60.00 $250.00 $500.00 $220.00 $440.00 2 $250.00 $500.00 $385.0 60 .00 0 $770.00 $330.00 $6 21 MP SUMI 1 YD 47 YD 17E 1 $7 $1 $1 $1 $2.25 $61 $1.15 $2,41 $412.50 $1,2 $412.50 $1,2 $3.03 $1,8 $300.00 $1,8 $2.92 $1,8 ?,000.00 $4,0 $7.55 $17,1 $3.58 $9 $1.93 $4,0 $6.00 $132.001 $5.00 $110.00 270.00 $540.00 $400.00 $800.00 300.00 $300.00 $0.01 $0.01 $23.50 $1,104.50 $30.00 $1,410.00 $21.00 $3,675.00 $45.00 $7,875.00 100.00 $1,100.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 350.00 $8,100.00 $266.57 $1,599.42 335.00 $335.00 $395.13 $395.13 01459 -85 - Project Bid Abstract Page 3 of 3 157 12503.603 (TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER ILIN FT 1 5501 $2.001 $1,100.001 $4.001 $2,200.001 $3.001 $1,650.001 I hereby certify that this is an exact reproduction of bids received. Certified By: IC::::-_ --� License No. 23359 Date: August 7, 2014 Project: 01459 -85 - SHOR -2014 Utility & Street Improvements - Sunnyvale Ln Engineers Estimate GMH Asphalt Corporation Northdale Construction Co., Inc. Item No. Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price 58 2503.603 8" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 35 LIN FT 550 $50.00 $27,500.00 $50.50 $27,775.00 $34.84 $19,162.00 59 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY SANITARY SEWER EACH 3 $750.00 $2,250.00 $575.00 $1,725.00 $629.50 $1,888.50 60 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING (SANITARY) EACH 1 $800.00 $800.00 $550.00 $550.00 $495.13 $495.13 61 2506.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STRUCTURE EACH 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $12,415.00 $12,415.00 $12,627,50 $12,627.50 62 2506.603 CONSTRUCT 48" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE LIN FT 22 $250.00 $5,500.00 $127.00 $2,794.00 $204.00 $4,488.00 Total B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: $67,410.00 $67,143.50 $61,293.13 C. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 63 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT 22 $10.00 $220.00 $21.50 $473.00 $10.00 $220.00 64 2104.509 SALVAGE & REINSTALL CASTING EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00 $175.00 $350.00 $561.25 $1,122.50 65 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 2 $750.00 $1,500.00 $190.00 $380.00 $400.00 $800.00 66 2451.509 AGGREGATE BEDDING (CV) CU YD 47 $15.00 $705.00 $27.50 $1,292.50 $30.00 $1,410.00 67 2451.601 GRANULAR FOUNDATION AND /OR BEDDING CU YD 180 $20.00 $3,600.00 $21.50 $3,870.00 $45.00 $8,100.00 68 2502.541 6" PERFORATED DRAIN TILE W /SOCK LIN FT 1320 $20.00 $26,400.00 $21.50 $28,380.00 $17.98 $23,733.60 69 2502.602 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 $750.00 $3,000.00 $200.00 $800.00 $536.25 $2,145.00 70 2503.541 15" RCP PIPE SEWER 3006 CLASS V LIN FT 365 $50.00 $18,250.00 $59.00 $21,535.00 $47.38 $17,293.70 71 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $11,750.00 $11,750.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 72 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $675.00 $1,350.00 $1,979.80 $3,959.60 73 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48 -4020 LIN FT 12 $500.00 $6,000.00 $155.00 $1,860.00 $280.88 $3,370.56 74 2506.516 CASTINGASSEMBLY EACH 3 $750.00 $2,250.00 $675.00 $2,025.00 $907.93 $2,723.79 75 2506.521 INSTALL SALVAGED CASTING EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00 $200.00 $400.00 $516.63 $1,033.26 76 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING (STORM) EACH 1 $500.00 $500.00 $325.00 $325.00 $516.63 $516.63 77 2573.530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 1 7 $150.00 $1,050.00 $275.00 $1,925.00 $300.00 $2,100.00 Total C. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: $69,975.00 $76,715.50 $69,528.64 Total A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: $300,913.00 $272,209.55 $322,983.76 Total B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: $67,410.00 $67,143.50 $61,293.13 Total C. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: $69,975.00 $76,715.50 $69,528.64 Totals for Project 01459 -85 1$438,298.001 1$416,068.551 $453,805.53 of Estimate for Project 01459 -85 1 1 1 - 5.07 % 3.54 I hereby certify that this is an exact reproduction of bids received. Certified By: IC::::-_ --� License No. 23359 Date: August 7, 2014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE SUNNYVALE LANE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 14 -01 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as the Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 14 -01, bids were received, opened on August 7, 2014, tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that GMH Asphalt Corporation of Chaska, MN is the lowest bidder in compliance with the specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with GMH Asphalt Corporation in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 14 -01, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this I l:h day of August, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #9B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Consideration of Speed Limit on Waterford Place Meeting Date: August 11, 2014 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Attachments Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood adjust the speed limit to 25 mph on Waterford Place? Background: The City Council received correspondence regarding speed issues within the Waterford Subdivision, as included in Attachment 1. In response, the Mayor has suggested that consideration be given to adjusting the speed limit on Waterford Place to a 25 mph speed. Under Minnesota Statute 169.14, Subdivision 2, Subsection 7, the speed limit may be posted at 25 miles per hour, as shown in Attachment 2. It is prudent to point out that the simple posting of a speed limit sign does not necessarily slow traffic down. Especially for those drivers who currently choose to ignore the current 30 mph speed limit. The speed on any roadway is typically determined by roadway conditions or the amount of enforcement that is in place. If the City Council chooses to revise the limit, the attached resolution would need to be approved and speed signs erected. Recommendation Staff is seeking direction from the City Council. Financial or Budget Considerations: If approved, signs are already in stock and can be posted. Options: 1. Adopt the proposed resolution making the adjustment in speed. 2. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation /Action Requested: 1. Staff is seeking direction fro m the City Council. 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 Larry Brown From: Scott Zerby [scott @gamersdigital.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 7:56 AM To: Bill Joynes; Larry Brown Cc: Bryan Litsey Subject: Fwd: Waterford Home Association concern for speeding drivers in our neighborhood FYI Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Ian Kerr <iankerr700 @msn.com> Date: June 15, 2014 at 5:52:49 PM CDT To: <szerby@gmall.com >, <dsiakel @gmail.com >, <dick.wood ruff @yahoo.com >, <laurahotvet @gmail.com >, <kris @linksresults.com> Cc: "Jim Berdahl " <iiberdahl @mchsi.com> Subject: Waterford Home Association concern for speeding drivers in our neighborhood Dear Mayor Zerby and City Council Members I am writing you in the capacity as President of the Waterford Home Association. Speeding drivers and texting are becoming an increasing concern for many residents of the HOA. In particular, Old Market Road and Waterford Place are very concerning. Old Market has a speed limit of 25 and there is a stop sign at the intersection with Waterford Place. Last week, I was walking my dog and 4 vehicles with teenage drivers had to be driving at forty plus MPH. To make matters worse, they all ignored the stop sign at Waterford Place and one vehicle then proceeded to pass another car. Luckily no vehicle was proceeding North on Old Market as the odds of a fatality would have been high. In the past, the HOA and/ or some of its members have contacted the City and /or the Police regarding these issues. Occasionally a speed indicator has been set up on Old Market and sometimes a police officer has sat near the Waterford stop sign. And this has helped for a short period but over time the speeding and blowing through stop signs return. In addition I have noticed an increase in traffic on Waterford Place this year. The speed limit there is 30 MPH. I have never understood this limit which makes no sense relative to Old Market where there is a sidewalk on the East side of the street. Waterford Place today also has more families with younger children and some residents are asking whether the City or the HOA can put speed bumps on the street. The same would be a good idea for Old Market. I appreciate there is a concern with speed bumps and snow plowing. But are they a possibility? Or can the City offer other solutions to these problems? The HOA would appreciate your consideration of these issues. For my part, I am willing to attend a Council Meeting if these items can be placed on the agenda. Please advise at your earliest convenience. Your truly ATTACHMENT 1 Ian M.C. Kerr President Waterford Home Association 19435 Waterford Place 952'474-2788 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2013 169.14 169.14 SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADAR. Subdivision 1. Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. Subd. la. License revocation for extreme speed. The driver's license of a person who violates any speed limit established in this section, by driving in excess of 100 miles per hour, is revoked for six months under section 171.17, or for a longer minimum period of time applicable under section 169A.53, 169A.54, or 171.174. Subd. 2. Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful: (1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district; (2) 65 miles per hour on noninterstate expressways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 18b, and noninterstate freeways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 19; (3) 55 miles per hour in locations other than those specified in this section; (4) 70 miles per hour on interstate highways outside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation; (5) 65 miles per hour on interstate highways inside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation; (6) ten miles per hour in alleys; (7) 25 miles per hour in residential roadways if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the residential roadway; and (8) 35 miles per hour in a rural residential district if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the rural residential district. (b) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (7), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the residential roadway on which the speed limit applies. (c) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (8), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the rural residential district for the roadway on which the speed limit applies. (d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established in this subdivision, or a speed limit designated on an appropriate sign under subdivision 4, 5, 5b, 5c, or 5e, by driving 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable speed limit, is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 2a. Increased speed limit when passing. Notwithstanding subdivision 2, the speed limit is increased by ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit when the driver: ATTACHMENT 2 Copyright © 2013 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2013 169.14 (1) is on a two -lane highway having one lane for each direction of travel; (2) is on a highway with a posted speed limit that is equal to or higher than 55 miles per hour; (3) is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction of travel; and (4) meets the requirements in section 169.18. Subd. 3. Reduced speed required. (a) The driver of any vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on any street or highway, when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. (b) A person who fails to reduce speed appropriately when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on a street or highway shall be assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 4. Establishment of zones by commissioner. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any speed set forth in this section is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist on any trunk highway or upon any part thereof, the commissioner may erect appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that any speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. On determining upon that basis that a part of the trunk highway system outside a municipality should be a zone of maximum speed limit, the commissioner may establish that part as such a zone by erecting appropriate signs showing the beginning and end of the zone, designating a reasonable and safe speed therefor, which may be different than the speed set forth in this section, and that it is a zone of maximum speed limit. The speed so designated by the commissioner within any such zone shall be a maximum speed limit, and speed in excess of such limit shall be unlawful. The commissioner may in the same manner from time to time alter the boundary of such a zone and the speed limit therein or eliminate such zone. Subd. 4a. [Repealed, 1997 c 143 s 20] Subd. 5. Zoning within local area. When local authorities believe that the existing speed limit upon any street or highway, or part thereof, within their respective jurisdictions and not a part of the trunk highway system is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under existing conditions, they may request the commissioner to authorize, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, the erection of appropriate signs designating what speed is reasonable and safe, and the commissioner may authorize the erection of appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of these speed limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that any speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. Alteration of speed limits on streets and highways shall be made only upon authority of the commissioner except as provided in subdivision 5a. Copyright © 2013 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 3 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2013 169.14 Subd. 5a. Speed zoning in school zone; surcharge. (a) Local authorities may establish a school speed limit within a school zone of a public or nonpublic school upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation as prescribed by the commissioner of transportation. The establishment of a school speed limit on any trunk highway shall be with the consent of the commissioner of transportation. Such school speed limits shall be in effect when children are present, going to or leaving school during opening or closing hours or during school recess periods. The school speed limit shall not be lower than 15 miles per hour and shall not be more than 30 miles per hour below the established speed limit on an affected street or highway. (b) The school speed limit shall be effective upon the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced speed zone. Any speed in excess of such posted school speed limit is unlawful. All such signs shall be erected by the local authorities on those streets and highways under their respective jurisdictions and by the commissioner of transportation on trunk highways. (c) For the purpose of this subdivision, "school zone" means that section of a street or highway which abuts the grounds of a school where children have access to the street or highway from the school property or where an established school crossing is located provided the school advance sign prescribed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted by the commissioner of transportation pursuant to section 169.06 is in place. All signs erected by local authorities to designate speed limits in school zones shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established under this subdivision is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 5b. Segment in urban district. When any segment of at least a quarter -mile in distance of any city street, municipal state -aid street, or town road on which a speed limit in excess of 30 miles per hour has been established pursuant to an engineering and traffic investigation by the commissioner meets the definition of "urban district" as defined in section 169.011, subdivision 90, the governing body of the city or town may by resolution declare the segment to be an urban district and may establish on the segment the speed limit for urban districts prescribed in subdivision 2. The speed limit so established shall be effective upon the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the segment on which the speed limit is established, and any speed in excess of such posted limits shall be unlawful. A copy of the resolution shall be transmitted to the commissioner at least ten days prior to the erection of the signs. Subd. 5c. Speed zoning in alleyway. Local authorities may regulate speed limits for alleyways as defined in section 169.011 based on their own engineering and traffic investigations. Alleyway speed limits established at other than ten miles per hour shall be effective when proper signs are posted. Subd. 5d. Speed zoning in work zone; surcharge. (a) The commissioner, on trunk highways and temporary trunk highways, and local authorities, on streets and highways under their jurisdiction, may authorize the use of reduced maximum speed limits in highway work zones. The commissioner or local authority is not required to conduct an engineering and traffic investigation before authorizing a reduced speed limit in a highway work zone. Copyright © 2013 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 4 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2013 169.14 (b) The minimum highway work zone speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The work zone speed limit must not reduce the established speed limit on the affected street or highway by more than 15 miles per hour, except that the highway work zone speed limit must not exceed 40 miles per hour. The commissioner or local authority shall post the limits of the work zone. Highway work zone speed limits are effective on erection of appropriate regulatory speed limit signs. The signs must be removed or covered when they are not required. A speed greater than the posted highway work zone speed limit is unlawful. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), on divided highways the commissioner or local authority may establish a highway work zone speed limit that does not exceed 55 miles per hour. (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), on two -lane highways having one lane for each direction of travel with a posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour or greater, the commissioner or local authority may establish a highway work zone speed limit that does not exceed 40 miles per hour. (e) For purposes of this subdivision, "highway work zone" means a segment of highway or street where a road authority or its agent is constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining the physical structure of the roadway, its shoulders, or features adjacent to the roadway, including underground and overhead utilities and highway appurtenances, when workers are present. (f) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established under this subdivision, or who violates any other provision of this section while in a highway work zone, is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 5e. Speed limit on park road. The political subdivision with authority over a park may establish a speed limit on a road located within the park. A speed limit established under this subdivision on a trunk highway is effective only with the commissioner's approval. A speed limit established under this subdivision must be based on an engineering and traffic investigation prescribed by the commissioner of transportation and must not be lower than 20 miles per hour, and no speed limit established under this subdivision may reduce existing speed limits by more than 15 miles per hour. A speed limit established under this subdivision is effective on the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced speed zone. Any speed in excess of the posted speed is unlawful. Subd. 5f. Speed limits on certain rural residential districts. (a) A rural residential district existing and lawfully signed before August 1, 2009, continues to qualify as a rural residential district. (b) A rural residential district existing and lawfully signed before August 1, 2009, is subject to the speed limit signed before August 1, 2009. [See Note.] Subd. 6. [Repealed, Ex1971 c 27 s 49] Subd. 7. Burden of proof. The provisions of this chapter declaring speed limitation shall not be construed to relieve the plaintiff in any civil action from the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant as the proximate cause of an accident. Subd. 8. Minimum speeds. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that a speed at least as great as, or in excess of, a specified and determined minimum is necessary to the reasonable and safe use of any trunk highway or portion thereof, Copyright © 2013 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2013 169.14 the commissioner may erect appropriate signs specifying the minimum speed on such highway or portion thereof. The minimum speed shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds less than the posted minimum speeds shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful. Subd. 9. Standards of evidence. In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle as indicated on the speedometer thereof shall be admissible on a showing that a vehicle is regularly used in traffic law enforcement and that the speedometer thereon is regularly and routinely tested for accuracy and a record of the results of said tests kept on file by the agency having control of said vehicle. Evidence as to the speed indicated on said speedometer shall be prima facie evidence that the said vehicle was, at the time said reading was observed, traveling at the rate of speed so indicated; subject to correction by the amount of error, if any, shown to exist by the test made closest in time to the time of said reading. Records of speedometer tests kept in the regular course of operations of any law enforcement agency shall be admissible without further foundation, as to the results of said tests. Such records shall be available to the defendant upon demand. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude or interfere with the cross examination or impeachment of evidence of rate of speed as indicated by speedometer readings, pursuant to the Rules of Evidence. Subd. 10. Radar; speed- measuring device; standards of evidence. (a) In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed as indicated on radar or other speed- measuring device is admissible in evidence, subject to the following conditions: (1) the officer operating the device has sufficient training to properly operate the equipment; (2) the officer testifies as to the manner in which the device was set up and operated; (3) the device was operated with minimal distortion or interference from outside sources; and (4) the device was tested by an accurate and reliable external mechanism, method, or system at the time it was set up. (b) Records of tests made of such devices and kept in the regular course of operations of any law enforcement agency are admissible in evidence without further foundation as to the results of the tests. The records shall be available to a defendant upon demand. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to preclude or interfere with cross examination or impeachment of evidence of the rate of speed as indicated on the radar or speed- measuring device. Subd. 11. Handheld traffic radar. (a) Law enforcement agencies that use handheld radar units shall establish operating procedures to reduce the operator's exposure to microwave radiation. (b) The procedures, at a minimum, must require: (1) that the operator turn the unit off when it is not in use; (2) if the unit has a standby mode, that the operator use this mode except when measuring a vehicle's speed; (3) that the operator not allow the antenna to rest against the operator's body while it is in operation; and Copyright © 2013 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 6 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2013 169.14 (4) that the operator always point the antenna unit away from the operator and any other person in very close proximity to the unit. Subd. 12. Radar jammer. For purposes of this section, "radar jammer" means any instrument, device, or equipment designed or intended for use with a vehicle or otherwise to jam or interfere in any manner with a speed- measuring device operated by a peace officer. No person shall sell, offer for sale, use, or possess any radar jammer in this state. History: (2720 -178) 1937 c 464 s 28; 1939 c 430 s 6; 1947 c 428 s 12,13; 1955 c 802 s 1, 2; 1957 c 580 s 1; 1963 c 843 s 1 -4; 1969 c 623 s 1; 1975 c 53 s 1; 1975 c 363 s 1,2; 1976 c 166 s 7, 1979 c 60 s 1; 1980 c 498 s 4; 1984 c 417 s 24,25; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 319 s 1; 1991 c 298 art 4 s 9; 1993 c 26 s 1; 1993 c 61 s 1; 1994 c 635 art I s 12; 1994 c 640 s 1; 1994 c 645 s 1; 1995 c 118 s 1; 1995 c 265 art 2 s 18; 1996 c 455 art 1 s 5,6; 1997 c 143 s 9 -11; 1997 c 159 art 2 s 20,21; 1999 c 44 s 1; 2001 c 213 s 9; ISp2003 c 19 art 2 s 27; ISp2005 c 6 art 3 s 41,42; 2008 c 287 art 1 s 45; 2009 c 56 s 4,5; 2009 c 165 s 1; 2010 c 356 s 1 NOTE: Subdivision 5f, paragraph (b), as added by Laws 2009, chapter 56, section 5, expires when the speed limit signs erected before August 1, 2009, are replaced. Laws 2009, chapter 56, section 5, the effective date. Copyright © 2013 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION SETTING SPEED LIMIT ON WATERFORD PLACE WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council received correspondence regarding speed issues on Waterford Place from the Waterford Homeowner's Association; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2014, the Shorewood City Council gave consideration to said speed conditions on Waterford Place. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of Shorewood does hereby direct the Director of Public Works to erect 25 mph signs on Waterford Place and that the speed for said roadway shall be enforced at 25 mph. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this I Vh day of August, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 474 -3236 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Re: Trail Schedule Update — Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 0 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 0 Survey (30 days) — May 0 Feasibility Report (30 days) — June 0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk — July 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 0 Council approves Feasibility Report 0 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications 0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days) ■ 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14 ■ MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14 ■ CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14 ■ Open Bids 8/19/14 ■ CC consideration of Award 8/25/14 L Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid -way through plans and specs) • Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications • Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required • Reduces project schedule ❑ Neighborhood preconstruction meeting 9/04/14 ❑ City possession of easements /letter of compliance N/A ❑ Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/08/14 ❑ Begin Construction 9/08/14 ❑ Construction substantially complete — Phase 1 Construction 10/31/14 ❑ Construction substantially complete — Phase 2 Construction 7/31/15 ❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 8/10/15 ❑ Restoration complete 7/31/15 Trail Schedule Update — Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Page 2 Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule ■❑ El El El El El El El El El El El El Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/03/14 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 6/23/14 Survey (30 days) — (In Process) 7/14/14 — 8/22/14 Feasibility Report (30 days) — 7/28/14 — 8/27/14 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk — 9/02/14 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 9/02/14 Council approves Feasibility Report 9/08/14 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 9/30/14 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans 10/13/14 and Specifications Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 -120 days) 10/13/14 — 2/13/15 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid -way through plans and specs) 9/03/14 — 7/06/15 o Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions • Review proposed easements with staff/attorney • Letters to property owners regarding survey staking • Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser /RW Agent • Easement viewing — parcel owner and RW Agent on -site • Appraisal information • Appraisal review • Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule • Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) Begin eminent domain action Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids Receive bids for construction City possession of easements /letter of compliance Council awards Construction Contract Neighborhood preconstruction meeting Groundbreaking Ceremony Begin Construction Construction substantially complete Ribbon Cutting Ceremony Restoration complete 5/19/15 2/09/15 5/25/15 6/08/15 6/22/15 6/22/15 6/30/15 6/30/15 7/06/15 10/15/15 10/31/15 11/15/15 MEMORANDUM Date: Aug 11, 2014 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Brice DeJong, Finance Director Re: June, 2014 General Fund Monthly Budget Report The 2014 General Fund continues to follow closely with the budget. Revenues are a little under and expenditures are a little over 2013, but not by any amount that would raise concern at this point in the year. Please remember that property taxes come in three big chunks — one in June, one in July, and one in December. With property taxes comprising about 90% of total revenues, the amount on this report is pretty close to what we would expect through May. Right now we also have a slightly confusing format. We will probably end up with a more summarized report will better fit your needs after we are done with the software training and conversion. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Council — This budget is over in transfers because we decided to move the proceeds from the house sale to the Park Improvement Fund in 2014 rather than 2013. Snow and Ice — This is the only budget that significantly exceeds the prior year. The amount of snow and shortage of salt that we experienced has led to higher expenditures than typical. Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions. Attachment: June Budget Spreadsheet General Ledger Revenue vs Expense by Fund and Acct Type User: bdej ong Printed: 08/07/14 10:36:13 Period 01 - 06 Fiscal Year 2014 Fund Description Budget Period Amt End Bal Variance YTD Budget % Collected 101 General Fund Taxes $ 4,858,585.00 $ 1,742,400.00 $ 1,742,400.00 $ 3,116,185.00 $ 2,429,292.50 35.86% Licenses & Permits $ 132,770.00 $ 124,821.29 $ 124,821.29 $ 7,948.71 $ 66,385.00 94.01% Grants $ 22,500.00 $ 20,255.12 $ 20,255.12 $ 2,244.88 $ 11,250.00 90.02% Intergovernmental Revenues $ 73,751.00 $ 64,734.11 $ 64,734.11 $ 9,016.89 $ 36,875.50 87.77% Charges for Services $ 98,700.00 $ 36,278.51 $ 36,278.51 $ 62,421.49 $ 49,350.00 36.76% Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Investment Revenue $ 35,000.00 $ 154.61 $ 154.61 $ 34,845.39 $ 17,500.00 0.44% Misc Revenues $ 197,900.00 $ 99,451.17 $ 99,451.17 $ 98,448.83 $ 98,950.00 50.25% Utility Charges $ - $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ (2,000.00) $ - 0.00% Other Financing Sources $ 25,000.00 $ - $ - $ 25,000.00 $ 12,500.00 0.00% Revenue $ 585,621.00 $ 347,694.81 $ 347,694.81 $ 237,926.19 $ 292,810.50 59.37% Account Number Description Budget Period Amt End Bal Available % Available 101 General Fund 11 Council 101 -11- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ 15,600.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00 50.00% 101 -11- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -11- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 1,200.00 $ 596.82 $ 596.82 $ 603.18 50.27% 101 -11- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Personal Services $ 16,800.00 $ 8,396.82 $ 8,396.82 $ 8,403.18 50.02% 101 -11- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPR $ 1,200.00 $ 141.69 $ 141.69 $ 1,05 8.31 88.19% Supplies $ 1,200.00 $ 141.69 $ 141.69 $ 1,058.31 88.19% 101 -11- 4302 -0000 CONSULTING FI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -11- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 45,000.00 $ 270.00 $ 270.00 $ 44,730.00 99.40% Professional Servii $ 45,000.00 $ 270.00 $ 270.00 $ 44,730.00 99.40% 101 -11- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 4,500.00 $ 1,261.42 $ 1,261.42 $ 3,238.58 71.97% 101-11-4351-0000 PRINTING AND : $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -11- 4410 -0000 RENTALS $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -11- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 47,865.00 $ 24,684.00 $ 24,684.00 $ 23,181.00 48.43% 101 -11- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ 43,000.00 $ - $ - $ 43,000.00 100.00% Other Services anc $ 95,365.00 $ 25,945.42 $ 25,945.42 $ 69,419.58 72.79% 101 -11- 4820 -0000 OPERATING TRi $ 85,756.00 $ 283,414.00 $ 283,414.00 $ (197,658.00) - 230.49% Other Financing U $ 85,756.00 $ 283,414.00 $ 283,414.00 $ (197,658.00) - 230.49% 11 Council $ 244,121.00 $ 318,167.93 $ 318,167.93 $ (74,046.93) - 30.33% 13 Administraton 101 -13- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 187,866.00 $ 104,813.85 $ 104,813.85 $ 83,052.15 44.21% 101 -13- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -13- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ 12,520.00 $ 1,497.32 $ 1,497.32 $ 11,022.68 88.04% 101 -13- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -13- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 13,620.00 $ 6,546.37 $ 6,546.37 $ 7,073.63 51.94% 101 -13- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 15,330.00 $ 6,972.98 $ 6,972.98 $ 8,357.02 54.51% 101 -13- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 20,987.00 $ - $ - $ 20,987.00 100.00% 101 -13- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -13- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 308.52 $ 308.52 $ (308.52) 0.00% Personal Services $ 250,323.00 $ 120,139.04 $ 120,139.04 $ 130,183.96 52.01% 101 -13- 4200 -0000 OFFICE SUPPLIF $ 5,500.00 $ 1,364.81 $ 1,364.81 $ 4,135.19 75.19% 101 -13- 4208 -0000 POSTAGE $ 11,000.00 $ 5,039.63 $ 5,039.63 $ 5,960.37 54.19% 101 -13- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 1,900.00 $ 1,736.00 $ 1,736.00 $ 164.00 8.63% 101 -13- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ 900.00 $ 70.23 $ 70.23 $ 829.77 92.20% Supplies $ 19,300.00 $ 8,210.67 $ 8,210.67 $ 11,089.33 57.46% 101 -13- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 138,320.00 $ 49,561.02 $ 49,561.02 $ 88,758.98 64.17% Professional Servii $ 138,320.00 $ 49,561.02 $ 49,561.02 $ 88,758.98 64.17% 101 -13- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -13- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 6,500.00 $ 3,234.85 $ 3,234.85 $ 3,265.15 50.23% 101 -13- 4351 -0000 PRINTING AND : $ 2,000.00 $ 839.87 $ 839.87 $ 1,160.13 58.01% 101 -13- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 470.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 $ 140.00 29.79% 101 -13- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ 459.00 $ 459.00 $ (459.00) 0.00% Other Services anc $ 8,970.00 $ 4,863.72 $ 4,863.72 $ 4,106.28 45.78% 13 Administraton $ 416,913.00 $ 182,774.45 $ 182,774.45 $ 234,138.55 56.16% 15 Finance 101 -15- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 107,669.00 $ 60,987.26 $ 60,987.26 $ 46,681.74 43.36% 101 -15- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -15- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -15- 4106 -0000 OTHER $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -15- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -15- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 7,806.00 $ 3,979.95 $ 3,979.95 $ 3,826.05 49.01% 101 -15- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 8,237.00 $ 4,040.17 $ 4,040.17 $ 4,196.83 50.95% 101 -15- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 11,046.00 $ - $ - $ 11,046.00 100.00% 101 -15- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -15- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 192.44 $ 192.44 $ (192.44) 0.00% Personal Services $ 134,758.00 $ 69,199.82 $ 69,199.82 $ 65,558.18 48.65% 101 -15- 4200 -0000 OFFICE SUPPLIF $ 250.00 $ 282.57 $ 282.57 $ (32.57) - 13.03% 101 -15- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 8,500.00 $ 6,889.00 $ 6,889.00 $ 1,611.00 18.95% 101 -15- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ 300.00 $ - $ - $ 300.00 100.00% Supplies $ 9,050.00 $ 7,171.57 $ 7,171.57 $ 1,878.43 20.76% 101 -15- 4301 -0000 AUDITING & AC $ 3,600.00 $ 5,880.00 $ 5,880.00 $ (2,280.00) - 63.33% 101 -15- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ 1,000.00 100.00% Professional Servii $ 4,600.00 $ 5,880.00 $ 5,880.00 $ (1,280.00) - 27.83% 101 -15- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 4,000.00 $ 908.24 $ 908.24 $ 3,091.76 77.29% 101 -15- 4351 -0000 PRINTING AND : $ 900.00 $ - $ - $ 900.00 100.00% 101 -15- 4360 -0000 INSURANCE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -15- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 500.00 $ 77.00 $ 77.00 $ 423.00 84.60% 101 -15- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -15- 4450 -0000 BANK SERVICE $ 6,000.00 $ 1,859.65 $ 1,859.65 $ 4,140.35 69.01% Other Services anc $ 11,400.00 $ 2,844.89 $ 2,844.89 $ 8,555.11 75.04% 15 Finance $ 159,808.00 $ 85,096.28 $ 85,096.28 $ 74,711.72 46.75% 16 Professional Servii 101 -16- 4200 -0000 OFFICE SUPPLIF $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -16- 4301 -0000 AUDITING & AC $ 26,660.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 24,960.00 93.62% 101 -16- 4303 -0000 ENGINEERING F $ 44,400.00 $ - $ - $ 44,400.00 100.00% 101 -16- 4304 -0000 LEGAL FEES $ 34,000.00 $ 26,960.10 $ 26,960.10 $ 7,039.90 20.71% 101 -16- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 106,000.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 53,000.00 50.00% Professional Servii $ 211,060.00 $ 81,660.10 $ 81,660.10 $ 129,399.90 61.31% 101 -16- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 16 Professional Servii $ 211,060.00 $ 81,660.10 $ 81,660.10 $ 129,399.90 61.31% 18 Planning 101 -18- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 135,193.00 $ 81,563.46 $ 81,563.46 $ 53,629.54 39.67% 101 -18- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4106 -0000 OTHER $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 9,802.00 $ 5,103.08 $ 5,103.08 $ 4,698.92 47.94% 101 -18- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 10,342.00 $ 4,994.67 $ 4,994.67 $ 5,347.33 51.70% 101 -18- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 17, 820.00 $ - $ - $ 17, 820.00 100.00% 101 -18- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 273.76 $ 273.76 $ (273.76) 0.00% Personal Services $ 173,157.00 $ 91,934.97 $ 91,934.97 $ 81,222.03 46.91% 101 -18- 4200 -0000 OFFICE SUPPLIF $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ 250.00 $ - $ - $ 250.00 100.00% Supplies $ 250.00 $ - $ - $ 250.00 100.00% 101 -18- 4304 -0000 LEGAL FEES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -18- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 4,500.00 $ - $ - $ 4,500.00 100.00% Professional Servii $ 4,500.00 $ - $ - $ 4,500.00 100.00% 101 -18- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ 1,000.00 $ 405.16 $ 405.16 $ 594.84 59.48% 101 -18- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 4,200.00 $ 1,617.74 $ 1,617.74 $ 2,582.26 61.48% 101 -18- 4351 -0000 PRINTING AND : $ 1,000.00 $ 460.45 $ 460.45 $ 539.55 53.96% 101 -18- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 1,200.00 $ 994.98 $ 994.98 $ 205.02 17.09% 101 -18- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ 7,400.00 $ 3,478.33 $ 3,478.33 $ 3,921.67 53.00% 101 -18- 4820 -0000 OPERATING TRi $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Financing U $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 18 Planning $ 185,307.00 $ 95,413.30 $ 95,413.30 $ 89,893.70 48.51% 19 Municipal Buildin 101 -19- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 11,400.00 $ 18,812.95 $ 18,812.95 $ (7,412.95) - 65.03% 101 -19- 4223 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 8,000.00 $ 4,501.51 $ 4,501.51 $ 3,498.49 43.73% 101 -19- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ 2,000.00 $ 839.70 $ 839.70 $ 1,160.30 58.02% Supplies $ 21,400.00 $ 24,154.16 $ 24,154.16 $ (2,754.16) - 12.87% 101-19-4380-0000 UTILITY SERVIC $ 11,000.00 $ 4,004.23 $ 4,004.23 $ 6,995.77 63.60% Oil and Utility Ch, $ 11,000.00 $ 4,004.23 $ 4,004.23 $ 6,995.77 63.60% 101 -19- 4302 -0000 CONSULTING FI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4304 -0000 LEGAL FEES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 9,800.00 $ 3,927.60 $ 3,927.60 $ 5,872.40 59.92% Professional Servii $ 9,800.00 $ 3,927.60 $ 3,927.60 $ 5,872.40 59.92% 101 -19- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ 34,000.00 $ 4,002.18 $ 4,002.18 $ 29,997.82 88.23% 101-19-4331-0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4360 -0000 INSURANCE $ 110,000.00 $ - $ - $ 110,000.00 100.00% 101-19-4361-0000 INSURANCE DE= $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4410 -0000 RENTALS $ 1,000.00 $ 487.88 $ 487.88 $ 512.12 51.21% 101 -19- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4437 -0000 TAXES /LICENSE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ 145,000.00 $ 4,490.06 $ 4,490.06 $ 140,509.94 96.90% 101 -19- 4701 -0000 BOND PRINCIPE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4711 -0000 BOND INTEREST $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -19- 4820 -0000 OPERATING TRt $ 103,950.00 $ - $ - $ 103,950.00 100.00% Other Financing U $ 103,950.00 $ - $ - $ 103,950.00 100.00% 19 Municipal Buildin $ 291,150.00 $ 36,576.05 $ 36,576.05 $ 254,573.95 87.44% 20 Public Safety 101 -20- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Professional Servii $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 20 Public Safety $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 21 Police Protection 101 -21- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -21- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -21- 4212 -0000 MOTOR FUELS $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101-21-4380-0000 UTILITY SERVIC $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Oil and Utility Ch, $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -21- 4304 -0000 LEGAL FEES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -21- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 1,042,556.00 $ 608,773.55 $ 608,773.55 $ 433,782.45 41.61% Professional Servii $ 1,042,556.00 $ 608,773.55 $ 608,773.55 $ 433,782.45 41.61% 101 -21- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ 2,500.00 $ 154.21 $ 154.21 $ 2,345.79 93.83% Other Services anc $ 2,500.00 $ 154.21 $ 154.21 $ 2,345.79 93.83% 101 -21- 4620 -0000 BUILDINGS & Sr $ 229,763.00 $ 172,323.00 $ 172,323.00 $ 57,440.00 25.00% Capital Outlay $ 229,763.00 $ 172,323.00 $ 172,323.00 $ 57,440.00 25.00% 101 -21- 4720 -0000 FISCAL AGENT ] $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 21 Police Protection $ 1,274,819.00 $ 781,250.76 $ 781,250.76 $ 493,568.24 38.72% 22 Fire Protection 101 -22- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 344,940.00 $ 261,591.45 $ 261,591.45 $ 83,348.55 24.16% Professional Servii $ 344,940.00 $ 261,591.45 $ 261,591.45 $ 83,348.55 24.16% 101 -22- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -22- 4620 -0000 BUILDINGS & Sr $ 282,271.00 $ 208,816.98 $ 208,816.98 $ 73,454.02 26.02% Capital Outlay $ 282,271.00 $ 208,816.98 $ 208,816.98 $ 73,454.02 26.02% 22 Fire Protection $ 627,211.00 $ 470,408.43 $ 470,408.43 $ 156,802.57 25.00% 24 Protective Inspecti 101 -24- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 93,902.00 $ 52,898.86 $ 52,898.86 $ 41,003.14 43.67% 101 -24- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4106 -0000 OTHER $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 6,808.00 $ 3,465.54 $ 3,465.54 $ 3,342.46 49.10% 101 -24- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 7,183.00 $ 3,144.14 $ 3,144.14 $ 4,038.86 56.23% 101 -24- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 13,430.00 $ - $ - $ 13,430.00 100.00% 101 -24- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 272.26 $ 272.26 $ (272.26) 0.00% Personal Services $ 121,323.00 $ 59,780.80 $ 59,780.80 $ 61,542.20 50.73% 101 -24- 4200 -0000 OFFICE SUPPLIF $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4240 -0000 SMALL TOOLS /1 $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ 200.00 100.00% Supplies $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ 200.00 100.00% 101 -24- 4212 -0000 MOTOR FUELS ( $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Oil and Utility Ch, $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 2,500.00 $ 455.00 $ 455.00 $ 2,045.00 81.80% Professional Servii $ 2,500.00 $ 455.00 $ 455.00 $ 2,045.00 81.80% 101 -24- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -24- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 2,500.00 $ 764.00 $ 764.00 $ 1,736.00 69.44% 101 -24- 4351 -0000 PRINTING AND : $ 150.00 $ 123.10 $ 123.10 $ 26.90 17.93% 101 -24- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 150.00 $ - $ - $ 150.00 100.00% 101 -24- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ 2,800.00 $ 887.10 $ 887.10 $ 1,912.90 68.32% 24 Protective Inspecti $ 126,823.00 $ 61,122.90 $ 61,122.90 $ 65,700.10 51.80% 30 Public Works 101 -30- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Professional Servii $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 30 Public Works $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 31 City Engineer 101 -31- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4104 -0000 TEMPORARY RI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4106 -0000 OTHER $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Personal Services $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4200 -0000 OFFICE SUPPLIF $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP_ $ - $ 36.75 $ 36.75 $ (36.75) 0.00% Supplies $ - $ 36.75 $ 36.75 $ (36.75) 0.00% 101 -31- 4303 -0000 ENGINEERING F $ 37,500.00 $ 672.75 $ 672.75 $ 36,827.25 98.21% 101 -31- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 48,000.00 $ 15,046.50 $ 15,046.50 $ 32,953.50 68.65% Professional Servii $ 85,500.00 $ 15,719.25 $ 15,719.25 $ 69,780.75 81.61% 101 -31- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101-31-4331-0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4351 -0000 PRINTING AND : $ 300.00 $ - $ - $ 300.00 100.00% 101 -31- 4410 -0000 RENTALS $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -31- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 2,100.00 $ - $ - $ 2,100.00 100.00% 101 -31- 4437 -0000 TAXES /LICENSE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ 2,400.00 $ - $ - $ 2,400.00 100.00% 31 City Engineer $ 87,900.00 $ 15,756.00 $ 15,756.00 $ 72,144.00 82.08% 32 Public Works Seri 101 -32- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 334,078.00 $ 124,669.34 $ 124,669.34 $ 209,408.66 62.68% 101 -32- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ 2,500.00 $ 4,026.93 $ 4,026.93 $ (1,526.93) - 61.08% 101 -32- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4104 -0000 TEMPORARY RI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4105 -0000 STREET PAGER $ - $ 3,047.72 $ 3,047.72 $ (3,047.72) 0.00% 101 -32- 4106 -0000 OTHER $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 24,402.00 $ 8,194.26 $ 8,194.26 $ 16,207.74 66.42% 101 -32- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 25,748.00 $ 8,373.94 $ 8,373.94 $ 17,374.06 67.48% 101 -32- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 52,859.00 $ - $ - $ 52,859.00 100.00% 101 -32- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 5,641.13 $ 5,641.13 $ (5,641.13) 0.00% Personal Services $ 439,587.00 $ 153,953.32 $ 153,953.32 $ 285,633.68 64.98% 101 -32- 4200 -0000 OFFICE SUPPLIF $ 200.00 $ 862.41 $ 862.41 $ (662.41) - 331.21% 101 -32- 4208 -0000 POSTAGE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 18,000.00 $ 4,561.18 $ 4,561.18 $ 13,438.82 74.66% 101 -32- 4223 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 7,000.00 $ 243.73 $ 243.73 $ 6,756.27 96.52% 101 -32- 4240 -0000 SMALL TOOLS /1 $ 3,500.00 $ 656.38 $ 656.38 $ 2,843.62 81.25% 101 -32- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPR $ 90,000.00 $ 4,647.98 $ 4,647.98 $ 85,352.02 94.84% 101 -32- 4250 -0000 ROAD MAINT M $ - $ 10,431.35 $ 10,431.35 $ (10,431.35) 0.00% Supplies $ 118,700.00 $ 21,403.03 $ 21,403.03 $ 97,296.97 81.97% 101 -32- 4212 -0000 MOTOR FUELS $ 51,000.00 $ 23,582.74 $ 23,582.74 $ 27,417.26 53.76% 101 -32- 4380 -0000 UTILITY SERVIC $ 15,000.00 $ 8,038.99 $ 8,038.99 $ 6,961.01 46.41% 101 -32- 4399 -0000 UTILITIES -SIRE $ 44,000.00 $ 15,020.35 $ 15,020.35 $ 28,979.65 65.86% Oil and Utility Ch, $ 110,000.00 $ 46,642.08 $ 46,642.08 $ 63,357.92 57.60% 101 -32- 4303 -0000 ENGINEERING F $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4305 -0000 DRUG TESTING $ 1,800.00 $ 51.65 $ 51.65 $ 1,748.35 97.13% 101 -32- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 64,000.00 $ 16,656.78 $ 16,656.78 $ 47,343.22 73.97% Professional Servii $ 65,800.00 $ 16,708.43 $ 16,708.43 $ 49,091.57 74.61% 101 -32- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ 2,700.00 $ 1,480.89 $ 1,480.89 $ 1,219.11 45.15% 101 -32- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 6,500.00 $ - $ - $ 6,500.00 100.00% 101-32-4351-0000 PRINTING AND : $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -32- 4410 -0000 RENTALS $ 1,000.00 $ 17.64 $ 17.64 $ 982.36 98.24% 101 -32- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 1,700.00 $ 1,786.00 $ 1,786.00 $ (86.00) -5.06% 101 -32- 4437 -0000 TAXES /LICENSE $ 900.00 $ 789.00 $ 789.00 $ 111.00 12.33% 101 -32- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ 4,000.00 $ 72.26 $ 72.26 $ 3,927.74 98.19% 101 -32- 4499 -0000 FEMA ELIGLIBL $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ 16,800.00 $ 4,145.79 $ 4,145.79 $ 12,654.21 75.32% 101 -32- 4820 -0000 OPERATING TRi $ 800,000.00 $ - $ - $ 800,000.00 100.00% Other Financing U $ 800,000.00 $ - $ - $ 800,000.00 100.00% 32 Public Works Seri $ 1,550,887.00 $ 242,852.65 $ 242,852.65 $ 1,308,034.35 84.34% 33 Ice & Snow Remo 101 -33- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 37,455.00 $ 29,490.18 $ 29,490.18 $ 7,964.82 21.27% 101 -33- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ 7,500.00 $ 8,839.49 $ 8,839.49 $ (1,339.49) - 17.86% 101 -33- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -33- 4106 -0000 OTHER $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -33- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -33- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 3,259.00 $ 2,831.96 $ 2,831.96 $ 427.04 13.10% 101 -33- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 3,439.00 $ 2,480.55 $ 2,480.55 $ 958.45 27.87% 101 -33- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 6,686.00 $ - $ - $ 6,686.00 100.00% 101 -33- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -33- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 1,749.94 $ 1,749.94 $ (1,749.94) 0.00% Personal Services $ 58,339.00 $ 45,392.12 $ 45,392.12 $ 12,946.88 22.19% 101 -33- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ 45,000.00 $ 25,591.20 $ 25,591.20 $ 19,408.80 43.13% Supplies $ 45,000.00 $ 25,591.20 $ 25,591.20 $ 19,408.80 43.13% 101 -33- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 33 Ice & Snow Remo $ 103,339.00 $ 70,983.32 $ 70,983.32 $ 32,355.68 31.31% 50 Culture & Recreat 101 -50- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Professional Servii $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 50 Culture & Recreat $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 52 Park Maintenance 101 -52- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 69,784.00 $ 48,160.57 $ 48,160.57 $ 21,623.43 30.99% 101 -52- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ 2,500.00 $ 186.98 $ 186.98 $ 2,313.02 92.52% 101 -52- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ 12,000.00 $ 2,790.00 $ 2,790.00 $ 9,210.00 76.75% 101 -52- 4104 -0000 TEMPORARY RI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4106 -0000 OTHER $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4111 -0000 SEVERANCE PA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 5,241.00 $ 2,766.10 $ 2,766.10 $ 2,474.90 47.22% 101 -52- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 6,448.00 $ 3,244.42 $ 3,244.42 $ 3,203.58 49.68% 101 -52- 4131 -0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 13,500.00 $ - $ - $ 13,500.00 100.00% 101 -52- 4141 -0000 UNEMPLOYMET $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 1,973.25 $ 1,973.25 $ (1,973.25) 0.00% Personal Services $ 109,473.00 $ 59,121.32 $ 59,121.32 $ 50,351.68 45.99% 101 -52- 4208 -0000 POSTAGE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4221 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 6,000.00 $ 206.64 $ 206.64 $ 5,793.36 96.56% 101 -52- 4223 -0000 MAINTENANCE $ 4,000.00 $ 35.50 $ 35.50 $ 3,964.50 99.11% 101 -52- 4240 -0000 SMALL TOOLS /1 $ 800.00 $ - $ - $ 800.00 100.00% 101 -52- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPP: $ 9,500.00 $ 3,623.69 $ 3,623.69 $ 5,876.31 61.86% 101 -52- 4246 -0000 PROGRAM SUPF $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4247 -0000 TREES PURCHA $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Supplies $ 20,300.00 $ 3,865.83 $ 3,865.83 $ 16,434.17 80.96% 101 -52- 4380 -0000 UTILITY SERVIC $ 9,000.00 $ 5,923.16 $ 5,923.16 $ 3,076.84 34.19% Oil and Utility Ch, $ 9,000.00 $ 5,923.16 $ 5,923.16 $ 3,076.84 34.19% 101 -52- 4302 -0000 CONSULTING FI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4303 -0000 ENGINEERING F $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,000.00 100.00% 101 -52- 4304 -0000 LEGAL FEES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 9,800.00 $ 2,368.00 $ 2,368.00 $ 7,432.00 75.84% 101 -52- 4401 -0000 LAKE MINNETO $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4402 -0000 CHRISTMAS LA] $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Professional Servii $ 11,800.00 $ 2,368.00 $ 2,368.00 $ 9,432.00 79.93% 101 -52- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ 1,800.00 $ 785.05 $ 785.05 $ 1,014.95 56.39% 101 -52- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 1,000.00 $ 5.60 $ 5.60 $ 994.40 99.44% 101-52-4351-0000 PRINTING AND : $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4410 -0000 RENTALS $ 11,000.00 $ 4,382.35 $ 4,382.35 $ 6,617.65 60.16% 101 -52- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4440 -0000 MISC SERVICES $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -52- 4450 -0000 BANK SERVICE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ 13,800.00 $ 5,173.00 $ 5,173.00 $ 8,627.00 62.51% 52 Park Maintenance $ 164,373.00 $ 76,451.31 $ 76,451.31 $ 87,921.69 53.49% 53 Recreation 101 -53- 4101 -0000 FULL -TIME REG $ 22,211.00 $ 11,879.48 $ 11,879.48 $ 10,331.52 46.52% 101 -53- 4102 -0000 OVERTIME $ - $ 550.21 $ 550.21 $ (550.21) 0.00% 101 -53- 4103 -0000 PART -TIME $ 10,000.00 $ 11,366.30 $ 11,366.30 $ (1,366.30) - 13.66% 101 -53- 4121 -0000 PERA CONTRIB $ 1,610.00 $ 905.67 $ 905.67 $ 704.33 43.75% 101 -53- 4122 -0000 FICA CONTRIB - $ 2,464.00 $ 1,806.78 $ 1,806.78 $ 657.22 26.67% 101-53-4131-0000 EMPLOYEE INS] $ 458.00 $ - $ - $ 458.00 100.00% 101 -53- 4151 -0000 WORKERS COM $ - $ 56.88 $ 56.88 $ (56.88) 0.00% Personal Services $ 36,743.00 $ 26,565.32 $ 26,565.32 $ 10,177.68 27.70% 101 -53- 4245 -0000 GENERAL SUPR $ - $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ (500.00) 0.00% 101 -53- 4246 -0000 PROGRAM SUPF $ 5,800.00 $ 2,002.50 $ 2,002.50 $ 3,797.50 65.47% Supplies $ 5,800.00 $ 2,502.50 $ 2,502.50 $ 3,297.50 56.85% 101 -53- 4302 -0000 CONSULTING FI $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -53- 4400 -0000 CONTRACTUAL $ 10,500.00 $ - $ - $ 10,500.00 100.00% Professional Servii $ 10,500.00 $ - $ - $ 10,500.00 100.00% 101 -53- 4321 -0000 COMMUNICATII $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -53- 4331 -0000 TRAVEL, CONFI $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ 200.00 100.00% 101 -53- 4351 -0000 PRINTING AND : $ 850.00 $ - $ - $ 850.00 100.00% 101 -53- 4433 -0000 DUES AND SUB; $ 250.00 $ - $ - $ 250.00 100.00% 101 -53- 4437 -0000 TAXES /LICENSE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 101 -53- 4441 -0000 ARCTIC FEVER : $ 7,000.00 $ 2,908.36 $ 2,908.36 $ 4,091.64 58.45% 101 -53- 4442 -0000 SNOW PRINCES $ - $ 2,449.19 $ 2,449.19 $ (2,449.19) 0.00% 101 -53- 4450 -0000 BANK SERVICE $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Other Services anc $ 8,300.00 $ 5,357.55 $ 5,357.55 $ 2,942.45 35.45% 53 Recreation $ 61,343.00 $ 34,425.37 $ 34,425.37 $ 26,917.63 43.88% 101 General Fund S 5,505,054.00 S 2,552,938.85 S 2,552,938.85 S 2,952,115.15 53.63% Expense Total S 5,505,054.00 S 2,552,938.85 S 2,552,938.85 S 2,952,115.15 54.00%